Fawn Mortality!!!

[colockumelk]

Hopefully you answer the poll before you read this post and cheat.  Here is an interesting note.  Down here in Alabama they just did a fawn mortality study.  In this study they found that 80% of fawns that are lost, are lost due to coyotes.  Missouri State also did a study that found almost exactly the same thing.  I find it interesting that most people on here blame cougars for the loss of deer numbers.  Not saying that they don't play a part but I think coyotes do far more damage.  Now heres another thing to ponder and maybe someone knows the answer.  I wonder who kills more fawns and calves each year.  Coyotes or Bears.  I tried searching for a study on this but couldn't find one.  I only found studies about fawn mortality and coyotes.  So what I'm saying is go shoot some coyotes boys. 

[Axle]

Down here in Alabama they just did a fawn mortality study.

Up here in WA it varies by region. Most fawns and calves are killed by predators but it still varies by region.

[carpsniperg2]

Do they have the coug populations down there to involve them in the study? I would think we have way more cats, then down there. But i am not sure. Cats do play a very large part on deer and elk predation. For fawns, yotes might take more then the cougs. But as far as total numbers. I don't see a yote taking more deer then a coug each year. Bears/yotes/cougs all do play a big part of the fawn mortality.

[270Shooter]

I don't care what the studies say, I chose sasquatch...that *censored* is hell on fawns.

[DoubleJ]

I would have thought it was winter weather 

[NWBREW]

Hopefully you answer the poll before you read this post and cheat.    Down here in Alabama   

Why do you ask a question like that and then say down here in Alabama? Is there as many Cats down there as up here in Washington?

Nation wide coyotes maybe....up here I would say cats. 

[Snookmonster]

Bobcats are also detrimental to deer populations. Although it is rare that a bobcat would attack or kill a healthy adult deer, they do kill newborn fawns during late spring and early summer.

[bullrider97]

Coyotes hands down. I've even seen them hunt in groups on the eastside. Not as many cats on the eastside either, so maybe that makes a difference-

Same way in Northern Idaho where I grew up. 

[bobcat]

It only makes sense that coyotes would kill more than anything else, just because there are far more coyotes than cougars or bears.

[wayner]

It only makes sense that coyotes would kill more than anything else, just because there are far more coyotes than cougars or bears.

 

[Humptulips]

 I live here in GH county and spend a lot of time in the field for the last 40+ years. I'm a trapper and a hunter so I'm out all fall and winter. Deer numbers are down severely to the point where it's getting to be a novelty to see one. While the deer were never super thick here there used to be fair numbers. Elk have suffered too although not as bad as the deer.

Now, I'll ask you what has changed? Coyotes were there in pretty good numbers in the 70s and 80s. I know. I caught a lot of them. Actually less coyotes now then there ever have been in my life.
 
Habitat has changed for the worse in some areas but for the better in others so I think not much to blame there. I see areas of great deer habitat devoid of deer now. Unheard of in the 70s.

Tribal hunting gets a lot of the blame from some but I don't see it myself. In certain places yes, it could be but I hunt a lot of walk in areas that don't get much if any pressure from tribal hunters and the deer and elk are hurting there too.

That leaves cougar. When I trapped in the 70s I would rarely see cougar sign and they would never come to bait. This was before they were made a big game animal. We could keep any trapped. The population went up with imposition of tags and limits and even more when I-655 passed and put the hound men out of the woods. All this time there was a corresponding decline in deer and elk. At least that has been my observation. I believe cougar numbers are falling now. They have depleted their food supply. Cougar sign is common and now you can't hardly keep them from bothering a bait set. They are hungry. They are having a hard time killing game the same as we humans are. Also in my area they have pretty near cleaned the beaver out. I used to take 100 to 125 beaver off my line every year and even though no one has trapped the area for 10 years the beaver are gone.
So that's why I think it is cougar and we we will never have good hunting until I-655 is repealed.

If you have read this far I'll say yes coyotes, bears, brush pickers, they all get a few but it is cougar that has put us in negative recruitment territory.

One other thing ODFW did a mule deer mortality study just recently and I remember a study IDFG did years ago about elk calf mortality. Seems like I remember bear were the major problem on that one.
Sorry no links, Can't remember where I seen them.

It's a cinch if we could get a handle on predators we'd have more game, sell more licenses and be able to fund the WDFW better. Probably help to keep the private timberlands open too.
What we need is 1080 back but that will never happen.

