What happend to the alkali unit?

[jdb]

They did a fly by and only counted 250 deer three years ago there used to be 800 deer some of the problem is hair loss

I heard 185

[muleyguy]

Every biologist and person who manages game populations knows that the health of a herd does not necessarily mean high numbers.  Every responsible wildlife manager knows that you manage for a buck:doe ratio.  For instance if you have a buck to doe ratio of 1:15 (like some places in WA) then you have a bunch of does that do not get bred and are a drag on the herd because all they do is eat vital winter feed.  The average mature buck will only breed 5-8 does a year.  This is why most states try to manage for a buck to doe ratio of 1:5. 

that's just completely wrong;  your solution to low buck to doe ratio's is to kill more does???  you don't kill does to get good buck to doe ratio's;  you INCREASE BUCK'S to get better buck to doe ratio's.

there is possibly ZERO areas in WA state were the deer herds are above the carrying capacity of the habitat/winter range. 

You manage for three things:

1.  Most importantly, and very first on the list, you manage the herd to be at carrying capacity of the habitat for the particular management area.  If 100 deer can survive a normal winter in an area, then that is what you manage for.  You don't manage for the 1 in 15 yr winters;  you manage for the normal winter.  In many areas of this state, winter range is not even an issue anyway;
2.  Once you get the numbers were they need to be, you manage for an appropriate buck to doe ratio;  maybe something like 25/100
3.  The makeup of the buck population is also very important;  studies have shown that fawn survival is greatly enhanced if does are breed by mature bucks;  so, you also need to manage the herd so you have a healthy number of mature bucks doing the breeding.  This is one of the most overlooked aspect of the management of deer;  systemically, all over the West for 3 decades, the porportion of mature bucks in deer populations has steadily gone down hill resulting in many does being bred by immature bucks.

Your analysis would be correct, IF the herd was above the carrying capacity of habitat;  BUT, there are few, if any places, in WA state were deer numbers are above the carrying capacity of the unit.

Let me do a little math for you:

Unit XXX  has biological carrying capacity for 200 deer

but, in this unit, there are only 110 total deer;   100 does and 10 bucks

according to your theory, to get the buck to doe ratio right, we should cull out 20 does;  so you would have 10 bucks and 80 does now.

now, buck to doe ratio looks a lot better, but what have you accomplished???  All you have accomplished is to reduce the number of does in the population that isn't even at the carrying capacity of the habitat anyway.....

Here is my "theory":

Let's not shoot those does and leave them alone and work on building the population up to carrying capacity;  lets heavily restrict the harvest of bucks to get the buck to doe population to 25/100;  and, lets construct the rules to allow for at least half of those 25 bucks being mature 4.5 yrs or older to escape each year, so the does that are being bred are being bred by "men" instead of 13 yr old boys.......

sounds like you are drinking the Wildlife Management kool aid..........you don't "fix" the buck to doe problem by killing does;  you fix it by increasing the buck numbers......here's the bottom line of why you see all this BS about shooting does to improve the buck to doe ratio:  because doe tags are popular;  because restricting the buck harvest is unpopular;  it is as simple as that.  It is politically easier to shoot does then it is to raise buck numbers.

our deer populations are under tremendous stress from predators,winter conditions, hunting, vehicles, human encroachment, etc.   There are plenty of does being culled naturally from the populations.   This is completely evident by the fact that few if any units in this state are at population objectives.

[bobcat]

Great post muleyguy. Thanks for the input, I wish you would post more often. My opinion has always been that to manage our deer (and elk) properly, they should do away with most general seasons and go to permit only hunting. This way they could manage the number of hunters per GMU and therefore, have some control over the number of bucks killed each year. The way it is now, there is no "management." It's just a free for all. What do you think?

