Update: Help for Okanogan Mule Deer

[idahohuntr]

It's hard for me to believe that the only thing mentioned causing the drop in herd numbers is hunting.

Well, maybe it's not hard to believe.

 

If you read the article you will see they also discuss summer drought and fire damage to winter range as well.  They also mention an active predator/prey study being done by UW - so they should have more data on predation effects as well.

The fact that the bio does not mention at all that predators "may" bare part of the blame shows the bias this particular biologist has always demonstrated, and is example #24,875 why the customers (hunters) have zero faith in the supplier (WDFW).

And, quite frankly, the way you responded in defense of the article shows your own leaning.

I'm not defending anything - I'm pointing out inarguable facts which were omitted in the above statement. 

There is plenty of bias when it comes to game management - sticking to facts will allow for more informed decisions. 

[Skyvalhunter]

Do you happen to any knowledge or past history of the area and it's misinformation put out by the bio idahohuntr?

[DOUBLELUNG]

Its like another thing Ive said many times, pre WDFW(90,s and before when they were the actual "Game Department) when you talked to Dept. folks from Wardens to Bio,s to the bigshots in the office about why they pursued this line of work?, there answer 99% of the time in order was their LOVE of hunting, fishing and the outdoors, and the many that I knew and my family knew going back decades were all avid hunters and truly cared about the health of our big game herds(deer and elk), since the switch to WDFW the old "Game Dept. guard" has slowly been replaced by folks who I would venture do not answer that same question the same way.

Lots of great hunters still in WDFW, and especially among the ones you get to meet in the field.  Unfortunately Washington State Government could care less about the 3% of the state who hunt. 

[idahohuntr]

Do you happen to any knowledge or past history of the area and it's misinformation put out by the bio idahohuntr?

Yes.  But he didn't write the article and he's not the decision maker for WDFW.

[bigmacc]

Its like another thing Ive said many times, pre WDFW(90,s and before when they were the actual "Game Department) when you talked to Dept. folks from Wardens to Bio,s to the bigshots in the office about why they pursued this line of work?, there answer 99% of the time in order was their LOVE of hunting, fishing and the outdoors, and the many that I knew and my family knew going back decades were all avid hunters and truly cared about the health of our big game herds(deer and elk), since the switch to WDFW the old "Game Dept. guard" has slowly been replaced by folks who I would venture do not answer that same question the same way.

Lots of great hunters still in WDFW, and especially among the ones you get to meet in the field.  Unfortunately Washington State Government could care less about the 3% of the state who hunt.

Absolutely correct, there still are some, but as far as comparing the amounts(WDFW vs Game Department)its not even close, we actually knew and hunted with many and even some of those said (that worked for both during the transition and later retired)that the tide was turning, I cannot recall one that I or my family knew personally that hunting wasn't their passion and that passion was a big reason they were led into working for the Game Department, eventually it will probably be a small percentage that get into the line of work because of their "love of hunting" and what you say about how the "Washington State Government could care less"  is spot on AND a big reason why that "tide is turning", I would bet they DONT WANT the new Dept. (from boots on the ground to bigshot desk jockeys) to be to top-heavy with guys and gals who love hunting. Its my same old story, its not the Game Department any more where the health and well being of our herds is THE top priority, in fact they are way down the rungs of the ladder, the WDFW needs more and more folks to work for them that see things the same way and unfortunately that tide is slowly turning and has been since the WDFW came to be...With all due respect DOUBLELUNG, its just my observations and history of the matter

[jackelope]

It's hard for me to believe that the only thing mentioned causing the drop in herd numbers is hunting.

Well, maybe it's not hard to believe.

 

If you read the article you will see they also discuss summer drought and fire damage to winter range as well.  They also mention an active predator/prey study being done by UW - so they should have more data on predation effects as well. 

It's hard for me to believe that the only thing mentioned causing the drop in herd numbers is hunting.

Well, maybe it's not hard to believe.

 

If you read the article you will see they also discuss summer drought and fire damage to winter range as well.  They also mention an active predator/prey study being done by UW - so they should have more data on predation effects as well.

The fact that the bio does not mention at all that predators "may" bare part of the blame shows the bias this particular biologist has always demonstrated, and is example #24,875 why the customers (hunters) have zero faith in the supplier (WDFW).

And, quite frankly, the way you responded in defense of the article shows your own leaning.

I'm not defending anything - I'm pointing out inarguable facts which were omitted in the above statement. 

There is plenty of bias when it comes to game management - sticking to facts will allow for more informed decisions. 

I read the article. He's blaming the decreased fawn/doe ratio on summer drought and fire damage.