[elkslare]

Just interesting note. while hunting in the Entiat, late hunt we watched a single yote chasing down a full grown doe. Never did see if it cought it but the doe was getting pretty nackered.

[logger]

Humptulips, do you think the forest service ground not getting much attenion in the way of harvest is a player? We logged the old polson camp about 3 years ago and most all we saw were elk not much for deer, we did see a couple of cougars also in the general area, but the bears were thick we saw so many bears we got to were we didn't hardly pay any attention to them.

[Humptulips]

I think the FS land is pretty well shot as far as habitat goes especially for deer but everything is hurting for something to eat there. Too much larger second growth with the brush dieing out underneath.
On top of that the south Olympics took a beating with that blow down we had 3 years ago. Quinault ridge is a nightmare of windfalls and there are some bad places on the Humptulips and Cougar mountain.
Polson camp and the 3200 rd are all private except for a few parcels of state land. Pretty good habitat but it will be going downhill now as it is pretty well all logged and growing up fast.
Bear probably don't help. You can thank I-655 for that.

[haus]

I'd have to agree with Axle. Considering the diversity of habitat found throughout our state it makes sense that variations in primary predator impact on deer/elk would vary.

Oly Pen tribal study.
http://nwifc.org/2010/09/tribes-and-state-change-harvest-levels-of-black-tail-deer-to-bolster-populations/#more-4170

Cougars, bobcats and hair loss syndrome.



Agree with your last comment Humptulips, financially there are several simple changes that could have significant financial impact on our states rural communities. Unfortunately the social factors turn these simple changes into a quagmire. It's not an impossible battle though, just can't go at it head on is all.

[Kain]

I chose coyote for the most fawn predation but cougars kill deer and elk all year long.  I just dont think coyote, bobcat, and bears are killing very many adult deer and elk.  The biggest impact I see on deer and elk populations down here is lack of logging.  We also have a very large predator population down here.  I saw more bear sign this year than ever in my 20+ years of hunting.  Same goes for coyote.  Less than half the doe's I have seen still had fawns with them.  Between all of these things and a potentially harsh winter coming the deer and elk are going to have a hard time.


Coyote bear and bobcats cannot hunt with this kind of efficiency on adult ungulates. 
Cougar catches an elk

The WDFW needs to get their crap together and get some REAL cougar population numbers.  This 2000 cats number is complete BS.  I cut a day old cougar track this weekend.  My dad calls me on the radio and says he just cut one also a couple of mile away.  Two different cats both were following the elk around.  Saw one set of deer tracks.  That is some scary numbers for you.

[haus]

In his blacktail book Scott Haugen said DHLS was responsible for 80-90% decline in some blacktail populations. Unfortunately he left out the fact that predator populations were already on the rise around the time that DHLS started to hit the blacktail populations.

[Kain]

In his blacktail book Scott Haugen said DHLS was responsible for 80-90% decline in some blacktail populations. Unfortunately he left out the fact that predator populations were already on the rise around the time that DHLS started to hit the blacktail populations.

Crazy I have not seen one single case of it around here.  Lets hope its stays that way.

[Bean Counter]

Just how has this thread grown to two pages without one mention of wolves? 

[Special T]

WOLVES! 

[Humptulips]

Just how has this thread grown to two pages without one mention of wolves? 

Mainly because wolves are a nonfactor in most of WA. Maybe in the future but not now. Western WA has the potential to produce a lot of black tails and it doesn't. We can't blame wolves for that. They aren't here, at least except for a rare wanderer.

The hair loss syndrome, I don't see it anymore and I never did see a lot of it. I have a friend in town that sees it in deer in town. More deer in town then any where else. They can get away from some of the predators by hugging the city.

[haus]

Just how has this thread grown to two pages without one mention of wolves? 

Mainly because wolves are a nonfactor in most of WA. Maybe in the future but not now. Western WA has the potential to produce a lot of black tails and it doesn't. We can't blame wolves for that. They aren't here, at least except for a rare wanderer.

The hair loss syndrome, I don't see it anymore and I never did see a lot of it. I have a friend in town that sees it in deer in town. More deer in town then any where else. They can get away from some of the predators by hugging the city.

Scott pointed out that lowland populations could potentially handle the disease better due to the fact that they aren't as exposed to surviving harsh winter weather as compared to the migratory populations.

