Post by: MuleDeer on July 31, 2014, 01:18:23 PM
Post by: bearpaw on July 31, 2014, 01:35:22 PM
Simple math tells the story. Studies have shown a cougar will eat 25 to 50 deer per year. If we have 2000 more cougar than we did 40 years ago, then no wonder we don't have as many deer.
2000 Cougar x 25 Deer per year = 50,000 Deer per year
2000 Cougar x 50 Deer per year = 100,000 Deer per year
The first 2000 cats are likely eating 50,000 to 100,000 deer per year and the excess 2000 cats are likely eating 50,000 to 100,000 deer per year. So 100,000 to 200,000 deer are likely being eaten by cats every year in WA. If we cut the cougar population in half by implementing more liberal cougar quotas our deer herd is most likely going to grow.
Post by: lamrith on July 31, 2014, 01:43:36 PM
Fix the problem with predators/ habitat loss and give it a few years then let's talk about changing Hunter harvest.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on July 31, 2014, 02:06:30 PM
Quantity first. People use this to put food on the table, it is a resource not a trophy race. Lets not make this like medieval England where you can't hunt the king forest. Don't get drawn, NO FOOD FOR U!!Those were my kinds of thoughts. Get the population up high enough to allow tag holders a reasonable harvest %. Then start doing buck to doe ratio work or antler point experiments. And I agree, if you aren't going to improve the habitat quality to increase the population, then you have to focus on where the losses center on--predators, cars, harvest, etc. Seems to me reducing the predator losses would be most effective way to raise the population.
Fix the problem with predators/ habitat loss and give it a few years then let's talk about changing Hunter harvest.
Post by: tonymiller7 on July 31, 2014, 02:11:03 PM
Post by: bobcat on July 31, 2014, 02:23:33 PM
Post by: BetoBow on July 31, 2014, 02:59:51 PM
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on July 31, 2014, 03:05:01 PM
First question: do you want to be able to hunt mule deer every year on a general license? In past surveys the answer has always been a resounding yes, that puts a big strain on any management for quality.
Next question: are you willing to give up special permit opportunities, especially late buck permits during the rut, for better quality during general seasons? I don't know the answer to that one, as far as the hunter population goes; I'm in favor of it, I know many are not.
Third question: How do you define quality? Opportunity to hunt uncrowded areas, good chance of harvesting a 4-point buck, seeing multiple bucks every day? Opportunity to see a legal deer without getting out of the vehicle (few admit this, but after 15 seasons of jawjacking from road hunters in two states, I can tell you there are a LOT of hunters who define good hunting this way).
Increasing quality nearly always means reducing the current opportunity, either short-term or long-term.
Post by: MuleDeer on July 31, 2014, 05:06:03 PM
Quantity=numbers of deer without on emphasis on size of bucks being a concern (or at least a major mgmt. concern)
Quality=the size of trophy deer that are available for harvest. This generally means draw only hunts in those units.
Post by: bigmacc on July 31, 2014, 05:08:58 PM
I think the majority of hunters have wanted quantity, the ability to hunt any buck every year. I would like to see some of both, our current system wouldn't be bad if we reduced Washington's cougar population from 4000 to 2000 cats so it's similar to what it used to be years ago. WDFW used to say we have 2000 cougar, then for a while they said 3000, now this spring it was said by WDFW that we likely have 4000 cougar in Washington.
Simple math tells the story. Studies have shown a cougar will eat 25 to 50 deer per year. If we have 2000 more cougar than we did 40 years ago, then no wonder we don't have as many deer.
2000 Cougar x 25 Deer per year = 50,000 Deer per year
2000 Cougar x 50 Deer per year = 100,000 Deer per year
The first 2000 cats are likely eating 50,000 to 100,000 deer per year and the excess 2000 cats are likely eating 50,000 to 100,000 deer per year. So 100,000 to 200,000 deer are likely being eaten by cats every year in WA. If we cut the cougar population in half by implementing more liberal cougar quotas our deer herd is most likely going to grow.
:yeah:...Pretty much my thaughts also.
Post by: Rooster1981 on July 31, 2014, 06:28:39 PM
With out proper preditor control muledeer will only suffer under the current system. In my mind this state needs an entire overhaul with deer management. With unlimited tags available we are seriously over harvesting a very weak resource.I think there are ways to manage these animals and still give everyone a chance to hunt them without a draw system.
I firmly believe in a tag quota system. Base the number of tags for each region on deer harvest and winter kill. I think Idaho has the right idea. I think a first come first serve on tag purchases until the unit or region sells out is the way to go. If we can't reduce the cats we have to reduce the number of hunters in each unit. And I for one will not participate in a draw to hunt state and I fear that's the way things are going.
I also think it's time to consider separate tags for deer and having to choose a deer species. That would greatly reduce the number of hunters in eastern Washington, and paired with a quota system the deer would see less than half the pressure from today's system. Something has to give, either let me hunt cats with my hounds again or limit the number of hunters.
Post by: kevinlisa06 on July 31, 2014, 09:29:10 PM
Post by: KFhunter on July 31, 2014, 09:33:46 PM
I think the majority of hunters have wanted quantity, the ability to hunt any buck every year. I would like to see some of both, our current system wouldn't be bad if we reduced Washington's cougar population from 4000 to 2000 cats so it's similar to what it used to be years ago. WDFW used to say we have 2000 cougar, then for a while they said 3000, now this spring it was said by WDFW that we likely have 4000 cougar in Washington.
Simple math tells the story. Studies have shown a cougar will eat 25 to 50 deer per year. If we have 2000 more cougar than we did 40 years ago, then no wonder we don't have as many deer.
2000 Cougar x 25 Deer per year = 50,000 Deer per year
2000 Cougar x 50 Deer per year = 100,000 Deer per year
The first 2000 cats are likely eating 50,000 to 100,000 deer per year and the excess 2000 cats are likely eating 50,000 to 100,000 deer per year. So 100,000 to 200,000 deer are likely being eaten by cats every year in WA. If we cut the cougar population in half by implementing more liberal cougar quotas our deer herd is most likely going to grow.
Cougar, Bears, Coyote, Bobcat and now Wolves
It's a wonder we have huntable deer populations at all.
Post by: KFhunter on July 31, 2014, 09:35:18 PM
To make it very simple,
Quantity=numbers of deer without on emphasis on size of bucks being a concern (or at least a major mgmt. concern)
Quality=the size of trophy deer that are available for harvest. This generally means draw only hunts in those units.
Why not both?
Some units for population and some for trophy
Post by: MuleDeer on July 31, 2014, 10:24:04 PM
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, both here and nation-wide.
I agree with your comments as a whole so far, but we need to take all factors into account and find the base reasons our herds are falling in WA and the entire West. If we could find the base of the problem, we could help not only our herds but those all over the West.
But let's not only look at perceived problems, but bring up intelligent, thought out solutions. That proves to be a better approach with state and federal agencies. An example is the over-grazing of our public lands. That over grazing results in a multitude of problems that lead to decreased Mule Deer numbers. But grazing rights are a VERY touchy and sometimes taboo issue with the agencies because of the $$$. So, one solution is to show the cattlemen a way to increase yield by 100%, meaning we could reclaim 1/2 of the land currently allocated to grazing. Is it possible? YES! I've spoken with specialists who have proven it. But it will take proving it to the agencies and cattlemen to see a change. And this change will take a growing season or two. Long term solutions are out there; we just need to find them and then find a way to implement the solutions.