[Pathfinder101]

Interesting points Muleyguy.  I never thought of it that way.  I guess a lot of what we know about "buck to doe ratios" and whatnot is based on whitetails, who compared to muleys, breed like rats.
Another bit of knowledge I never would have learned had it not been for Hunt-WA

[Romulus]

Great post Muleyguy! Common sense is hard for some people to understand. They would rather believe some of the voodoo that some biologists spew out that is based on studies decades old in which the data was skewed to suit the political agenda of the people conducting the study.

[colockumelk]

Good post Muleyguy.

For the record all I DO NOT DRINK THE WDFW COOL-AID!!!!!! FOR CHRISTS SAKES READ SOME OF MY POSTS AND DO YOUR RESEARCH!!!!!

Seriously good post Muley.  I'd like to first start by saying that I am a HUGE HUGE HUGE  HUGE HUGE advocate for permit only for East Side Elk.  ESPECIALLY IN THE COLOCKUM!!!!!!  That GMU is f'cked. I mean for God's sake this herd has had a 70% drop in their population of branch bulls since 2004.  I am also a HUGE HUGE HUGE advocate for deer being permit only in the Yakima and Kittitas area.  I mean for God's sake we've had a 50%   drop in our deer herd levels since 2004.  What does it take for it to go to permit only???

However I am also a realist and know that the WDFW would never go to permit only for those two things.  And this is because of one reason and one reason only $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

I will admit I am not an expert on deer herds.  But I do know one thing from reading reports and also with herd managment, and one thing that you are wrong in.  Doe managment is one of the biggest keys with the health of a herd.  You have to properly manage your herd for buck to doe ratio.  And if you have a ratio that's way out of wack then you must harvest appropriatly.  I do agree with you that a huge factor in our poor herd is there is not enough mature bucks.  I'd be willing to bet that 90% of bucks die by the time they are 3.5 years old.  But this is not the biggest reason why fawn and calf ratios are so low.  Coyotes and Bears are the biggest reason.  Missourrie and Kansas did a study where they found that 80% of all fawn related deaths were because of coyotes.  They don't have bears but we do so add bears to the mix and it gets bad.

Now when it comes to the Colockum elk herd I do consider myself and expert.  I've written multiple research papers on that herd and spent countless hours doing my research.  That herd right now is deplorable and has been completely mismanaged by our game department.  Like I said earlier the branch bull population has dropped 70%   since 2004.  Meanwhile the cow population has grown.  During this time they have also dropped branch bull tags by 75%and don't even give out cow permits  Yet the bull to cow ratio continues to go down.  So your notion of not harvesting cows is wrong and has not worked.  You are right in that the amount of bulls taken needs to drop.  The overall problem with this elk herd is that 80-90%   of it's spikes die every year.  So only 10% of its bulls live to grow up every year.  This suuper low (3:100) bull to cow ratio is part of the reason why only 1 out of 5 cows carries a calf.  This means that 4 out of 5 cows are a drag on the herd.  They are wellfare elk that contribute nothing.

This is also the case in the LT Murray.  Where it is not uncommon to see 30-50 does in a day but only see 1 or 2 2x2 bucks.  Most of those does are wellfare does.  So in places like the LT Murray deer or the Colockum elk herd a drastic two prong approach DOES need to be taken.  An increase of antlerless harvest and a HUGE decrease in antlered harvest.  IE make it a permit only for bucks/bulls and does/cows so you can scientifically control the harvest rates to in 3 years reach a 1:5 buck to doe ratio or a 15:100 bull to cow ratio.

Previously I was not advocating slaughtering all the does.  I meant scientifically doing it so that you can cull some wellfare does.  Unbred does are NOT HELPING the population at all.

Again I loved your post Muleguy and I look forward to your response.  

[whacker1]

muleguy - i have never been able to put that in words quite like you did.  one year of restricted harvest on bucks in any given unit  would make a huge difference in the overall number of does being bred.  The older deer that would normally have died during that hunting season, will now have been bred, and then you would also have a 1 year older set of bucks in those 10 that you used in your example come around the following year.

