Free: Contests & Raffles.
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.
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.
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.
Big Jim, use to stop in our camp every year before the opener. He was a great source of knowledge about mule deer, or just about anything in the Methow. Definitely going to get that book thanks for the reference!