The more ideas we come up with here, the more likely we are to succeed. Thanks for your help!
Post by: KFhunter on July 31, 2014, 10:49:40 PM
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, both here and nation-wide.
I agree with your comments as a whole so far, but we need to take all factors into account and find the base reasons our herds are falling in WA and the entire West. If we could find the base of the problem, we could help not only our herds but those all over the West.
More concerned with WA at the moment rather than the entire west - and in WA the blame for decreased mule deer falls heavily on predators. Without predator control all we really have left is people control and loss of hunting = special draws.
But let's not only look at perceived problems, but bring up intelligent, thought out solutions. That proves to be a better approach with state and federal agencies. An example is the over-grazing of our public lands. That over grazing results in a multitude of problems that lead to decreased Mule Deer numbers. But grazing rights are a VERY touchy and sometimes taboo issue with the agencies because of the $$$. So, one solution is to show the cattlemen a way to increase yield by 100%, meaning we could reclaim 1/2 of the land currently allocated to grazing. Is it possible? YES! I've spoken with specialists who have proven it. But it will take proving it to the agencies and cattlemen to see a change. And this change will take a growing season or two. Long term solutions are out there; we just need to find them and then find a way to implement the solutions.
The more ideas we come up with here, the more likely we are to succeed. Thanks for your help!
Booo - Hissss
Cattlemen are knuckle dragging neatherals that need to be shown the way :rolleyes: ...sure they know all the ways to increase yields. There is no magic to that, only the bottom line. I vehemently oppose further restrictions to public grazing. Furthermore, I'd lobby for increased public grazing opening more public lands to grazing. Contrary to popular public opinion responsible grazing improves habitat and quality - and holds more game.
Lost me on this post.
edit: I would like to hear you elaborate on increasing yields by "100%"
Post by: muleracks on August 01, 2014, 09:16:27 AM
As far as over the counter vs late season permits goes, I like the over counter but the heavily migratory mule deer in Chelan County would miss out on much of the hunt unless the season was extended extened into early November. Before the late 80s the mule deer (over the counter) hunt ended on or around November 11th. We don't want that because the habitat is more open now (fires) and over harvest would be assured.
Post by: idahohuntr on August 01, 2014, 09:39:19 AM
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...:yeah:
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 :chuckle: :chuckle: 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! :tup:
Post by: baldopepper on August 01, 2014, 10:51:03 AM
1) First you must determine what are your actual herds (any one GMU may actually have 2-3 or more separate
herds in it).
2) Get an actual best estimate on those herds.
3) Determine what is the optimum carrying capacity of each herd.
4) Extrapolate the harvestable (if any) number.
5) Determine how you want to divide up the hunt-keeping in mind a percentage of predator kill and negotiated tribal take.
Obviously this is a very simplified version, but covers the basics. I believe you have to take care of quantity before you worry about quality (don't have to worry about quality if there's nothing to hunt).
I think you also have to move the hunt setting dates back. I'll always hated it when dates and numbers are set in advance of knowing what winter kill and projected fawn survival rates are. We need to manage for what's best for the deer, not what's best for the hunters. You can't effectively manage when seasons cover huge swaths of area that may encompass 20-30 (or more) herds in it-some doing well and some doing poorly.
I suspect this type of management will require more permit hunting and fewer OTC tags, but if that's what it takes to properly manage the herds-so be it.
Post by: rsarkks on August 01, 2014, 11:08:24 AM
I would think that if the population increase, the quality of hunting would also increase. If there are more deer, more bucks would survive and live to be old age. This would increase the number of big old bucks, though maybe not to the point of a limited entry draw where huge bucks lined every ridge.
My reasoning is based on blacktail hunting as I know it. As a westsider I am a lot more familier with blacktails so my reasoning can easily be flawed when it comes to mule deer. In the blacktail woods where I hunt (public lands/large private timber companies/clear cuts and surrounding forest), I have not had trouble finding deer, though mostly does and small bucks. In the last couple years I have been changing my hunting and have started seeing big bucks. I also know several guys who regularly pull out large 4 point bucks from these same hunting lands. The big bucks are there, it just takes more work to learn where to find them.
For this reason I would think more deer would also mean more trophy bucks for those willing to put the effort into finding them.
Post by: bearpaw on August 01, 2014, 11:29:32 AM
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...:yeah:
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 :chuckle: :chuckle: 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! :tup:
Of course there are other factors but are you saying all the studies done by F&G Depts in western states (including Washington) that have established cougars kill deer and have established rough averages of deer killed by cougars are all faulty, that cougars do not eat deer. Your reply is laughable at best. :chuckle:
With guys like you on the GMAC it's no wonder we have little to no predator management in WA. 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. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on August 01, 2014, 01:05:08 PM
1. Predators.....(documented fact that predators eat deer, reduced predator numbers will eat fewer deer)
2. Antlerless Hunting.....(most if not all antlerless hunting should be closed until a herd exceeds objective)
3. Fawn Survival......(determine the key factors in different areas and take actions to increase fawn survival)
4. Buck Hunting......(vary by GMU or zone, depending on herd numbers and hunter expectations)
5. Winter Range.....(issues vary greatly, address by area, development, winter feeding, planting shrubs/grains, predators, etc)
6. Lack of Forest Management/Logging......(National Forest regeneration is needed to enhance habitat)
7. Poaching Issues......(find additional methods to reduce poaching)
8. Auto Impacts......(determine and implement methods to reduce deer collisions)
9. Feral Dog Impacts......(work toward reducing the number of feral dogs running loose chasing deer)
10. Wildfire & Other Natural Disasters......(establish a plan to help herds when needed due to natural disasters)
11. Crop Depredation......(find and implement methods to reduce crop damage other than issuing kill tags)
12. Over Grazing......(when an area suffers from actual over grazing measures should be taken to resolve the problem)
The most productive deer herds I know of thrive on private and even public land where they are interspersed with cattle/sheep and see humans tending to the herds, managing crops, or logging on a daily/regular basis. I'm tired of hearing managers and biologists use cattle, logging, and human activity as a scapegoat to hide the results of their failing management of the forests, predators, and herds.
Post by: baldopepper on August 01, 2014, 01:24:18 PM
Post by: lamrith on August 01, 2014, 01:42:22 PM
A good Mule Deer Plan should address at least these issues if not others::yeah: I like what you have there, the one item I question a little is #2.
