Mule Deer Initiative for WA State

[Wacenturion]

Idaho's Mule Deer Initiative...........a summary

The MDI has three basic goals:

    Protect and Improve Habitat
    Improve Mule Deer Numbers
    Increase Hunter Satisfaction

While these three goals are listed separately, they are not mutually exclusive of each other.  Hunter satisfaction can be increased in one of two ways; 1) increase deer populations, or 2) manage the deer hunting season framework to better accommodate the various types of deer hunters identified in the statewide mule deer management plan (2008). Ultimately, mule deer populations can only increase through increased fawn production which is closely associated with habitat abundance, quality, and connectivity.  Because of this MDI is a primarily habitat based initiative.  Habitat is a key component influencing mule deer populations.  Habitat changes have lessened the ability of some areas to support desirable mule deer populations.

Wildlife Vehicle Collisions (WVCs)...........IDFG and ITD are currently working together to increase WVC data collection efforts and identify WVC hotspots.  Once these hotspots are identified IDFG and ITD will work cooperatively to mitigate these locations.

Private Lands..........MDI cooperatively funds three positions that provide technical assistance and funding opportunities to landowners who are enrolled in federal programs such as CRP and State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement (SAFE), or are interested in managing their properties for mule deer and other wildlife species.  This new direction for the MDI program is helping IDFG to achieve this goal. These positions are cooperatively funded through; IDFG, Pheasants Forever (PF), US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Intermountain West Joint Venture.

Sage Steppe.............The MDI program has worked to improve sage brush through shrub plantings (over 1 million shrubs since 2004), sagebrush aerial seeding efforts, and working with federal and state land management agencies to improve sage steppe.  MDI is also cooperating with the Sage Grouse Initiative (SGI), an NRCS program established to improve sage steppe habitats for both sage grouse, but also benefits mule deer.

Riparian................... MDI is currently working with land management agencies (USFS, BLM, NRCS) to improve riparian areas through better grazing management practices such as fencing and offsite water developments.

Quaking Aspen..........MDI is actively involved in working with land management agencies to increase aspen communities to benefit mule deer and other wildlife.


This initiative is pretty typical of wildlife agency plans.  In this case plan was changed to initiative to make you think it's something new.  I just wonder if you all see some commonality in the above sections?  Do you perhaps see that the term "working with" or similar used throughout?  That should be a dead give away.

First....Idaho Fish and Game has no control over other agencies or their agenda.  They can influence if they have a good working relationship, but therein lies the problem.  Turf, it factors in.  Everyone has their own priority or vision, which unfortunately varies greatly. 

"Working with" tends to work as it indicates effort, which is pure nonsense in reality.  Very little meaningful effort ends up on the ground that actually has a positive result for said wildlife, whatever species.  Sounds good, but generally is nothing more that a smokescreen.  It does however buy time until the next planning cycle that usually brings with it nomenclature changes to further deflect or mislead the public.

Bearpaw....you said....

"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."

The front end of your statement rings true and I hate to tell you, it will end up being the same result 5 more years down the road.

If anyone doesn't believe me, just start searching state wildlife agency plans or initiatives or whatever buzz word they use and simply see the year written vs. the current year and reported results.  Most don't ever achieve what they say because they are unrealistic as stated above and most of the goals and objectives are not supported by actual work on the ground.  They are mearly wish lists that tend to make the public believe something wonderful is about to happen.

I'm not talking about little projects here and there but actual long term ongoing habitat manipulation or restoration that over time influence the overall population in a positive manner.  Too much work for most biologists, plus the risk factor of leaving the comfortable realm of speculation rather than putting you money where your mouth is.  Easier to say we don't have the funds.  Management by meetings....all paper...a bunch of baloney, and the real reason things are going south.

   

 

[Bigshooter]

I think a MDI needs to look at things we can control.  Predators are something that we would all like to see less of but, we are NEVER going to see baiting legalized, we are Never going to see hound hunting legalized, we are NEVER going to see trapping with steel traps legalized, and we are years away from seeing hunting as a tool to control wolves.  The best we can hope for to better control predators is more liberal seasons.

The things that we can do to improve numbers is to improve winter range and restrict hunter harvest.  But both of these things take sacrifice from hunters that most hunters are not will to do.