It doesn't have to be permit only, but one good year of limited harvest in a general unit would be extremely helpful.

[muleyguy]

colockum,

I think we agree more then we disagree for the most part;  but, what I would suggest is that in units such as the LT murray (which I am very familiar with) and the colocklum elk,  (which I am not familiar with) is that since the habitat of the unit is not the problem, and can easily carry the amount of animals within it right now, isn't a much better solution simply to drastically restrict the harvest of immature males in the population for a year or two to get the buck to doe (or cow to bull) ratio back to where it belongs??

Then number one mortality cause for bucks and bulls is by far hunter harvest.  As whacker indicated, just a one or two year heavy restriction on the harvest of the males in the population would quickly get things back in balance.

I guess I look at this way, the does and cows in the population are precious, they are what do the "heavy lifting" of not only maintaining, but increasing the numbers, in the population so all of us get to keep on hunting these great animals.  I agree that you need to have a healthy turnover of does or cows in the population to keep it healthy;  but, that is happening naturally through predation and winter kills already on its own.

At most, you would only need to have "welfare does or cows" for 2 yrs to get the buck/bull populations back to where they need to be to properly service the animals.   And, the carrying capacity of the habitat in these units is able to withstand vastly higher numbers of elk and deer then are in it currently, so who cares if there are some welfare does or cows or a year or two??   They aren't hurting anything.  If you were above population objectives, then I could see your point, but, these herds are nowhere near population objectives.

If you kill the does/cows off in the short run just to improve the buck to doe ratio's, then when you do get the ratio right, you are just that much further behind. 

I guess bottom line is this:  "welfare" does and cows do not present a problem in areas where the current habitat can support larger numbers of deer then are currently there.  So, if the carrying capacity of the habitat is being underutilized, why kill them???   What benefit does it present??   

[bobcat]

So I take it your point is that the does/cow are NOT, in fact, "welfare" animals. They are necessary to bring overall numbers back up to where they should be.

[muleyguy]

So I take it your point is that the does/cow are NOT, in fact, "welfare" animals. They are necessary to bring overall numbers back up to where they should be.

yes;  how are they welfare animals if there is enough good habitat (feed) in the area they live and winter??   If the refrigerator is full, then you don't need welfare.........  Boys don't make babies;  girls do.........now, obviously boys are important both in the aspect of the fact there has to be enough of them to "get around" to all the ladies.....and, I firmly believe they need to be "men" and not 13 yr old boys; 

but, the department of wildlife has population objectives for each mule deer herd in the state;  I do not have the numbers in front of me, but my guess is that very few mule deer herds are at population objectives, and some are woefully behind where they should be.  I have a hard time understanding if you are not at population objectives, how a few, unbred does are going to hurt anything???

Let's leave those does in place, get the buck numbers were the need to be, and let boys and girls do what they do best...........when the population gets to objective levels, then you can look at culling excess does.

[whacker1]

The only other problem that would remain if you restrict a harvest is that you can only control WDFW permitted harvest. Poaching and tribal harvest would be the remaining problems for those years that you severely restrict harvest.  It would be a P.R. opportunity for the WDFW to ask the tribes to keep their people out of the "x" unit for the one season to let the herd rebuild.  I think it would be great to see the WDFW do that exact thing in one or two units in the state each year.  You still allow hunting opportunities elsewhere in the state, but make an opportunities for these herds to take on a significant rebuilding as well as an opportunity to prosecute some poachers, as I am sure they will show their heads.