1. Predators.....(documented fact that predators eat deer, reduced predator numbers will eat fewer deer)
2. Antlerless Hunting.....(most if not all antlerless hunting should be closed until a herd exceeds objective)
3. Fawn Survival......(determine the key factors in different areas and take actions to increase fawn survival)
4. Buck Hunting......(vary by GMU or zone, depending on herd numbers and hunter expectations)
5. Winter Range.....(issues vary greatly, address by area, development, winter feeding, planting shrubs/grains, predators, etc)
6. Lack of Forest Management/Logging......(National Forest regeneration is needed to enhance habitat)
7. Poaching Issues......(find additional methods to reduce poaching)
8. Auto Impacts......(determine and implement methods to reduce deer collisions)
9. Feral Dog Impacts......(work toward reducing the number of feral dogs running loose chasing deer)
10. Wildfire & Other Natural Disasters......(establish a plan to help herds when needed due to natural disasters)
11. Crop Depredation......(find and implement methods to reduce crop damage other than issuing kill tags)
12. Over Grazing......(when an area suffers from actual over grazing measures should be taken to resolve the problem)
The most productive deer herds I know of thrive on private and even public land where they are interspersed with cattle/sheep and see humans tending to the herds, managing crops, or logging on a daily/regular basis. I'm tired of hearing managers and biologists use cattle, logging, and human activity as a scapegoat to hide the results of their failing management of the forests, predators, and herds.
I have heard it mentioned by others but question how much it would really affect things given that many eastern states you get one buck, then multiple does (2,3,4+) and they have no herd population issues? The only antlerless Mule hunts as it is are Archery or late muzzy in certain GMU's. I guess my point is Doe harvest is probably not the significant issue that some make it out to be, as it is limited in hunter numbers and geography.
Post by: bearpaw on August 01, 2014, 01:52:04 PM
Post by: bigmacc on August 01, 2014, 03:50:39 PM
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...:yeah:
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 :chuckle: :chuckle: 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! :tup:
MuleDeer,in my humble opinion there is no bigger issue in the state of Washington concerning muledeer numbers than the predator issue,NO IDAHO,im not one of THOSE GUYS,MD have you checked into the book and study i had mentioned(THE OKANOGAN MULE DEER...by Don L.Zeigler)..And Idahohunter should read it also! Predators have been a big problem with mule deer in the past(study was done by the Washington state game dept from 1972 to 1975). Mule deer can and will recover over time from natural disasters such as fire,tough winters etc,and even can live around human encroatchment to a certain extent but have a difficult time thriving IN CLOSE PROXIMITY and REBOUNDING FROM growing predator numbers,especially after issues such as hard winters or major fires have occurred. As bearpaw said,it is a big issue in this state that is hammering our muledeer herds. Growing populations of cougar,bear,coyotes and now throw in the wolf and you have a deadly cocktail that will eventually limit our hunting and continue to take a toll on the herds. With all due respect MuleDeer, i highly recommend this book,and as for you Idaho, I cant quite figure you out,you are a mystery and a different bird for sure! dont really know what your agenda is?(idahohunter that is!)....as always,just my :twocents:
Post by: lamrith on August 01, 2014, 04:33:44 PM
Those that take a doe do so because there are likely no legal bucks to be had and/or they are in it for the meat. aka food on the table.
Post by: bobcat on August 01, 2014, 04:44:56 PM
Post by: KFhunter on August 01, 2014, 09:02:18 PM
Just ain't gonna work here folks, WA is just too different.
The Mule herds in the NE are in tiny scattered pockets, some giant bruisers to be sure but they're far and few between and unless you know where a small pocket of bucks are good luck! These small herds can't grow in size with the predators constantly pulling them down.
Another problem is hunters are whacking the barely legals, antler restrictions IMO are a double edged sword in that it's causing some unscrupulous hunters to shoot multiple deer. We've all seen the two point laying to rot if you hunt mule's enough.
I equate this to the stupid salmon rules I've fished under where you have to release all intact salmon....well heck the seals and dogfish and dolphins are following the boats it's just stupid. What's the survival rates of released salmon? 20%? If that!
You can release 20 intact salmon to retain a limit of hatchery :bash: :bash: Kind of like antler restrictions, it's causing some deaths of younger bucks the hunters walk up and turn around "oh I can't find it, musta missed".. Is it creating trophy hunting? I dunno. Seems to me if some hunters retained the dinkers they shot then the trophy's would still be running around.
If enough hunters put a forked horn in their scope, eventually one of them is going to pull the trigger.
quantity > quality IMO :twocents:
don't shoot the does, do shoot the predators and the rest will pan out.
especially if you feed them in the winter and keep them protected from predators
Post by: MuleDeer on August 01, 2014, 10:50:48 PM
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!
Post by: grundy53 on August 01, 2014, 11:51:09 PM
I usually agree with most of your posts (view wise only. not your wording). But this condescending post is frankly insulting. It also shows you either can't see past your nose or you are purposefully trying to distract from the argument. I think the it's the latter. For one, even though you try to undermine Bearpaw's statistics with your Mule deer population numbers. Mule deer are only one of three sub species of deer we have in this state. For another those population numbers are estimated AFTER depredation is taken into account. Also, no one ever said predators are the only reason for population decline. I thought you were a fairly levelheaded guy who looked at all sides but I now see I was wrong. You make it very clear you are biased. Which in of itself is fine. Just don't try to play it off like you are unbiased and only going off of science based information. All of that said your views are not even the problem. You are very patronizing and franking that is probably what irritates folks on here the most. You are losing the few allies you have on this site. So I suggest you either act more tactfully or find another site to share your views.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...:yeah:
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 :chuckle: :chuckle: 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! :tup:
Post by: bearpaw on August 02, 2014, 02:01:52 AM
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=27635 (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=27635)
Quote
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.
Washington study: http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2193/2007-060?journalCode=wild (http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2193/2007-060?journalCode=wild)
Quote
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).
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....pdf (https://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/PDF/4-Effects%20of%20WhiteTailed....pdf)
Quote
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
Quote
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.
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?
Post by: bearpaw on August 02, 2014, 02:08:35 AM
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/cjz-2012-0147 (http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/cjz-2012-0147)
Quote
Variation in cougar (Puma concolor) predation habits during wolf (Canis lupus) recovery in the southern Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
To 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.
Post by: bearpaw on August 02, 2014, 02:12:45 AM
Quote
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.
In Washington much of this predator control can be accomplished by simply allowing hunters more predator hunting opportunities!
Post by: bearpaw on August 02, 2014, 02:25:17 AM
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/Popular/mtnlions.html (http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/Popular/mtnlions.html)
Quote
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.
Quote
Fawn survival a problem
All 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.
Quote
Adult deer are being killed also
To 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.
Quote
The bottom line
The 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.
Post by: bearpaw on August 02, 2014, 02:32:42 AM
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/management-issues/docs/kb_mule_deer_managementplan_draft.pdf (http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/management-issues/docs/kb_mule_deer_managementplan_draft.pdf)
see: 2.2 Objectives to Address Limiting Factors
Oregon Mule Deer Initiative
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hunting/big_game/mule_deer/docs/Mule_Deer_Mgmt_Plan_Final.pdf (http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hunting/big_game/mule_deer/docs/Mule_Deer_Mgmt_Plan_Final.pdf)
Quote
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.
Post by: bearpaw on August 02, 2014, 02:37:32 AM
Quote
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. :twocents:
Post by: idahohuntr on August 02, 2014, 05:31:50 AM
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.
Post by: idahohuntr on August 02, 2014, 05:42:27 AM
Rather than talk without supporting facts or data, I would like to provide a few points with supporting data:This is much more realistic...17% cougar predation on 90k mule deer which is about 15000 mule deer per year...I would buy those numbers.
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=27635 (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=27635)QuoteThe 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=wild (http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2193/2007-060?journalCode=wild)QuoteThe 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....pdf (https://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/PDF/4-Effects%20of%20WhiteTailed....pdf)Quotewhite-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?
