Free: Contests & Raffles.
Total Members Voted: 101
Quote from: MuleDeer on July 31, 2014, 10:24:04 PMFirst, let me make a couple things clear....I am for predator hunting and management, and the MDF has been very vocal in supporting the same. Yes, predators have an impact on Mule Deer, but there are bigger issues: let me play devil's advocate...Look at other states and their studies on the effect of predators on Mule Deer. Comparison of units with active predator mgmt. plans vs no predator mgmt. showed no appreciable difference in the numbers of Mule Deer decline, proving that there are other factors that are affecting Mule Deer populations.Also, all Western states are seeing a decrease in Mule Deer; some with no real predator threats to speak of. So, yes, predator control can and will have some affect on our Mule Deer, but we need to look at the bigger issues that are causing a decrease in our herds... Well said MD. You will find that many vocal forum members like to screech about predators as basically the only thing that can possibly cause declines in ungulates...it is quite laughable. Especially when you get numbers like cougars alone eating 200,000 deer...given there are about 90,000 mule deer in Washington state as estimated in 2013...you can clearly see the severity of the cougar predation situation But hey, if we can offset the cougars eating 200,000 deer with increased public land grazing...boy, then we will really see good mule deer numbers!
First, let me make a couple things clear....I am for predator hunting and management, and the MDF has been very vocal in supporting the same. Yes, predators have an impact on Mule Deer, but there are bigger issues: let me play devil's advocate...Look at other states and their studies on the effect of predators on Mule Deer. Comparison of units with active predator mgmt. plans vs no predator mgmt. showed no appreciable difference in the numbers of Mule Deer decline, proving that there are other factors that are affecting Mule Deer populations.Also, all Western states are seeing a decrease in Mule Deer; some with no real predator threats to speak of. So, yes, predator control can and will have some affect on our Mule Deer, but we need to look at the bigger issues that are causing a decrease in our herds...
The number of prey killed per cougar varies with the number and age of dependent young (Ackerman et al. 1986), season (Ross et al. 1997, Hayes et al. 2000), nutritional condition of the prey (Logan and Sweanor 2001), competition from other predators (Kunkel et al. 1999), and usurpation of kills by scavengers (Harrison 1990). Using an energetics model, Ackerman et al. (1986) estimated that an adult male cougar kills 1 deer every 8 to 11 days, an adult female without kittens every 14 to 17 days, and a female with 3 juveniles every 3.3 days. Connolly (1949) reported that an adult cougar killed 1 deer every 9.7 days during winter. Predation rates on bighorn sheep and mule deer by females with kittens averaged 1 animal every 3-8 days(Harrison 1990). Beier et al. (1995) estimated that each cougar kills about 48 large mammals and 58 small mammals per year.
The mean annual kill interval of 6.68 days between kills varied little by season (winter = 7.0 days/kill, summer = 6.6 days/kill; P = 0.78) or prey species (white-tailed deer = 7.0 days/kill, mule deer = 6.1 days/kill; P = 0.58).
white-tailed deer were historically rare in Washington, but now comprise 73 percent of deer in the Selkirk Mountains, 82 percent of deer in Kettle Falls, 56 percent of deer in Republic
Cougar predation rates were 17 percent on mule deer and 9 percent on white-tailed deer. As a result of this disparate predation, white-tailed deer were increasing at 2 percent per year, but mule deer were decreasing at 12 percent per year.
Variation in cougar (Puma concolor) predation habits during wolf (Canis lupus) recovery in the southern Greater Yellowstone EcosystemTo examine this hypothesis, we radio-tracked cougars and examined their predation sites from winter 2000–2001 through summer 2009. Variation in foraging by cougars was associated with increasing wolf presence. As wolf numbers increased and the mean distance between wolf pack activity centers and cougar predation sites decreased, cougars made kills at higher elevations on more north-facing slopes during summer and in more rugged areas during winter. In addition, cougars preyed on a higher proportion of mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus (Rafinesque, 1817)), consistent with predictions of exploitative competition with wolves. Observed changes in predation characteristics reflect differences in predation strategy between cougars and wolves, given that wolves are coursing predators and cougars are ambush predators. These possible predation effects should be considered when developing management strategies in systems where the recolonization of wolves may occur.