I'm not trying to make excuses for predators here, just saying we can't rule out the impact of DHLS.

The land I hunt near Eatonville has a dismal blacktail population, I'd say the bucks probably outnumber the does, but they're all hiding in the thickest cover they can find. I haven't seen a fawn since July either. I'd venture to say predators are the primary culprit, as for which one I'm not sure. I know the number of bears, coyotes, and bobcats in the area is rather high. As for cougars 

[Practical Approach]

Check out page 11 on this report.

http://access.nwifc.org/wildlife/documents/makah-fawn-report-final.pdf

[Kain]

Check out page 11 on this report.

http://access.nwifc.org/wildlife/documents/makah-fawn-report-final.pdf

Wow thanks for that.  I will try to read the rest of it also.



Even if the vast majority of unknown predation was coyotes that would still be less than cougars.

[Alan K]

 

Thanks PA

[haus]

If only 30% of fawns survive that doesn't leave *censored* for us to hunt.

[Kain]

If only 30% of fawns survive that doesn't leave *censored* for us to hunt.

I will have to read the rest of the study but from own personal observations, of doe's that still had fawns, 30% is not far off.  Might need to take a year or two off the deer hunting and concentrate on predators.  I will see how my family feel about that also.

[grundy53]

Fawns- i would say coyotes followed closely by bear and bobcat.

Adults- i would say cougar.

[Curly]

On two separate occasions this year while muzzleloader deer hunting, I witnessed adult does being chased hard by a single coyote.  One time was in Capitol Forest during early deer season and the next time was on Thanksgiving in the Lincoln unit.  

Plus, I've also seen a fawn hoof in coyote *censored* and numerous times I've seen hair in their crap that is probably deer hair.

Also, while out in the woods all spring and summer I saw lots of fawns and by September when I hunted 9 days straight in a lot of the areas where I'd seen fawns, I think I only saw one fawn with a doe and lots of does that were alone.  So, I definitely think the coyotes are having an impact.

I've shot a couple coyotes in the past, but never really targeted them.  But now the coyotes are really starting to piss me off. Time to start blasting them.

WDFW should only issue a deer tag if the hunter first brings in a coyote tail.......  (Sort of a bounty.  Just have to kill one to be able to purchase a deer tag.)

[Special T]

I think coyotes affect deer populations more, but we hunters can effectively do more by killing one couger... If one couger  eats a 50 deer a year, One a week aprox, and coyotes might bet one a year per yote then you have to kill aprox 50 coyotes a year to make an equil contribution... Becasue coyotes are so dadptable and such prolific breeders you would have to kill a ton of yotes EVERY year, when it take only 1 couger... and if that couger is a female then you made a bigger impact..  You also take into acct that more people are willing dedicate hunting time to couger or bear... And by saying that i mean in the woods not in the sage... Its hard to kill yotes in the woods... or anything else for that matter when you likely have to have the animal with in 100yrds to see the thing... Not like gunning them down in the basin over flat land and sparce cover.... just my 

[rock]

How bout we just shoot all of them? 

[DOUBLELUNG]

In terms of population maintenance, loss of 80% of the fawns from birth to 1 year old will result in a stable population (with pregnancy rates of 1.5 fawns/doe).  By contrast, loss of more than 15% of does annually leads to a declining population.  Buck mortality does not affect population growth rates until buck numbers get so low that pregnancy rates are affected. 

In terms of effects on the deer and elk populations, it is predation on adult females that most affects populations.  IMHO, therefore, cougars are the predators with the greatest affect on populations where cougars are abundant.  That includes nearly all of the timber lands and national forest lands where the majority of hunting occurs.

Black bears are incredibly efficient fawn and calf predators for a couple of weeks every year.  They can definitely suppress populations when they are low.  Coyotes can have a major effect when there are prolonged crusted snow conditions.  Effects vary by region, but at a statewide level cougars get my vote for the greatest impact to populations through predation on adult does and cows. 

I don't think 2,000 cougars is too far off the mark.  Assume 60% of the postseason populations are adult cows and does, with fecundity rates around 50 calves:100 cows for elk, and 150 fawns:100 does.  With a postseason population of 55,000 elk and 300,000 deer statewide, we have a June population including newborns of 71,500 elk and 570,000 deer.  Assuming 50 kills/year/cougar, and 50% kill composition of adults and newborns, and proportional killing of elk and deer, 2,000 cougars will kill 100,000 deer and elk, comprising roughly 4,000 adult elk, 4,000 calves, 46,000 adult deer and 46,000 fawns.   