Post by: grundy53 on August 02, 2014, 06:20:06 AM
You are making a whole lot of irrational assumptions and grundy I'm not interested in engaging in your drama.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.
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.
sent from my typewriter
Post by: idahohuntr on August 02, 2014, 07:03:52 AM
Your snide remarks are equally noted grundy. Can we please stick to mule deer in this thread? Thanks.You are making a whole lot of irrational assumptions and grundy I'm not interested in engaging in your drama.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.
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.
sent from my typewriter
Post by: idahohuntr on August 02, 2014, 07:30:09 AM
Post by: rasbo on August 02, 2014, 07:42:59 AM
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.I agree,
Post by: shorthair15 on August 02, 2014, 08:20:50 AM
Post by: KFhunter on August 02, 2014, 08:38:39 AM
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!
Ah, you're talking about private lands grazing. There for a bit I thought you were rallying for taking cattle off public lands.
I agree increasing forage and rotational grazing is good and you can support more cattle on less land.
As for getting some kind of permit to grow forage on public lands to increase yield?... I don't see that ever flying. I can just imagine some rancher out spreading metal based fertilizer and seed all over the national forest :chuckle:
Here's one for you to ponder:
These last couple of years I've see that cattle are only using a fraction of their grazing allotments, they're huddling up around the chutes and over graze about 1/2 mile circle around the chutes..hrm..why is that?
Wolves
There is almost a line the cattle won't cross, down low the grass is pulled to the nubs but as you get further from the chutes and further from human activity the grass goes to nearly 4-5 tall and no sign of cattle utilizing it. (or anything else for that matter) This is with the ranchers pushing the cattle to the taller unused grass DAILY - with horses, by evening the cattle are huddled around the chutes again. They're not putting on weight either.
So the anti-grazers are getting their wish through their most effective tool yet - wolves.
I think we can leave grazing alone in the MDF plans MuleDeer, the wolves are taking care of that issue.
edit: As a side note what worries the heck out of me is some anti-grazing person sees the severe over grazing near those cattle chutes and uses that to condemn grazing - and wins.
Even though historically that area was capable of grazing out xx number of cattle, now it can only graze a small fraction of that because the cattle won't disperse properly throughout the grazing allotment.
Post by: nwwanderer on August 02, 2014, 10:04:10 AM
This is an unusual area that ajoins more than 400,000 acres that is never hunted for mule deer. Hunting and road kill can not be blamed for low muley populations. I do not have a simple solution but have seen changes and expect to see more.
Post by: bearpaw on August 02, 2014, 12:58:49 PM
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!
Ah, you're talking about private lands grazing. There for a bit I thought you were rallying for taking cattle off public lands.
I agree increasing forage and rotational grazing is good and you can support more cattle on less land.
As for getting some kind of permit to grow forage on public lands to increase yield?... I don't see that ever flying. I can just imagine some rancher out spreading metal based fertilizer and seed all over the national forest :chuckle:
Here's one for you to ponder:
These last couple of years I've see that cattle are only using a fraction of their grazing allotments, they're huddling up around the chutes and over graze about 1/2 mile circle around the chutes..hrm..why is that?
Wolves
There is almost a line the cattle won't cross, down low the grass is pulled to the nubs but as you get further from the chutes and further from human activity the grass goes to nearly 4-5 tall and no sign of cattle utilizing it. (or anything else for that matter) This is with the ranchers pushing the cattle to the taller unused grass DAILY - with horses, by evening the cattle are huddled around the chutes again. They're not putting on weight either.
So the anti-grazers are getting their wish through their most effective tool yet - wolves.
I think we can leave grazing alone in the MDF plans MuleDeer, the wolves are taking care of that issue.
edit: As a side note what worries the heck out of me is some anti-grazing person sees the severe over grazing near those cattle chutes and uses that to condemn grazing - and wins.
Even though historically that area was capable of grazing out xx number of cattle, now it can only graze a small fraction of that because the cattle won't disperse properly throughout the grazing allotment.
On top of this the wolf groups are pushing the WDFW to make the cattlemen agree to keep the cattle in bunched up groups, exactly opposite of the USFS wanting the cattle broken up to prevent over grazing.
Post by: bearpaw on August 02, 2014, 01:02:15 PM
Rather than talk without supporting facts or data, I would like to provide a few points with supporting data:This is much more realistic...17% cougar predation on 90k mule deer which is about 15000 mule deer per year...I would buy those numbers.
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=27635 (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=27635)QuoteThe 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=wild (http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2193/2007-060?journalCode=wild)QuoteThe 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....pdf (https://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/PDF/4-Effects%20of%20WhiteTailed....pdf)Quotewhite-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?
Please add to that the predation and losses from coyotes, bear, bobcats, wolves, feral dogs, autos, etc. Now can you understand why we need predator control?
Post by: bearpaw on August 02, 2014, 03:43:16 PM
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.
If predator impacts are minimized seasons for humans should not need to be further reduced. In many areas humans are not hunting fawns, does, and are only hunting 3 pt or better bucks. The only segment of the mule deer population being hunted by humans are mature bucks, yet the populations continue to decline. Please open your eyes, the predator impacts cannot be ignored if we hope to recover mule deer populations. You are selling out to the anti predator hunting forces in this state.
Post by: idahohuntr on August 02, 2014, 06:42:35 PM
I don't dispute that cougars kill deer, and my observations align with yours regarding their selection for muley's, I just don't think the primary factor in mule deer declines across the west is because of cougars...or any other predators. My point is not to ignore any of the numerous factors limiting ungulates and that is why I find your earlier numbers of 100,000-200,000 a bit problematic...if you were right then basically mule deer only die from cougars which misleads hunters about what needs to be done...it is a fallacy, at least in se wa, to suggest that us hunters can just go about with our otc tags and long range rifles and killy tons of bucks every year if we could just reduce the cougar population...that is complete baloney and your numbers that I questioned earlier paint that picture. I have seen very similar declines in mule deer in areas I've hunted in Idaho where plenty of cougars get harvested by hound hunters. Although my dad just told me he has been seeing more mule deer at one of his properties in NC Idaho than anytime he can recall in the last 7-10 years :dunno: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.
If predator impacts are minimized seasons for humans should not need to be further reduced. In many areas humans are not hunting fawns, does, and are only hunting 3 pt or better bucks. The only segment of the mule deer population being hunted by humans are mature bucks, yet the populations continue to decline. Please open your eyes, the predator impacts cannot be ignored if we hope to recover mule deer populations. You are selling out to the anti predator hunting forces in this state.
Post by: bearpaw on August 03, 2014, 06:16:26 PM
I don't dispute that cougars kill deer, and my observations align with yours regarding their selection for muley's, I just don't think the primary factor in mule deer declines across the west is because of cougars...or any other predators. My point is not to ignore any of the numerous factors limiting ungulates and that is why I find your earlier numbers of 100,000-200,000 a bit problematic...if you were right then basically mule deer only die from cougars which misleads hunters about what needs to be done...it is a fallacy, at least in se wa, to suggest that us hunters can just go about with our otc tags and long range rifles and killy tons of bucks every year if we could just reduce the cougar population...that is complete baloney and your numbers that I questioned earlier paint that picture. I have seen very similar declines in mule deer in areas I've hunted in Idaho where plenty of cougars get harvested by hound hunters. Although my dad just told me he has been seeing more mule deer at one of his properties in NC Idaho than anytime he can recall in the last 7-10 years :dunno: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.