[baldopepper]

I could foresee something like they have done with salmon management.  Determine an ideal goal of ungulates in an area and from that determine a harvestable number.  You would no doubt have to build into that harvestable number an amount to be taken by predators and an amount to be taken by hunters.  After determining a predator harvest number, you could extrapolate a carrying number for the predators in an area and allow harvesting to reach that goal number. With salmon they eventually broke it down into very minute numbers, even determining a goal number for small tributaries. Obviously the salmon problem was much more difficult with a lot more factors than deer or elk management would be, and I'd be the first to say it isn't perfect.  BUT, they came up with a workable plan (I know, many people hate it) and lo and behold salmon are coming back in record numbers.  Wasn't that many years ago that many people said the good ole day of salmon fishing were gone-don't tell that to the people in Neah Bay and Westport today.  Using this as an example, I'd say the task of coming together on a game management plan is obviously not impossible. 

[bearpaw]

I think a MDI needs to look at things we can control.  Predators are something that we would all like to see less of but, we are NEVER going to see baiting legalized, we are Never going to see hound hunting legalized, we are NEVER going to see trapping with steel traps legalized, and we are years away from seeing hunting as a tool to control wolves.  The best we can hope for to better control predators is more liberal seasons.

The things that we can do to improve numbers is to improve winter range and restrict hunter harvest.  But both of these things take sacrifice from hunters that most hunters are not will to do.

There's more than one way to skin a cat. Simply increasing boot season lengths/quotas on cougars will help that problem. Supporting and publisizing in the right fashion coyote hunting opportunities can improve that problem. Allowing over the counter spring bear permits with a cap/quota on harvest can help with bear impact on fawns/calves. 

[Curly]

I don't know how you get a good management plan together when certain tribes won't even contribute to management by providing harvest reports.   

[bearpaw]

I don't know how you get a good management plan together when certain tribes won't even contribute to management by providing harvest reports.

I am not willing to throw my arms in the air and give up without trying. Even if the tribes will not provide info (I think for obvious reasons), I bet most will agree that we all would benefit by increased wildlife numbers. Let's try to work with them on issues where we can agree and/or work together, remember nothing ventured nothing gained! 

[bearpaw]

Idaho's Mule Deer Initiative...........a summary

The MDI has three basic goals:

    Protect and Improve Habitat
    Improve Mule Deer Numbers
    Increase Hunter Satisfaction

While these three goals are listed separately, they are not mutually exclusive of each other.  Hunter satisfaction can be increased in one of two ways; 1) increase deer populations, or 2) manage the deer hunting season framework to better accommodate the various types of deer hunters identified in the statewide mule deer management plan (2008). Ultimately, mule deer populations can only increase through increased fawn production which is closely associated with habitat abundance, quality, and connectivity.  Because of this MDI is a primarily habitat based initiative.  Habitat is a key component influencing mule deer populations.  Habitat changes have lessened the ability of some areas to support desirable mule deer populations.

Wildlife Vehicle Collisions (WVCs)...........IDFG and ITD are currently working together to increase WVC data collection efforts and identify WVC hotspots.  Once these hotspots are identified IDFG and ITD will work cooperatively to mitigate these locations.

Private Lands..........MDI cooperatively funds three positions that provide technical assistance and funding opportunities to landowners who are enrolled in federal programs such as CRP and State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement (SAFE), or are interested in managing their properties for mule deer and other wildlife species.  This new direction for the MDI program is helping IDFG to achieve this goal. These positions are cooperatively funded through; IDFG, Pheasants Forever (PF), US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Intermountain West Joint Venture.

Sage Steppe.............The MDI program has worked to improve sage brush through shrub plantings (over 1 million shrubs since 2004), sagebrush aerial seeding efforts, and working with federal and state land management agencies to improve sage steppe.  MDI is also cooperating with the Sage Grouse Initiative (SGI), an NRCS program established to improve sage steppe habitats for both sage grouse, but also benefits mule deer.

Riparian................... MDI is currently working with land management agencies (USFS, BLM, NRCS) to improve riparian areas through better grazing management practices such as fencing and offsite water developments.

Quaking Aspen..........MDI is actively involved in working with land management agencies to increase aspen communities to benefit mule deer and other wildlife.


This initiative is pretty typical of wildlife agency plans.  In this case plan was changed to initiative to make you think it's something new.  I just wonder if you all see some commonality in the above sections?  Do you perhaps see that the term "working with" or similar used throughout?  That should be a dead give away.

First....Idaho Fish and Game has no control over other agencies or their agenda.  They can influence if they have a good working relationship, but therein lies the problem.  Turf, it factors in.  Everyone has their own priority or vision, which unfortunately varies greatly. 