With stable breeding populations, that leaves 8,500 elk and 178,000 deer to die annually: other predators, hunter harvest, poaching, tribal harvest, vehicle collisions, disease, accidents and starvation.  If we have 2,000 cougars, and these assumptions are in the ballpark, cougar predation is responsible for nearly half (48%) of all annual elk mortality and over 1/3 (34%) of all annual deer mortality.   

[MtnMuley]

Coyotes definately get my vote.  I've seen way too many cases of packs against the fawn during the winter months.

[Kain]

I don't think 2,000 cougars is too far off the mark.  Assume 60% of the postseason populations are adult cows and does, with fecundity rates around 50 calves:100 cows for elk, and 150 fawns:100 does.  With a postseason population of 55,000 elk and 300,000 deer statewide, we have a June population including newborns of 71,500 elk and 570,000 deer.  Assuming 50 kills/year/cougar, and 50% kill composition of adults and newborns, and proportional killing of elk and deer, 2,000 cougars will kill 100,000 deer and elk, comprising roughly 4,000 adult elk, 4,000 calves, 46,000 adult deer and 46,000 fawns.  

With stable breeding populations, that leaves 8,500 elk and 178,000 deer to die annually: other predators, hunter harvest, poaching, tribal harvest, vehicle collisions, disease, accidents and starvation.  If we have 2,000 cougars, and these assumptions are in the ballpark, cougar predation is responsible for nearly half (48%) of all annual elk mortality and over 1/3 (34%) of all annual deer mortality.  

That is a big if.  If that number is correct that would mean there is only one cougar for every 11000 acres (or 1 per 17 square miles) of forested land in WA.  

B.C. estimates their cougar population at around 10000 and Oregon estimate theirs at around 4000.  Why would Washington have only 2000?  Great management or incorrect estimating.  I read the population study for Washington they had some studies that said 4000 and another that said 400 so they took all the studies and basically did an average.  That is pretty bad science if you ask me.

[Humptulips]

I can't speak for all of OR but I've trapped 2/3 of the Oregon coast and the WA coast definetly has way  more cougar. Not many deer down their either though.

One year I had exclusive permission on 40,000 acres near Vernonia behind locked gates. I was in there every day from daylight to dark for three weeks. Lot of good looking clearcuts. No logging or any activity either. I saw a total of eight deer during that time. Caught a couple cougar though.

[colockumelk]

Wow some really good input.  Someone asked me why I related this to the study done in Alabama.  I guess I was trying to say that if down here in Alabama that Coyotes account for 80% of the fawns that die each year then what must the effect be in Washington since we have both Black Bears and Cougars added to Coyotes.  In South East Alabama there are no Bears.  THere are also no Cougars in Alabama.  Ironically in Alabama there is a $2,000 dollar bounty for someone who can provide postive identification and proof that there is a cougar in Alabama.  So far no one has been able to. 

Alot of good stuff here.  My take is that probably Coyotes kill more deer overall all because there is more of them and they are almost all fawns.  Cougars kill more adult deer and elk.  But I think overall Coyotes kill more each year.  Either way they area all bad and should die.   

[haus]

this part of the news release caught my attention...

“The management measures are an inter-tribal and state milestone,” said Rob McCoy, wildlife division manager for the Makah Tribe. “Everyone worked together to do something to protect the population for the future. “Harvest is something we can control. We don’t have the capability to accomplish predator control at this time and we can’t control the hair loss disease,” said McCoy. “This is the best way to maximize adult doe survival and increase the numbers of offspring,” he said.

I was under the impression that tribes had the capability to accomplish predator control since they don't have to abide by the baiting and hound hunting bans. Apparently that isn't the case?

[Practical Approach]

this part of the news release caught my attention...

“The management measures are an inter-tribal and state milestone,” said Rob McCoy, wildlife division manager for the Makah Tribe. “Everyone worked together to do something to protect the population for the future. “Harvest is something we can control. We don’t have the capability to accomplish predator control at this time and we can’t control the hair loss disease,” said McCoy. “This is the best way to maximize adult doe survival and increase the numbers of offspring,” he said.

I was under the impression that tribes had the capability to accomplish predator control since they don't have to abide by the baiting and hound hunting bans. Apparently that isn't the case?