What is the DWR doing to control predators in Utah?The Division of Wildlife Resources has taken several measures over the past decade to control predator populations in Utah. The following are among those measures:Utah has an extremely aggressive predator management plan. Each year, the state spends nearly $500,000 on predator control efforts A good portion of that money is allocated to the USDA-Wildlife Services. This joint federal and state agency includes federal and state trappers and sharpshooters. These professionals target coyotes in the areas and at the time that will do deer herds the most good.##In the mid 1990s, the Utah Wildlife Board approved several changes to better balance cougars and deer in the state: ##The first harvest-objective units were established. These units have increased the number of cougars taken in Utah by allowing an unlimited number of hunters to hunt the areas where deer herds are struggling the most.##The board also approved a big increase in the number of limited-entry cougar permits in Utah.These measures appear to have worked. Data collected by DWR biologists indicate the number of cougars in Utah is much lower now than it was 10 years ago.The DWR continues to focus cougar harvest in areas that will help mule deer and bighorn sheep the most by putting those areas under special predator management plans.Currently, 22 of Utah's 49 cougar units are managed under a predator management plan.
Predators and Prey—A Case of Imbalance Mountain Lions and the North Kings Deer Herd Predators are usually considered to be beneficial to ungulate populations by keeping animal numbers in balance with the habitat and removing the weak and old individuals. It is also often said that: o predators cannot control a healthy deer population, and o predator numbers are controlled by the prey population size.According to Don Neal, a research scientist with the Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station (PSW) (now retired), stationed in Fresno, California, a recent cooperative study by PSW and the California Department of Fish and Game has shed light on a situation where these theories appear to break down. In the study area on the west slope of the Sierra Nevada, apparently mountain lion numbers have increased while deer numbers declined to about one-eighth their peak numbers in the 1950s. Neal, along with George Steger (also with PSW), studied the California mule deer in the Sierra Nevada from 1970 to 1985 as part of an interagency effort to reverse the decline. This effort showed that the decline was primarily due to loss of fawns during the first 6-8 months of life.The focus of the study was the North Kings deer here, a population of California mule deer. This herd declined from an estimated 17,000 animals in 1950 to about 2,000 animals in 1988. While the initiation of the decline was probably a result of overpopulation in the 1940s and 1950s, the lack of recovery seems to be related to heavy predation.
Fawn survival a problemAll the fawns were healthy at time of capture, and their size and weight were comparable to those of fawns from other mule deer herds. During the 7 years of the study, fawn survival ranged from 13% to 42% and averaged 38%. Two percent were killed in accidents, 9% died from disease or birth defects, and predators were responsible for the deaths of 51% of the fawns. Of those taken by predators 3% were killed by bobcats, 22% by bears, 27% by coyotes, and 49% by mountain lions.
Adult deer are being killed alsoTo estimate the effect of mountain lions on adult deer, Ron Bertram and his coworkers with the California Department of Fish and Game radio equipped 25 adult does. Their work revealed that a sizeable number of does were being killed by mountail lions in the central Sierra Nevada. Of 25 does radio equipped over a period of 3 years, 12 have died. One was killed by a coyote and 11 by mountain lions.
The bottom lineThe bottom line is that in the study area, mountain lions appear to be controlling an already depressed deer herd, and they are apparently not benefiting the population by taking only the weak and old. The density of the lion population is not limited by the need for exclusive territories, and reproduction is continuing within this high-density population.The magnitude of the problem can be understood when we consider that the ratio of deer to mountain lions has apparently declined from an estimated 750:1 in 1950 to about 30:l in 1988. Deer populations cannot meet the needs of the mountain lions and maintain their numbers with the heavy predation that these ratios bring. This is especcially true when you consider the additional predation from coyotes, bears, and bobcats.Livestock losses to mountain lions have become a serious concern of this team. The number of permits to take mountain lions that are killing livestock reached an all-time high in 1988, with 145 issued and 62 lions taken. Neal, Steger, and Bertram expect livestock predation to continue at a high level or even increase, and deer to continue to decline in all but the most favorable years.
The Plan establishes six objectives for each WMU, as well as multiple strategies to help achieve those objectives. The objectives and strategies seek to improve conditions for mule deer resulting in populations increasing to MOs. For each WMU, the six objectives address 1) habitat improvement strategies, 2) predation, 3) disturbance/harassment, 4) law enforcement, 5) disease, and 6) population management.
Ignoring the predator impacts does not help our herds. A good plan needs to address all issues impacting herds, anything less is simply more of what we have been getting for the last several years.