"Working with" tends to work as it indicates effort, which is pure nonsense in reality.  Very little meaningful effort ends up on the ground that actually has a positive result for said wildlife, whatever species.  Sounds good, but generally is nothing more that a smokescreen.  It does however buy time until the next planning cycle that usually brings with it nomenclature changes to further deflect or mislead the public.

Bearpaw....you said....

"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."

The front end of your statement rings true and I hate to tell you, it will end up being the same result 5 more years down the road.

If anyone doesn't believe me, just start searching state wildlife agency plans or initiatives or whatever buzz word they use and simply see the year written vs. the current year and reported results.  Most don't ever achieve what they say because they are unrealistic as stated above and most of the goals and objectives are not supported by actual work on the ground.  They are mearly wish lists that tend to make the public believe something wonderful is about to happen.

I'm not talking about little projects here and there but actual long term ongoing habitat manipulation or restoration that over time influence the overall population in a positive manner.  Too much work for most biologists, plus the risk factor of leaving the comfortable realm of speculation rather than putting you money where your mouth is.  Easier to say we don't have the funds.  Management by meetings....all paper...a bunch of baloney, and the real reason things are going south.

   

 

Sadly, I couldn't agree more....

[bobcat]

I don't know how you get a good management plan together when certain tribes won't even contribute to management by providing harvest reports.

The state needs to get the tribes involved, and convince them to limit their harvest as well. Otherwise, all that happens when mule deer numbers increase, is the tribes kill more deer, while we are taking less. Kind of like what happened with having the spike only elk restriction on the eastside. Now the Yakama tribe kills all the trophy bulls that we don't.

[Bigshooter]

Bearpaw,
What you listed were all things that I was thinking of when I said more liberal seasons.  And they are the best we can hope for.

[baldopepper]

I participated in several North of Falcon meetings and I guarantee they are very, very contentious with many agendas and many hard heads.  Every little fact is disputed and everyone is determined to get their own way.  At the end, no one walks out totally happy, BUT harvest numbers are determined, seasons are set.  The tribes thought the netters and the sportsman got to much and the netters and sportsman thought the tribes got to much and the tribes and sportsman thought the netters should be shot anyway.  Thru all that, we are seeing results and no one can debate that salmon are not on the rebound in this state.  If that's what it takes to get deer and elk numbers on the rebound then let the neg oations begin.  Personally I would hold out to make sure harvestable predator numbers are part of any big game management plan. They have to be, it would be like leaving the tribes or netters out of any salmon negotiations.  They're there, they harvest and they have to be controlled like any other harvester must be. You have to come up with some sort of a plan before you can pick it apart.

[jackelope]

The decision seems to be unanimous Dale,  we need predator control.


Obvious choice up here in the 100 GMU's with our small struggling little herds of Mule Deer


Not sure how that factors into the MDI, or if that's a separate deal like the cougar plan?  Can the MDI call for a new cougar plan?

In my mostly uneducated opinion, there's some major mountain lion issues. Last year in SE Washington on 1 trail cam over a 2 month soak, I had 4 different lions on it. This year I have 3. I know 2 of the cats last year got killed by hunters.

[Wacenturion]

Bearpaw and everyone else.  My post was more to educate so that when folks are participating at any level ask the hard questions....where's the beef?  Actual on the ground major work, increased ability to take predators, etc.  The things that will actually make things better....whatever they may be. 

Don't just buy into a plan or action dictated by meaningless paragraphs that do nothing.  Put WDFW and other entities, i.e. conservation groups, etc on the hot seat.  Press the issue.  Let them know that the usual has done nothing and you are aware of it.

Also....whether you like it or not, tribes may be your best friend.  Develop relationships which takes time if you want to change the perception that palefaces don't like them.  They have real power.  They actually want the same thing....in it's simplest sense...numbers.

[DOUBLELUNG]

Welcome to the Forum Dan.  I've been through many iterations of the "how should we manage our herds?" discussion.  I don't have all the answers, but would like to throw out some thoughts and observations.

First, wolves are a game changer (pun intended), and the differences between the presence and absence of wolves will vary greatly - and the effects on mule deer are/will be profound, and very different depending on the fairly local habitat characteristics.  However, the net effect will be less mule deer.

