Fawn Mortality!!!

[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