If predator impacts are minimized seasons for humans should not need to be further reduced. In many areas humans are not hunting fawns, does, and are only hunting 3 pt or better bucks. The only segment of the mule deer population being hunted by humans are mature bucks, yet the populations continue to decline. Please open your eyes, the predator impacts cannot be ignored if we hope to recover mule deer populations. You are selling out to the anti predator hunting forces in this state.
Perhaps you do need less hunting opportunity for humans in the blues, I do not have experience in that area so cannot say? :dunno:
In northeast WA we do not hunt any mule deer fawns or does in any season, only 3 pt or better bucks can be harvested ever (except in tribal hunting areas). Therefore hunting season impact in NE Washington causes little reduction on the mule deer herd numbers because we are not taking any of the fawns or reproductive does. NO SEASON AT ALL! Yet the mule deer population continues to decline in all areas just as much as in areas hunted by the tribes. How can that be?
Mule Deer in NE WA are in a predator pit, the predator impacts are so great the herd cannot reproduce enough fawns that survive to recruit into the herd to grow the herd. The legal human hunting factor on herd growth has already been eliminated from NE WA. It doesn't matter if we completely quit hunting 3 pt or better bucks, the herd size has not grown and will not grow because the predators are eating more deer than are surviving and being recruited into the herd. Remember, humans have no hunting season on fawns or does in all of NE WA (except areas hunted by the tribes). If predators weren't the problem this herd would already be growing. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on August 03, 2014, 06:29:49 PM
Quote
I find your earlier numbers of 100,000-200,000 a bit problematic
I have verified those predation levels with documentation from F&G studies in several states including WA. (please see my previous posts) Of course as I have already said, some of that impact no doubt occurs on whitetail, blacktail, moose, bighorn, goat, and elk, but the cougars are eating that amount of meat! For you to continue to deny this is simply ________________!
Post by: bearpaw on August 03, 2014, 06:46:03 PM
How About This:
We kill half the cougars and reduce the predator impact on all species, then the herds can grow and get us out of this predator pit. When there are more ungulates we can support more hunting and predators. WOW PROBLEM ON THE WAY TO BEING SOLVED!
OH I KNOW, habitat.....
When we have too many deer on the winter range that will become a more important factor, right now it's not a factor because you can hardly find a mule deer in NE WA on the existing winter range, and we do still have a lot of winter range here. I am not opposed and fully encourage working to improve habitat, but I am not so silly as to say predators are not having a severe impact and I don't need to conduct a million dollar study to see it. :twocents:
This provides some very good insight into a deer population that is controlled by cougars!
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/Popular/mtnlions.html (http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/Popular/mtnlions.html)QuotePredators 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.QuoteFawn survival a problem
All 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.QuoteAdult deer are being killed also
To 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.QuoteThe bottom line
The 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.
Post by: idahohuntr on August 03, 2014, 07:03:38 PM
How do we increase the cougar harvest that much? Is that realistic in NE Wa without hounds?
How About This:
We kill half the cougars and reduce the predator impact on all species, then the herds can grow and get us out of this predator pit. When there are more ungulates we can support more hunting and predators. WOW PROBLEM ON THE WAY TO BEING SOLVED!
Post by: idahohuntr on August 03, 2014, 07:10:41 PM
as for you Idaho, I cant quite figure you out,you are a mystery and a different bird for sure! dont really know what your agenda is?(idahohunter that is!)....as always,just my :twocents::chuckle: I'll save you a whole bunch of time...I don't have an agenda.
Post by: bearpaw on August 03, 2014, 07:45:55 PM
How do we increase the cougar harvest that much? Is that realistic in NE Wa without hounds?
How About This:
We kill half the cougars and reduce the predator impact on all species, then the herds can grow and get us out of this predator pit. When there are more ungulates we can support more hunting and predators. WOW PROBLEM ON THE WAY TO BEING SOLVED!
Double or triple the quota, increase the seasons as needed to get the quotas filled or close to it. I think we will get cougars reduced in numbers without hounds. I know one guy who has walked down 3 cougars here by walking their tracks. I can find 5 to 10 fresh cougar tracks daily in the winter, I could find guys that want to try walking them. Can also call them or look for kills to set stands above. We saw 7 cougars this spring during turkey season, 6 out of 7 could have been easily shot. Have you seen all the cougar problems right around Spokane, never used to be hardly any cats that close in?
Post by: grundy53 on August 03, 2014, 08:00:48 PM
How do we increase the cougar harvest that much? Is that realistic in NE Wa without hounds?
How About This:
We kill half the cougars and reduce the predator impact on all species, then the herds can grow and get us out of this predator pit. When there are more ungulates we can support more hunting and predators. WOW PROBLEM ON THE WAY TO BEING SOLVED!
Double or triple the quota, increase the seasons as needed to get the quotas filled or close to it. I think we will get cougars reduced in numbers without hounds. I know one guy who has walked down 3 cougars here by walking their tracks. I can find 5 to 10 fresh cougar tracks daily in the winter, I could find guys that want to try walking them. Can also call them or look for kills to set stands above. We saw 7 cougars this spring during turkey season, 6 out of 7 could have been easily shot. Have you seen all the cougar problems right around Spokane, never used to be hardly any cats that close in?
:yeah: Year round season and multiple tags.
Post by: huntnphool on August 03, 2014, 08:36:29 PM
How About This:
We kill half the cougars and reduce the predator impact on all species, then the herds can grow and get us out of this predator pit.
Can't do that Dale, remember the WSU professor said we have a cougar problem because we have been killing too many as it is, no way will WDFW increase the harvest allocation.
Post by: bearpaw on August 03, 2014, 08:52:50 PM
How About This:
We kill half the cougars and reduce the predator impact on all species, then the herds can grow and get us out of this predator pit.
Can't do that Dale, remember the WSU professor said we have a cougar problem because we have been killing too many as it is, no way will WDFW increase the harvest allocation.
Currently Professor Wielgus management strategy does not seem to be working too well for people around Spokane who's animals are getting eaten. Last winter WDFW also had to issue special hound permits for other problem cats in Ione and Newport. Remember the White family shooting 4 different cats in their yard in the Methow last winter. Sooner or later if we keep the pressure on WDFW may see the light and end this madness! :twocents:
We must keep pounding away with the message.
Post by: huntnnw on August 03, 2014, 10:00:24 PM
Post by: huntnphool on August 03, 2014, 10:11:13 PM
I would say black bears are a far greater impact on mule deer fawns in NE WA. The bear population is out of control up here! Not a good sign when you see more bears and sign of bears than deer! Been like this for over 20 years great deer country and its void of deer and full of bears
Easy remedy for that would be members helping other members find them, but far too many are more worried about their "honey holes" than helping thin the threat. :twocents:
Post by: MtnMuley on August 03, 2014, 11:01:09 PM
However, I do agree with huntnw's thoughts there. Would it make you upset if I drew a Sherman spring tag there this year and didn't go? :chuckle:
Post by: huntnphool on August 03, 2014, 11:09:15 PM
:lol4:
However, I do agree with huntnw's thoughts there. Would it make you upset if I drew a Sherman spring tag there this year and didn't go? :chuckle:
Not at all.