[colockumelk]

The only other problem that would remain if you restrict a harvest is that you can only control WDFW permitted harvest. Poaching and tribal harvest would be the remaining problems for those years that you severely restrict harvest.  It would be a P.R. opportunity for the WDFW to ask the tribes to keep their people out of the "x" unit for the one season to let the herd rebuild.  I think it would be great to see the WDFW do that exact thing in one or two units in the state each year.  You still allow hunting

Exactly.  That was my point last year during the huge Colockum debate.  FYI Muleguy last year I was a huge advocate for the WDFW going to permit only for elk since they had seen such a drastic decrease in their bull population.  But because the WDFW would lose money and the general population was very against it I lost.  I think when you lose 50% of your deer herd or 70% of your bull population than drastic measures need to take place such as PERMIT ONLY WDFW!!!!!  But again it's all about the Benjamins. 

With the Colockum some cows do need to be culled.  They do have feed problems since most of the elk hang around a certain wildlife refuge to escape hunters, Indians and poachers.  And they also have to compete with domestic cattle.  I think that 3 years of permit only would do the job. 

Part of my reasoning for some doe/cow hunts is like everything else decisions like this is political.  Most people are not like us and desire quality hunting.  Most people just want to go into the woods.  So who cares if they don't see a legal animal they just want to be able to go to their same camp spot year after year.  So going to permit only would piss about 90% of your hunters off.  Giving out doe and cow permits would quell this anger.  And again I don't mean vast amounts of doe/cow permits and wiping out the herd.I just mean culling some animals.  So that we could do permit only and keep the massess happy.

[luvtohnt]

The only other problem that would remain if you restrict a harvest is that you can only control WDFW permitted harvest. Poaching and tribal harvest would be the remaining problems for those years that you severely restrict harvest.  It would be a P.R. opportunity for the WDFW to ask the tribes to keep their people out of the "x" unit for the one season to let the herd rebuild.  I think it would be great to see the WDFW do that exact thing in one or two units in the state each year.  You still allow hunting

Exactly.  That was my point last year during the huge Colockum debate.  FYI Muleguy last year I was a huge advocate for the WDFW going to permit only for elk since they had seen such a drastic decrease in their bull population.  But because the WDFW would lose money and the general population was very against it I lost.  I think when you lose 50% of your deer herd or 70% of your bull population than drastic measures need to take place such as PERMIT ONLY WDFW!!!!!  But again it's all about the Benjamins. 

With the Colockum some cows do need to be culled.  They do have feed problems since most of the elk hang around a certain wildlife refuge to escape hunters, Indians and poachers.  And they also have to compete with domestic cattle.  I think that 3 years of permit only would do the job. 

Part of my reasoning for some doe/cow hunts is like everything else decisions like this is political.  Most people are not like us and desire quality hunting.  Most people just want to go into the woods.  So who cares if they don't see a legal animal they just want to be able to go to their same camp spot year after year.  So going to permit only would piss about 90% of your hunters off.  Giving out doe and cow permits would quell this anger.  And again I don't mean vast amounts of doe/cow permits and wiping out the herd.I just mean culling some animals.  So that we could do permit only and keep the massess happy.

Your being hypocritical Colockumelk, in the colockum you want them to kill cows but in 346 you don't even want hunting opened? What gives?

Brandon

[colockumelk]

First of all they are two completely different PMU's.  Second I never said I don't want hunting in GMU 346.  I said I want them to keep it permit only during the rut.  So we can have 1, at least 1 Quality hunt.  Second of all GMU 346 does not have a bull to cow ratio problem.  Theirs is 15-17:100.  The Colockums is 3:100.  Different herds needs different managment strategies. 

In GMU 346 they already give out cow permits to the MZ and Rifle guys and allow Archers to harvest cows during the late season.  I think currently the WDFW has done a really good job with that GMU.  Which is why I don't want them to change anything.  Why change it if it's not broke.  The Colockum on the other hand is COMPLETELY BROKE!!!!!  They also do not allow ANY cow hunting.  I have merely suggested that in the Colockum it goes to permit only.  So we can scale way back on the bulls being harvested and to allow some antlerless harvest.  Nothing wrong with that. 

So what is your point again?

[luvtohnt]

So what is your point again?

That I haven't read the thread but wanted to give you a hard time!!

Brandon