The Carlton Complex Fire of 2014 damaged large tracts of mule deer winter range, burning bitterbrush and other shrubs that provide winter forage for deer in the Methow Valley. Although the range is slowly recovering, the fire’s lingering effects may contribute to a lower fawn/doe ratio, Fitkin said.

“My suspicion is productivity is down. The combined effects of summer drought and fires on the winter range is at least partially responsible for the dip in fawn/doe ratios,” Fitkin said. “When deer are nutritionally stressed, they don’t have as many fawns. It makes it harder for does. They may not have as many twins, or may even reabsorb the fetus.”


The part about the predator study is there, but it's ultra-vague. No details at all, and it's a "separate" study conducted by the UW.

To conduct the research, biologists are locating mule deer does in the Methow Valley that have been captured and fitted with GPS radio collars as part of a separate study of predator and prey interactions being conducted by the University of Washington. About 80 does currently have collars.

Don't hold me to it, but I'm pretty sure that the word "predator" was used one time in that whole article.

My conclusion....lots of talk about hunting being the cause of the decline in the population. Very little talk about habitat related issues and almost none about predator population.

@idahohuntr  don't get me wrong. Usually I'm the one getting blasted for supporting the WDFW, but this is ridiculous, almost comical, that predator affects were not even mentioned as a potential cause for herd decline(they weren't...that's a fact).

[jstone]

How long after a fire does it take the buck brush and feed to grow back? Also, if it burns up will it grow back in the same areas? Altitude, moisture.? What does it take?

[Rainier10]

The Snag Canyon fire went through my place and turned the place into the surface of the moon.  The first spring grass and some brush was coming back.  It burns the everything above the surface but the root system is still there and in reallity it is a great root system so the shoots that start the next year are actually pretty amazing.  Year two is when the grasses came in strong and all of the brush took off.

It is pretty similar to hacking the heck out of a bush in your yard.  You prune that thing way back in the fall and that next spring it takes off and gets bigger and fuller than it was before you hacked it back.

I want to say the grass and brush is way thicker around my place than it was pre fire because all of the trees burned up so the grass and brush has full exposure to the sun.  I am having to clear grass and brush so my new seedling trees can grow.

This year fawn and calf numbers seemed to finally be coming up.  I am hoping next year is the same and I see another increase.  Of course it has been over 4 years now since the fire so it does take some time.

[DOUBLELUNG]

Its like another thing Ive said many times, pre WDFW(90,s and before when they were the actual "Game Department) when you talked to Dept. folks from Wardens to Bio,s to the bigshots in the office about why they pursued this line of work?, there answer 99% of the time in order was their LOVE of hunting, fishing and the outdoors, and the many that I knew and my family knew going back decades were all avid hunters and truly cared about the health of our big game herds(deer and elk), since the switch to WDFW the old "Game Dept. guard" has slowly been replaced by folks who I would venture do not answer that same question the same way.

Lots of great hunters still in WDFW, and especially among the ones you get to meet in the field.  Unfortunately Washington State Government could care less about the 3% of the state who hunt.

Absolutely correct, there still are some, but as far as comparing the amounts(WDFW vs Game Department)its not even close, we actually knew and hunted with many and even some of those said (that worked for both during the transition and later retired)that the tide was turning, I cannot recall one that I or my family knew personally that hunting wasn't their passion and that passion was a big reason they were led into working for the Game Department, eventually it will probably be a small percentage that get into the line of work because of their "love of hunting" and what you say about how the "Washington State Government could care less"  is spot on AND a big reason why that "tide is turning", I would bet they DONT WANT the new Dept. (from boots on the ground to bigshot desk jockeys) to be to top-heavy with guys and gals who love hunting. Its my same old story, its not the Game Department any more where the health and well being of our herds is THE top priority, in fact they are way down the rungs of the ladder, the WDFW needs more and more folks to work for them that see things the same way and unfortunately that tide is slowly turning and has been since the WDFW came to be...With all due respect DOUBLELUNG, its just my observations and history of the matter

I respect your observations and history.  In WDFW, many of the ones who do love hunting stay at the field level and don't promote up because the job gets increasingly more thankless as one promotes, even though the pay increases.

[DOUBLELUNG]

How long after a fire does it take the buck brush and feed to grow back? Also, if it burns up will it grow back in the same areas? Altitude, moisture.? What does it take?

Buckbrush (Ceanothus) comes back quickly after fire, but it is at higher elevation and requires more moisture than the crucial winter range in most areas.  Post-fire winter severity can really trash a herd quickly when they are constrained to the sagebrush-bitterbrush lowest elevations by snow depth and crusting, and there is very little browse.  Throw in predation suppression of depressed deer populations and recovery is slow and hard.  So far this is looking like a mild winter, the few mature bucks I've been seeing are up in the buckbrush above 3,000' elevation. 