Post by: huntnnw on August 04, 2014, 12:11:40 AM
Post by: bearpaw on August 04, 2014, 03:00:20 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_ES7MmS5Ho#t=72 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_ES7MmS5Ho#t=72)
Post by: grundy53 on August 04, 2014, 04:56:29 AM
I would say black bears are a far greater impact on mule deer fawns in NE WA. The bear population is out of control up here! Not a good sign when you see more bears and sign of bears than deer! Been like this for over 20 years great deer country and its void of deer and full of bearsState wide OTC spring season and up the amount of bears we can harvest.
sent from my typewriter
Post by: JimmyHoffa on August 04, 2014, 08:50:10 PM
You are making a whole lot of irrational assumptions and grundy I'm not interested in engaging in your drama.What things affecting the deer herd do managers have any reasonable amount of control over? Winter kill or drought can take out a lot more deer than all predators could dream of, but weather is out is something that can't be controlled.
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.
I really don't see the managers having much impact in stemming development--homes, roads or shopping areas. Unless the mule deer is endangered, I don't think they have any weight in that argument.
Buying up land/improving habitat? The cost is enormous to accomplish to be used by the vast range of the herd. I don't think the WDFW budget is near enough to buy tracts that could support a herd....buying salmon estuaries and butterfly parks and riparian zones seem to take the priority for land acquisition.
Do they have the ability to control road collisions? Lowering speed limits, deer underpasses, more deer crossing signs.
The only real factors that seem to come to mind that they have any real influence over are harvest, predators and poaching.
I think almost all the hunters would like to see poaching enforced a little more,especially the real cases like ucwarden worked on. That guy was killing something like an elk every other day for seven years. :yike:
I don't know why hunters would prefer to limit their harvest before the predators' harvests. Seems to me that predators are the easiest factor in the equation without cutting tags and reducing opportunity.
Post by: KFhunter on August 05, 2014, 04:05:57 PM
I very highly doubt that enough would get taken that there would ever need to be special permit draws, but if hunters are successful enough then visit restricting the season limits.
Problem is WDFW thinks there needs to be a predator behind every tree and under every rock.
Post by: grundy53 on August 05, 2014, 04:57:35 PM
We need statewide coyote rules for cougar and bear. 24/7 365 hunting predators :IBCOOL:
I very highly doubt that enough would get taken that there would ever need to be special permit draws, but if hunters are successful enough then visit restricting the season limits.
Problem is WDFW thinks there needs to be a predator behind every tree and under every rock.
:yeah:
sent from my typewriter
Post by: KFhunter on August 05, 2014, 05:11:45 PM
We need statewide coyote rules for cougar and bear. 24/7 365 hunting predators :IBCOOL:
I very highly doubt that enough would get taken that there would ever need to be special permit draws, but if hunters are successful enough then visit restricting the season limits.
Problem is WDFW thinks there needs to be a predator behind every tree and under every rock.
:yeah:
sent from my typewriter
add wolves :chuckle:
Post by: huntnphool on August 05, 2014, 10:21:02 PM
We need statewide coyote rules for cougar and bear. 24/7 365 hunting predators
Does anyone have any actual attainable suggestions?
Post by: KFhunter on August 05, 2014, 10:37:14 PM
We need statewide coyote rules for cougar and bear. 24/7 365 hunting predators
Does anyone have any actual attainable suggestions?
vastly increase hound permits for cougar in Mule deer impacted areas.
Increase spring draw permits for bear in Mule deer impacted areas, introduce bear 2nd tag in NE WA.
Increase cougar yearly bag limits for Mule deer impacted areas.
Introduce 2nd Cougar tag for Mule deer impact areas.
Allow hunters to draw for special use hound permits without proving they own hounds, and let them hire a hound hunter to help fulfill the tag in Mule deer impact areas.
Open special permits for bear baiting in mule deer impact areas.
There's no money in this for conservation groups, it's far more profitable to net in habitat projects. Keep herds struggling and keep money flowing in for recovery efforts.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on August 05, 2014, 10:38:45 PM
why not a year round on cougar? It hasn't lead to an annihilation in Oregon. They had hounds stolen from them too by the urban populaces, but can hunt them year round on foot.We need statewide coyote rules for cougar and bear. 24/7 365 hunting predators
Does anyone have any actual attainable suggestions?
Post by: huntnnw on August 05, 2014, 10:40:39 PM
Post by: KFhunter on August 05, 2014, 10:42:40 PM
why not a year round on cougar? It hasn't lead to an annihilation in Oregon. They had hounds stolen from them too by the urban populaces, but can hunt them year round on foot.We need statewide coyote rules for cougar and bear. 24/7 365 hunting predators
Does anyone have any actual attainable suggestions?
Going from our recent insult of a cougar plan to year around hunting would be a big step.
baby steps
Post by: huntnphool on August 05, 2014, 10:46:35 PM
We need statewide coyote rules for cougar and bear. 24/7 365 hunting predators
Does anyone have any actual attainable suggestions?
vastly increase hound permits for cougar in Mule deer impacted areas.
Increase spring draw permits for bear in Mule deer impacted areas, introduce bear 2nd tag in NE WA.
Increase cougar yearly bag limits for Mule deer impacted areas.
Introduce 2nd Cougar tag for Mule deer impact areas.
Allow hunters to draw for special use hound permits without proving they own hounds, and let them hire a hound hunter to help fulfill the tag in Mule deer impact areas.
Open special permits for bear baiting in mule deer impact areas.
There's no money in this for conservation groups, it's far more profitable to net in habitat projects. Keep herds struggling and keep money flowing in for recovery efforts.
The key word in my question is "attainable".
Which one, if any, of your above suggestions are realistic?
Post by: KFhunter on August 05, 2014, 10:53:09 PM
Post by: huntnphool on August 05, 2014, 11:23:33 PM
"The hunting seasons may necessarily need to be adjusted"
This is all part of their plan, the only "adjustments" that are going to be made are to our hunting seasons........period!
Post by: bobcat on August 06, 2014, 12:08:09 AM
We need statewide coyote rules for cougar and bear. 24/7 365 hunting predators
Does anyone have any actual attainable suggestions?
:yeah:
How about this: seasonal road closures, beginning just after the general mule deer season ends, and continuing through winter. This would help to alleviate tribal harvest and poaching.
We all know it's very unlikely that seasons and/or limits on predators will become more liberal. If anything, they will become more restricted. So the best thing that can be done immediately is to reduce human harvest.
I think gating all the prime mule deer winter range would be a good first step.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on August 06, 2014, 05:16:42 AM
Quote from: bobcat link=topic=158010.msg2093420#msg2093420 [/quote
So the best thing that can be done immediately is to reduce human harvest.
Yea we have way too many humans harvested as it is. :tup:
Post by: bearpaw on August 06, 2014, 06:04:42 AM
We need statewide coyote rules for cougar and bear. 24/7 365 hunting predators
Does anyone have any actual attainable suggestions?
:yeah:
How about this: seasonal road closures, beginning just after the general mule deer season ends, and continuing through winter. This would help to alleviate tribal harvest and poaching.