In terms of predation in general, I think predation effects are greater even though some predator populations are smaller - because the herds are smaller too.  Expecting State or Federal government to do anything different with predation is a waste of resources - expend them elsewhere.  Hunters who want predator control need to take it upon themselves and devote more efforts to hunting predators where they like to hunt deer.  Predator control is small-scale and its effects are temporary, there is absolutely no way WDFW can control predators even if they want to do so.  What we can do is fight aggressively for increased opportunities: bring back effective, body-gripping trapping on private land, over the counter second bear tags statewide, etc. 

I would like to address herd size/herd ratios/scientific management too.  There is very little scientific basis for managing mule deer hunting - 99% of it is social.  We stop hunting populations long before they are in danger of extinction, and wildlife conflicts preclude reaching habitat carrying capacity anywhere people live and grow crops.  So, the parameters of minimum viable populations and habitat carrying capacity don't apply very much to harvest management - it's people management, and the key to habitat is the better the quality and quantity of habitat where deer are welcome and tolerated, the larger the deer herd can be allowed to increase.  Throw in enough bucks surviving to get the breeding done, and enough fawns surviving to replace the adults that die - that's the end of the biology.  Managing for buck escapement ensures the breeding, hence the ratios - but those are quite a bit higher, socially, than what is required for breeding.  All of the other biological considerations are fine-tuning - for size of bucks, number of antler points, increased fawn survival through synchrony of breeding and fawning - they may have some effect on herd composition, and a small effect on herd size, but it is small overall, and geared toward social desires: we want big bucks, we want a certain level of probability of hunting success, BUT we want to hunt every year, with OTC licenses.  We want high buck survival for the late special permit hunts so they are a virtual gimme for the lottery winners, but then we complain that we are hunting during a lousy time of year.  Archers want the rut, modern guys want later dates, muzzleloader guys want more units open. 

We as deer hunters are overly dependent on technology: it increases success at the expense of opportunity.  The few who would sacrifice their own technology for better season dates or longer seasons are in the minority.  We complain about short seasons, but the majority vocally oppose limiting their motorized access. 

I have my own preferences and biases.  I think we should hunt mule deer in September and October, then leave them alone to do their breeding and get about the business of surviving winter.  No late permits, no late general mule deer hunts for modern, muzzy or archers.  We should get much more vocal about closing crucial winter ranges to AT LEAST motorized access to protect herds and keep them on lands where they are tolerated; pushing them off the public land and down into peoples' yards and orchards where they are less welcome, is stupid. 

We should vocally support management to make our national forests more fire-safe: mule deer don't thrive on closed canopy forests.  Thinning and cool burns - rather than firestorms that sterilize soils - would greatly enhance the size of mule deer herds, within the tolerances of existing human population and land uses.

We have around 100,000 mule deer, give or take 50,000.  It is biologically correct that our herds are in good shape - in terms of persistence and postseason buck ratios.  That is the disconnect, we want more animals to kill, AND with more bucks surviving. 

I hope the initiative works - I suspect I know who your author will be.  My only piece of advice, really, is for interested sportsmen to really figure out what they want, and to do it.  Don't waste efforts trying to get WDFW to do a bunch more for big game species, the funding and demographics of the voters preclude any sudden emphasis and pouring of funds to deer. 

When you are in Wenatchee hit me up, I'd love to chat.

[huntnphool]

I participated in several North of Falcon meetings and I guarantee they are very, very contentious with many agendas and many hard heads.  Every little fact is disputed and everyone is determined to get their own way.  At the end, no one walks out totally happy, BUT harvest numbers are determined, seasons are set.  The tribes thought the netters and the sportsman got to much and the netters and sportsman thought the tribes got to much and the tribes and sportsman thought the netters should be shot anyway.  Thru all that, we are seeing results and no one can debate that salmon are not on the rebound in this state.  If that's what it takes to get deer and elk numbers on the rebound then let the neg oations begin.  Personally I would hold out to make sure harvestable predator numbers are part of any big game management plan. They have to be, it would be like leaving the tribes or netters out of any salmon negotiations.  They're there, they harvest and they have to be controlled like any other harvester must be. You have to come up with some sort of a plan before you can pick it apart.

+1

[baldopepper]

Risky business on this forum saying the tribes can be your best friend, but you are 100% correct.  I know most on here will disagree, but in our dealings with them they were far better informed, far more objective oriented, more sportfishing oriented and, more importantly, much more willing to give and take. Like non tribal members, they have their share of meatballs, but overall many of their objectives are the same as ours. I think they are easier to contact and a good option for initial negotiations and they do carry a lot of weight.