I don't think we hunters can put much of a dent in the predator populations with the current tools at our disposal, but every coyote/bear/cougar killed by hunters in mule deer country takes a little pressure off. 

[jackelope]

So....
@DOUBLELUNG  ....... Do you think there is a significant enough predator situation to be affecting deer numbers?

[Rainier10]

How long after a fire does it take the buck brush and feed to grow back? Also, if it burns up will it grow back in the same areas? Altitude, moisture.? What does it take?

Buckbrush (Ceanothus) comes back quickly after fire, but it is at higher elevation and requires more moisture than the crucial winter range in most areas.  Post-fire winter severity can really trash a herd quickly when they are constrained to the sagebrush-bitterbrush lowest elevations by snow depth and crusting, and there is very little browse.  Throw in predation suppression of depressed deer populations and recovery is slow and hard.  So far this is looking like a mild winter, the few mature bucks I've been seeing are up in the buckbrush above 3,000' elevation. 

I don't think we hunters can put much of a dent in the predator populations with the current tools at our disposal, but every coyote/bear/cougar killed by hunters in mule deer country takes a little pressure off.

I should have added that the bitterbrush and sage brush on my place that was burned is just gone, it doesn't come back from the roots or if it does it is really slow because I am not seeing any of it coming back.

I have tried planting bitterbrush and sagebrush seeds with no luck.

[Skyvalhunter]

The reason this thread was started was to get some volunteers and financing to replant the bitterbrush because of the fact that it doesn't seem to grow back in a timely manner or without help. I thru the article link in here because it specifically addresses the Methow herd. Some of us members have a long experience with the herd and it's ups and downs. I personally have never seen it so bad.

[DOUBLELUNG]

So....
@DOUBLELUNG  ....... Do you think there is a significant enough predator situation to be affecting deer numbers?

I think predators are depressing herd recovery in the short term.  In the long term, I think habitat loss and degradation have reduced the carrying capacity.  The combination of the two results in lower peak abundance than in the past, and longer periods of recovery after crashes. 

Historically, both mule deer and cougars were habitat specialists in mule deer country, with very patchy distribution and relatively low numbers.  Rangewide, mule deer reached unprecedented abundance through the combination of logging off old growth timber and active persecution of predators through government campaigns and private efforts of unrestricted poisoning.  Rangewide, mule deer abundance peaked in the late 1940s-early 1960s and have been declining ever since; first through clearcuts growing up into doghair stands, next with the environmental movement of the 1960s leading to curtailing poisoning, culminating with Nixon's executive order banning 1080 and most poisoning in 1972; coinciding with the crash in fur prices beginning in the 1960s due to antitrapping/animal cruelty sentiment; the near total cessation of active forest management after the 1970s; reintroduction of wolves in the 1990s in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming by the federal government; and cheatgrass invasion of crucial winter ranges leading to too frequent fire return intervals and reductions of shrubs on crucial winter ranges, and the fragmentation and destruction of crucial winter ranges have all contributed to the continued decline of mule deer.  Throw into the mix the huge increase in human populations, and their consumption of primarily crucial winter range habitats throughout the foothills of the west, and migratory mule deer populations that winter in foothills are in tough shape range wide.


Specific to Okanogan and Chelan counties, unwillingness to curtail winter recreation and access onto crucial winter ranges; loss of winter ranges to residential development; and conversion of ladder-picked unfenced orchards to fenced, high density orchards and subdivisions; increased traffic and traffic speeds on highways through crucial winter ranges, have all contributed to lower habitat suitability and value.  Specific to Washington, colonization by wolves, restrictions on cougar hunting/harvest, and the 1996 trapping ban have all tilted conditions in favor of increasing predator populations at the expense of mule deer.

Predator control would not bring back the mule deer abundance of the 1950s and 1960s; those were the heyday and will not likely ever return.  More pressure on predator populations would increase the rate of recovery from winter losses and decrease the troughs between the much lower peaks of the mule deer population cycle. 

It would also be helpful if motorized access onto winter ranges was drastically reduced, and if the department would prioritize population size over resource allocation.  We really shouldn't be harvesting does when the populations are suppressed, unfortunately that is the tool of choice for increasing success for user groups to equalize success rates, to encourage recruitment of young hunters, and to provide additional opportunities for seniors and disabled hunters.  There is also a thriving poaching problem in Washington and other heavily populated states, and unfortunately mule deer are one of the most easily poached species.
   

[MtnMuley]

You're forgetting that with Fitkins line of thinking, adding doe tags will get that buck to doe ratio closer. I truly believe we'll never see the true muley numbers even close to where they once were.

Back to the main point this thread: Where is all the donated money that was supposed to be used to plant bitterbrush after the original Carlton Complex Fire?