We all know it's very unlikely that seasons and/or limits on predators will become more liberal. If anything, they will become more restricted. So the best thing that can be done immediately is to reduce human harvest.
I think gating all the prime mule deer winter range would be a good first step.
I disagree about predators, I think expanded predator seasons are attainable. We must keep hammering away with a consistent message to expand seasons and use all the cougar problems, wolf sightings, and herd declines as supporting arguments. We may not get hound hunting and we may not get wolf hunting right away, but with all the cougar problems and specific herd problems eventually they will not be able to defend Weilgus' failed cougar philosophy (his conclusions from his studies). A different person can look at the data from his cougar study and draw different conclusion, his conclusion is being proven incorrect.
I don't have a problem closing key winter range, but I don't want to see all areas simply locked up because we think it might help save 1 or 2 deer. There are other factors that will produce more results (1 cougar eats 25-50 deer per year)and there are people who like to get out and recreate in the winter. Sherman Pass in GMU 101 is a perfect example, all that winter range on the east slope has been locked up every winter for decades, there are so many predators that mule deer continue to decline anyway, all that winter range is way under utilized.
Highway signage/fencing in heavy deer areas and awareness programs to reduce feral dog damage might help.
Winter feeding during harsh winters can prevent large herd reductions when done properly. That is a huge factor, if we can prevent large winter reductions then we don't get into these situations where herds are reduced to the point they cannot recover with the large existing predator populations.
There is some great info regarding winter feeding here: http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%201%20March%202004%20Big%20game%20feeding%20in%20Idaho.pdf (http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%201%20March%202004%20Big%20game%20feeding%20in%20Idaho.pdf)
Post by: bearpaw on August 06, 2014, 06:13:16 AM
How many of you read the wolf proposal in its entirety? I posted several parts of it and warned everyone what was going to happen, and it's coming to fruition.
"The hunting seasons may necessarily need to be adjusted"
This is all part of their plan, the only "adjustments" that are going to be made are to our hunting seasons........period!
I have read every page in the past, you are correct. That's why we must remain vocal, there are points to argue as mentioned in my previous posts. Idaho increased cougar/bear harvest to mitigate wolf impacts until they could manage wolves and they are still increasing cougar/bear harvest along with wolf harvest, WA will be forced to do the same or suffer consequences that are certain to come. We are being heard, we must continue to be vocal and point out every detail we can regarding predator impacts in WA.
Post by: DeerMan on August 06, 2014, 01:44:04 PM
I can remember 10-15 years ago the amount of deer that I would see while hunting was significantly more. I don't think that the deer have gotten any wiser, in fact their range and habitat has significantly decreased if anything. I believe that the increase in predator population, specifically cougars & wolves, have played a HUGE role in negatively impacting the deer/elk population........and much more that what the state is willing to admit. Any outdoorsman who spends a little bit of time in the timber each year can attest to this. Another big impact I believe is just the fact that the state has cut the number of wardens and enforcement personnel to keep poachers and violaters on alerts. I think if they were to close and lock more gates and actually force people to get out of their truck, strap up their boots and actually hike a few miles, the number of "illegally taken" animals would greatly reduce. This would affect all hunters including the tribal ones who I believe are a big piece of the problem because they are ALLOWED to run free.
Post by: turbo on August 06, 2014, 01:52:00 PM
But, one topic I don't see discussed enough here and it's in this thread, is how many dead 2 points do you really know of or have seen? I have personally seen 6 deer 2 points shot dead in the woods in the Methow and 1 dead 2 point elk in the LT. And, always near a road!
We have to find a solution for this in my opinion. I bet if we did a poll there would be a shocking number of known unethical shots resulting in found dead 2 points in the woods. It's really sucks.
Maybe if we had a system of something like if you have an "accident" (BS) and make a "bad shot" you can turn yourself in, pay a steep fine, keep your animal and have to go through hunter safety again or 3 strikes your out. Something like that. Or, change the branched antler requirements. I think it's a huge problem mostly being over looked.
It's just one piece of the puzzle but I'm for dramatic changes in the short-term for long lasting results long-term.
Post by: Dhoey07 on August 06, 2014, 02:32:54 PM
Post by: huntnphool on August 06, 2014, 04:57:08 PM
How many of you read the wolf proposal in its entirety? I posted several parts of it and warned everyone what was going to happen, and it's coming to fruition.
"The hunting seasons may necessarily need to be adjusted"
This is all part of their plan, the only "adjustments" that are going to be made are to our hunting seasons........period!
I have read every page in the past, you are correct. That's why we must remain vocal, there are points to argue as mentioned in my previous posts. Idaho increased cougar/bear harvest to mitigate wolf impacts until they could manage wolves and they are still increasing cougar/bear harvest along with wolf harvest, WA will be forced to do the same or suffer consequences that are certain to come.
But what are the consequences? I honestly believe the cards are falling exactly where WDFW want them to fall. Increased predator populations, declining ungulate populations, resulting in fewer and fewer hunting seasons, ultimately closing hunting off to only a lucky few each year in some sort of high priced drawings, and creating "natural balance" in nature.
Post by: bigmacc on August 06, 2014, 05:23:48 PM
A couple years ago Inland empire paper gated the southside of Mica, the hike in is a fairly steep grade and a decent distance. I always wonder how that has effected the animal population. I didn't spend anytime up there before they gated it so I don't really have a base to go off of but I think that it would have to help :twocents: I know that some people have info on the before and after but I wouldn't blame them for not sharing the info
I,ll throw in a little here,and it may be longwinded because this is in stages to really get the picture of where were at today(IMHO)...here we go---as far as the methow goes my grandparents started hunting there when there wernt alot of roads,the early 1900,s and the family still hits it hard til this day(along with other areas in eastern washington).Back then until the 70,s when the pass was completed not alot of people even knew were Winthrop was.It was just a little town at the end of the road and alot of the people hunting the valley (pre north cascade pass days) were locals,friends of locals(which my family was) and people who were informed hunters and alot of those hunters knew each other and knew were the others hunted and stayed out of there way thru respect,heck my great granparents had a huge camp at one time of family and friends that was called "little Bellingham",about 7 or 8 familys in one big camp and they hiked,not drove out of it every day to hunt and everyone had there own spots.It was nothing to see 200 head a day.It was a 2 day trip to get over there back then from Bellingham,spending one night in Cashmere, it was pre I-5 and stevens pass was gravel.Now forward to the north cascades pass opening. Tourism was on the rise and soon the secret was out about this beautiful valley and its abundant wildlife,folks just drove the roads that were punched in during logging ops and were shooting deer from the roads,they would tell a friend and they would tell a friend and soon there were hunters on every rock and camps up every road.About the time my dad started talking to Jim and Sig(the game guys at the time)about road closers was when my dad had hiked into one of his favorite spots and hiked out a different way and came upon 5 motorhomes parked and camped smack dab in one of the migration routes that a road had been cut in.They had some beautiful bucks hanging and one of the guys told him that it was there first time over and then bragged how they shot all 8 bucks from there lawn chairs! Now you still had predator hunting back then without alot of the restrictions we have today so the herd kept plugging along but it didnt take a rocket scientist to figure out that with the influx of all these new hunters and them telling others and and them others, along with all those roads with motorhomes and camp trailors parked in key migration routes and 2 or 3 week seasons that would run into November that all this easy access was not going to be good for deer numbers.After many drives,phone conversations and meetings with Jim and Sig alot of roads were gated and locked, I,m not saying it is all because of my dad but those guys respected his knowledge and his passion for the deer in this valley and they listened. Ive said it before in a different thread and i,ll say it again thats when they were the Washington State GAME Dept and not WDFW and the herd over there was there pride and joy.Now forward to today,roads have been gated (but i still think more needs to be) and you have alot more people living over there(i remember as a kid looking up in the hills and seeing just a few flickering lights in the distance,now the hills are covered with lights),along with all the new residents are people who dont hunt and some are actually anti-hunting(its not the old guard anymore who are the majority in this valley),you have restrictions on hunting predators,who,s population is exploding and a new apex predator is on the scene.Put all this together along with the herds priority getting lost in the shuffle of lots of other interests and concerns of handfuls of groups and government programs,politics etc and i think there is somewhat of a bleek outlook for the deer in this valley i,m afraid. Its a far cry from the deer numbers of old and continues to slide downhill, i,ve seen some significant declines in just the last 7 to 10 years.....as always,just my opinion and my :twocents:
Post by: huntnphool on August 07, 2014, 04:25:44 PM
A couple years ago Inland empire paper gated the southside of Mica, the hike in is a fairly steep grade and a decent distance. I always wonder how that has effected the animal population. I didn't spend anytime up there before they gated it so I don't really have a base to go off of but I think that it would have to help :twocents: I know that some people have info on the before and after but I wouldn't blame them for not sharing the info
Its a far cry from the deer numbers of old and continues to slide downhill, i,ve seen some significant declines in just the last 7 to 10 years.....