Rather than talk without supporting facts or data, I would like to provide a few points with supporting data:The cougar predation numbers are not my numbers. The numbers were arrived at by studies conducted by F&G biologists across the west, including Washington. Here are two sources:California Study: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=27635QuoteThe number of prey killed per cougar varies with the number and age of dependent young (Ackerman et al. 1986), season (Ross et al. 1997, Hayes et al. 2000), nutritional condition of the prey (Logan and Sweanor 2001), competition from other predators (Kunkel et al. 1999), and usurpation of kills by scavengers (Harrison 1990). Using an energetics model, Ackerman et al. (1986) estimated that an adult male cougar kills 1 deer every 8 to 11 days, an adult female without kittens every 14 to 17 days, and a female with 3 juveniles every 3.3 days. Connolly (1949) reported that an adult cougar killed 1 deer every 9.7 days during winter. Predation rates on bighorn sheep and mule deer by females with kittens averaged 1 animal every 3-8 days(Harrison 1990). Beier et al. (1995) estimated that each cougar kills about 48 large mammals and 58 small mammals per year.Washington study: http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2193/2007-060?journalCode=wildQuoteThe mean annual kill interval of 6.68 days between kills varied little by season (winter = 7.0 days/kill, summer = 6.6 days/kill; P = 0.78) or prey species (white-tailed deer = 7.0 days/kill, mule deer = 6.1 days/kill; P = 0.58). I simply did the math for the number of cougars that WDFW says we had a few decades ago verses the number of cougars WDFW says we have now by using commonly known and accepted cougar predation numbers.grundy53 is correct, there are three species of deer involved, I do not claim that the cougar predation is only on mule deer. Rather, I will tell you by my personal experiences at finding deer kills, cougar prefer mule deer when they are present, I will also quote WSU professor Wielgus who is responsible for current cougar management in Washington: https://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/PDF/4-Effects%20of%20WhiteTailed....pdfQuotewhite-tailed deer were historically rare in Washington, but now comprise 73 percent of deer in the Selkirk Mountains, 82 percent of deer in Kettle Falls, 56 percent of deer in RepublicQuoteCougar predation rates were 17 percent on mule deer and 9 percent on white-tailed deer. As a result of this disparate predation, white-tailed deer were increasing at 2 percent per year, but mule deer were decreasing at 12 percent per year.Additionally some cougar predation occurs on elk, moose, caribou, goats, and bighorn sheep so that also reduces the total number of deer eaten. The scary part is that now we have another large predator infiltrating WA, wolves, which have essentially the same impact as cougars requiring roughly the same number of prey animals per year per wolf, but wolves commonly run in packs of 4 to 16 animals so the impacts could become much greater when wolves become fully established. Idaho has liberalized cougar and bear hunting by offering extended seasons and two animal limits. This could reduce overall predator numbers to make up for the additional impact of wolves. Given WDFW's love affair with all predators, what will WDFW do to make room for the additional wolf impacts?
You are making a whole lot of irrational assumptions and grundy I'm not interested in engaging in your drama. Think about it this way...if cougars are eating 200000 deer and hunters kill 34000 each year you are basically saying hunting regs will have little or no effect...which is not the case as I have observed it. It is a mistake for hunters to place so much blame on predators in most instances. Mule deer declines are no exception. Keep fighting the good fight md.
Quote from: idahohuntr on August 02, 2014, 05:31:50 AMYou are making a whole lot of irrational assumptions and grundy I'm not interested in engaging in your drama. Think about it this way...if cougars are eating 200000 deer and hunters kill 34000 each year you are basically saying hunting regs will have little or no effect...which is not the case as I have observed it. It is a mistake for hunters to place so much blame on predators in most instances. Mule deer declines are no exception. Keep fighting the good fight md.No drama here. Just want you to be more respectful and use a little tact. But I guess if your incapable of that that just speaks to your character. sent from my typewriter
I definitely think we need to explore some less liberal hunting seasons on muleys...particularly in the se. After the mf season it seems like a lot of buck:doe ratios get pretty lopsided. In open/semi-open country they seem to be fairly vulnerable...particularly with the big increase in long range shooting.
Glad to see I stirred the hornet's nest...KF, the grazing issue I'm talking about has nothing to do with responsible grazing practices. It's the un-responsible grazing that cause a huge loss of habitat. That's not public opinion, it is backed up by scientific studies on the habitat. The increase in yield I spoke of? Growing plants and forage that produces twice the yield on the same amount of land. That means effective grazing (as it may stand now under a current contract) could be done on 1/2 the land than traditionally needed. I have nothing against cattlemen at all; it's a great way of life that's been around as long as we've lived in this country.As for predators, I never said they weren't an issue, and said prior that the MDF FULLY supports the mgmt. of predators. But saying that all we need to do is not kill does, and kill more predators to solve the problem isn't the answer. Part of the answer? Yes. But we need to look at EVERY issue that is affecting Mule Deer, not get tunnel-vision and miss something else that is important to their success. With the writing of this MDI, we can at least make those issues visible, leaving the opportunity to try and correct them, if need be.Personally, I agree with almost every comment on here so far. But I for one want to make sure that we don't miss anything while we have this chance, so keep your comments coming, even if you don't agree with me and I don't agree with you. That's what will make this a very well-rounded discussion!
Poll