The tribes do have the ability to hunt predators, however there are many complications that hinder their ability to do it effectively.  For instance, most tribes do not have tribal members that own hounds for cat hunting.  Plus, if a state agency or tribal agency determines that they need to remove predators to benefit game populations, you instantly are under scrutiny by the bunny huggers.  You have to research them to death before you can act on what you already know.   

[haus]

this part of the news release caught my attention...

“The management measures are an inter-tribal and state milestone,” said Rob McCoy, wildlife division manager for the Makah Tribe. “Everyone worked together to do something to protect the population for the future. “Harvest is something we can control. We don’t have the capability to accomplish predator control at this time and we can’t control the hair loss disease,” said McCoy. “This is the best way to maximize adult doe survival and increase the numbers of offspring,” he said.

I was under the impression that tribes had the capability to accomplish predator control since they don't have to abide by the baiting and hound hunting bans. Apparently that isn't the case?

The tribes do have the ability to hunt predators, however there are many complications that hinder their ability to do it effectively.  For instance, most tribes do not have tribal members that own hounds for cat hunting.  Plus, if a state agency or tribal agency determines that they need to remove predators to benefit game populations, you instantly are under scrutiny by the bunny huggers.  You have to research them to death before you can act on what you already know.   

Back to the bunny huggers again   

I think the best way to counter their challenges is with $$$. In the form of an economic analysis, one that would show the financial impact on local economies as well as an estimate of additional revenue gained for wildlife conservation via the increase in hunting opportunity.

Ex. lets take a unit such as 667 since it is likely one of the most profitable units for the state in terms of revenue from hunting. Also the fact that the land within the unit is primarily owned by two entities simplifies the situation, those entities being the USFS and Weyerhaeuser.
Lets say it is decided that we could drop the predator populations by roughly 10%, dependent upon each species. While concurrently removing the harvest of does for all 3 weapons choices. Get an estimate of the potential improvements in the deer population. Since we know the financial value of each deer hunter per USFWS studies, it would be possible to estimate the economic benefit based on the increased number of hunters that would be hunting deer in the unit.

Just a thought. It might be better to do it in a unit where some of the larger tribes hunt, not sure myself if any of them hunt 667. Tribal cooperation provides an additional buffer from the anti-hunting groups since its hard for them to fight against the tribes politically.

Point being we'd need to work hand in hand with the tribes if we want to allow for the possibility of lowering predator populations in any unit.

[DOUBLELUNG]

I don't think 2,000 cougars is too far off the mark.  Assume 60% of the postseason populations are adult cows and does, with fecundity rates around 50 calves:100 cows for elk, and 150 fawns:100 does.  With a postseason population of 55,000 elk and 300,000 deer statewide, we have a June population including newborns of 71,500 elk and 570,000 deer.  Assuming 50 kills/year/cougar, and 50% kill composition of adults and newborns, and proportional killing of elk and deer, 2,000 cougars will kill 100,000 deer and elk, comprising roughly 4,000 adult elk, 4,000 calves, 46,000 adult deer and 46,000 fawns.   

With stable breeding populations, that leaves 8,500 elk and 178,000 deer to die annually: other predators, hunter harvest, poaching, tribal harvest, vehicle collisions, disease, accidents and starvation.  If we have 2,000 cougars, and these assumptions are in the ballpark, cougar predation is responsible for nearly half (48%) of all annual elk mortality and over 1/3 (34%) of all annual deer mortality.   

That is a big if.  If that number is correct that would mean there is only one cougar for every 11000 acres (or 1 per 17 square miles) of forested land in WA. 

B.C. estimates their cougar population at around 10000 and Oregon estimate theirs at around 4000.  Why would Washington have only 2000?  Great management or incorrect estimating.  I read the population study for Washington they had some studies that said 4000 and another that said 400 so they took all the studies and basically did an average.  That is pretty bad science if you ask me.

Oregon has a much larger prey base than Washington: over twice as many elk (120,000 postseason), three times as many mule deer (300,000), two to three times as many black-tailed deer (300,000+) - less whitetails, but still at least twice as many deer in Oregon as Washington.  BC has a much larger geographic area AND prey base to support a much larger cougar population. 

I'm not defending the accuracy of the state's estimate, just that it is a reasonable estimate.  Could it be as high as 3,000?  Probably, but that is really pushing the upper limit of possibilities.   