And how do you see it after todays announcement?
Post by: bigmacc on August 07, 2014, 05:22:09 PM
A couple years ago Inland empire paper gated the southside of Mica, the hike in is a fairly steep grade and a decent distance. I always wonder how that has effected the animal population. I didn't spend anytime up there before they gated it so I don't really have a base to go off of but I think that it would have to help :twocents: I know that some people have info on the before and after but I wouldn't blame them for not sharing the info
Its a far cry from the deer numbers of old and continues to slide downhill, i,ve seen some significant declines in just the last 7 to 10 years.....
And how do you see it after todays announcement?
Just got home from work phool,what was todays announcement?....almost afraid to know :chuckle:
Post by: bigmacc on August 07, 2014, 06:43:40 PM
A couple years ago Inland empire paper gated the southside of Mica, the hike in is a fairly steep grade and a decent distance. I always wonder how that has effected the animal population. I didn't spend anytime up there before they gated it so I don't really have a base to go off of but I think that it would have to help :twocents: I know that some people have info on the before and after but I wouldn't blame them for not sharing the info
Its a far cry from the deer numbers of old and continues to slide downhill, i,ve seen some significant declines in just the last 7 to 10 years.....
And how do you see it after todays announcement?
Just got home from work phool,what was todays announcement?....almost afraid to know :yike::
Got it,just responded on the fire thread.
Post by: MuleDeer on August 07, 2014, 10:17:40 PM
We need statewide coyote rules for cougar and bear. 24/7 365 hunting predators
Does anyone have any actual attainable suggestions?
vastly increase hound permits for cougar in Mule deer impacted areas.
Increase spring draw permits for bear in Mule deer impacted areas, introduce bear 2nd tag in NE WA.
Increase cougar yearly bag limits for Mule deer impacted areas.
Introduce 2nd Cougar tag for Mule deer impact areas.
Allow hunters to draw for special use hound permits without proving they own hounds, and let them hire a hound hunter to help fulfill the tag in Mule deer impact areas.
Open special permits for bear baiting in mule deer impact areas.
There's no money in this for conservation groups, it's far more profitable to net in habitat projects. Keep herds struggling and keep money flowing in for recovery efforts.
KF, the MDF has supported all of these suggestions in many western states, including WA. Our conservation group isn't here to "rake in money" by keeping herds struggling....the only way we gain credibility and do our jobs is to spend MORE money. Check our record in how we have aggressively supported predator mgmt., harvest limits, timber/habitat mgmt., prescribed burns for fuels reduction, etc all over the West. Habitat is great, and a big part of what we spend our funds on, but that's because it doesn't take us any dollars to support and encourage those other items you mentioned. You name the time and place, and I will gladly meet you there and we'll go through many different projects that MDF has done and pushed as far as all aspects of mgmt. goes. Even the idea that we would want Mule Deer herds to keep struggling so we could keep raising money doesn't even make sense; if we're not successful in helping herds grow and remain healthy, then no one would support us. On the other hand, if we DO get the herds on the road to recovery, then we can spend more $$ on education, youth shooting sports and hunter retention, and other very important goals.
I understand some of you are very skeptical of conservation groups. Maybe you don't like where the money was spent, or, in the case Dale mentioned, only a tiny fraction of the dollars were spent local. I just ask you don't count us out until you know what we will do and what we have done; we're in this for the best interest of the deer, and that's why we want these suggestions and help from all of you.
Post by: police women of America on August 07, 2014, 10:30:28 PM
Post by: MuleDeer on August 07, 2014, 10:31:49 PM
I agree with allot being said here but it's hard to have hope in this state and anyone that says we don't have a predator problem here has cashed in their credibility for me. My question is how much are we going to take? It is my opinion that this is all a plan by a lot of engrained activists within the system to get us out of the woods and regulate or eliminate hunting. Where's my tin foil?
But, one topic I don't see discussed enough here and it's in this thread, is how many dead 2 points do you really know of or have seen? I have personally seen 6 deer 2 points shot dead in the woods in the Methow and 1 dead 2 point elk in the LT. And, always near a road!
We have to find a solution for this in my opinion. I bet if we did a poll there would be a shocking number of known unethical shots resulting in found dead 2 points in the woods. It's really sucks.
Maybe if we had a system of something like if you have an "accident" (BS) and make a "bad shot" you can turn yourself in, pay a steep fine, keep your animal and have to go through hunter safety again or 3 strikes your out. Something like that. Or, change the branched antler requirements. I think it's a huge problem mostly being over looked.
It's just one piece of the puzzle but I'm for dramatic changes in the short-term for long lasting results long-term.
Turbo, and everyone else on here: If you haven't heard of the "Eyes in the Woods" program, look into it. The Mule Deer Foundation sponsors these classes that are put on all over the state, and we want to see more and more often. It is a GREAT class that certifies the attendees as witnesses in case of court cases, but also teaches how to observe and report not only poaching, but the "accidents" you spoke of. If nothing else, it is a great opportunity to talk with local wardens and find out what programs are already in place, and what can be done. I have been to multiple classes in the last year, and I would suggest EVERYONE go to one of these. the two-hour class is full of awesome info that we can all use.
If you are interested in some info, or think it would be useful to have a class near you, let me know and we can get one set up in your town or area. This is another way that we can also be heard and counted as informed hunters who are investing our time to help. Like Dale has said many times, we are being heard, but we have to continue to beat the drum and it will make a difference.
Post by: 180-GRAIN on August 08, 2014, 08:53:49 AM