[DOUBLELUNG]

PS - I think 2,000-3,000 is an enormously high cougar population for the size of Washington, and available cougar habitat (which includes prey).  Given our limited prey base, relative to our neighboring states and province, I would far prefer to see management toward a stable population of 500-1000 cougar.  We certainly have the hunters to take the additional animals that could be harvested.

[nwwanderer]

You might add road kill to this.  I documented more than 270 WT on a five mile stretch a few years back.  It was over five months adjoining a major winter food source.  Had seven one morning.

[lokidog]

I don't care what the studies say, I chose sasquatch...that *censored* is hell on fawns.

Yeah, but he's not killing them, just making them wish they were dead.   

[Kain]

PS - I think 2,000-3,000 is an enormously high cougar population for the size of Washington, and available cougar habitat (which includes prey).  Given our limited prey base, relative to our neighboring states and province, I would far prefer to see management toward a stable population of 500-1000 cougar.  We certainly have the hunters to take the additional animals that could be harvested.

Those are all good points.  I just feel the number is estimated dangerously low.  It is dangerous for the reasons you mentioned above.  If they are managing cougar and ungulates based on this number and it turns out to be 3000-4000 all this time and we are loosing an extra 50-100k deer and elk a year that they are not factoring in that is going to destroy hunting.  Our deer and elk are going to be severely effected and will take decades to recover.  I think if you ask, every person on this site will tell you the numbers of deer and elk are down.

I am only going by personal observations and evidence on this site.  The number of trail cam photo's, tracks, successful hunters all point to more cats than 1 per 17 square miles of forest land.  Maybe Oregon has more deer and elk for a good reason.

[Kain]

In 2003 the cougar population was estimated 2400-3500.  I think it was 2006 where the cougar population peaked and three years later the population estimates are almost half?  I dont think so.

A rough estimate from
population reconstruction indicated that the minimum
number of cougars in Washington might be around
900 animals. An extrapolation across the state with
the highest cougar density reported in the literature
suggested the maximum number of cougars in
Washington might be around 4,100 animals. Since
2003, cougar population size has been assessed in three project areas in Washington. Currently,
the best available estimate of statewide abundance is from an extrapolation from those projects,
corresponding to about 1,900 to 2,100 animals (excluding kittens).

 http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/game/management/2009-2015/final_game_management_plan_2009-2015.pdf  pg 85

[Cougeyes]

In terms of population maintenance, loss of 80% of the fawns from birth to 1 year old will result in a stable population (with pregnancy rates of 1.5 fawns/doe).  By contrast, loss of more than 15% of does annually leads to a declining population.  Buck mortality does not affect population growth rates until buck numbers get so low that pregnancy rates are affected. 

In terms of effects on the deer and elk populations, it is predation on adult females that most affects populations.  IMHO, therefore, cougars are the predators with the greatest affect on populations where cougars are abundant.  That includes nearly all of the timber lands and national forest lands where the majority of hunting occurs.

Black bears are incredibly efficient fawn and calf predators for a couple of weeks every year.  They can definitely suppress populations when they are low.  Coyotes can have a major effect when there are prolonged crusted snow conditions.  Effects vary by region, but at a statewide level cougars get my vote for the greatest impact to populations through predation on adult does and cows. 

I don't think 2,000 cougars is too far off the mark.  Assume 60% of the postseason populations are adult cows and does, with fecundity rates around 50 calves:100 cows for elk, and 150 fawns:100 does.  With a postseason population of 55,000 elk and 300,000 deer statewide, we have a June population including newborns of 71,500 elk and 570,000 deer.  Assuming 50 kills/year/cougar, and 50% kill composition of adults and newborns, and proportional killing of elk and deer, 2,000 cougars will kill 100,000 deer and elk, comprising roughly 4,000 adult elk, 4,000 calves, 46,000 adult deer and 46,000 fawns.   

With stable breeding populations, that leaves 8,500 elk and 178,000 deer to die annually: other predators, hunter harvest, poaching, tribal harvest, vehicle collisions, disease, accidents and starvation.  If we have 2,000 cougars, and these assumptions are in the ballpark, cougar predation is responsible for nearly half (48%) of all annual elk mortality and over 1/3 (34%) of all annual deer mortality.   
 

Do you have any references for this data? I'm by no means calling b.s. on any of it.  I know you were a state bio in the past so figured you may have some references for this that I could tap into.  I'm working on a report where info like this would be very beneficial.  Thanks.