# Parowan Deer Transplant #2



## elkfromabove

Let me start this thread with some disclaimers:
1) I'm not a biologist! I just ask them a lot of questions.
2) Some of the answers I receive may or may not be the latest up to date knowledge. However, they're pretty accurate.
3) These deer transplants are NOT for the primary purpose of increasing deer herds anywhere else in the state of Utah. They are simply one of the tools used to remove does from winter range that is being over-utilized.
4) The BYU studies are a side benefit that will help us find some answers for the declining mule deer populations in Utah and the west. And any increase in the deer populations in release areas is also a side benefit.
5) I've been told that, except for the DWR salaries and use of DWR equipment, SFW is still paying for these projects.
6) As this thread progresses we may have to combine updates for last year's transplant with this current transplant, depending on how we receive them from Dave and Randy. (The other updates are on the thread "You All Have to Believe It Now")
7) Feel free to ask any questions about the process or updates and I'll answer them as best I can or will find out the answer, but remember that even the biologists don't have all the answers.
8) Please keep this civil!

This first post will be my brief account of the actual transplant (When I use the pronoun "we", I just mean the crew in general):

On Monday, we picked up 33 deer, but 2 of them died and we did necropsies (autopsies) on both of them. One of them (#1) died on the processing table from a broken rib lung puncture. She also happened to have very little body fat which would have likely killed her in a month or so anyway. The other deer (#21) had to be put down in the trailer at the release site east of Holden because she wouldn't/couldn't stand up due to capture myopathy (104* temp and shock). So the count went to 31.

Tuesday's capture was a lot slower due to the increased wind. It made it difficult to judge the trajectory of the net shot from the moving helicopter at a moving, dodging target and it kept the animals in the trees where they couldn't be netted, so they had to be chased out. We picked up our last one (#52) at 4:30.

The deer came in blindfolded and hobbled hanging from the chopper in nets (1 to 6 at a time) and they were gently laid on the ground. They were then taken out of the nets and put on a gurney, weighed, and taken to the tent for processing. On the processing tables in the tent (and sometimes outside on the ground, depending on how many came in at a time), we basically did what we did last year. We gave them a general body inspection for serious wounds, took 2 blood samples and a snipet of anal tissue for CWD tests, pregnancy test, white cell counts, mineral counts, etc. and we also tooth aged them, measured them, measured body fat, collared and ear tagged them (numbered white tags) and gave them a shot of liquid aspirin for pain. Then they were taken to the trailers on the gurney, were unhobbled, and lifted into the trailers. (The blindfolds were removed at the last second.) The trailers took them (up to 15 at a time) to the release sites on the Pahvant, east of Holden where they were released by opening the doors and allowing them to flee. Well, that's a short version of how it went! 

This is just the first session of this year's transplant and we will do another 50 deer transplant in March. We'll keep you posted. And we encourage you to make arrangements to join us. In the meanwhile (and afterward) we'll give you updates.

Stay tuned!
Lee Tracy (UWC)


----------



## BPturkeys

It's my understanding that transplanting deer(mule) simply does not work. The mortality rate in most cases approaches 100%. I hope this works, but I am not holding my breath.


----------



## klbzdad

Thanks for the information, Lee. I sincerely wished I could have been there at least one of the days and was hoping to be there when both days were scheduled for the weekend. Good answers there and I hope they completely separate the two groups from each year so that there isn't any "myopathy" of data.


----------



## elkfromabove

BPturkeys said:


> It's my understanding that transplanting deer(mule) simply does not work. The mortality rate in most cases approaches 100%. I hope this works, but I am not holding my breath.


Perhaps you ought to read the updates of last year's transplant and study which is regularly updated in the other thread (You all have to believe it now) which is now going on it's second year. While there may still be a question about it's success, it isn't very close to the 100% mortality rate we've be lead to believe, at least not yet! Is it worth it? That depends on who you're talking to and what you or they consider to be the costs, not only in terms of money and whose money it is, but also in terms of time, effort, safety and lost hunting opportunities. Could the transplant money be better spent on habitat?, road crossings?, fences,? predator control?, controlled burns?, disease control, and guzzlers? Those are questions and issues we will have to consider as we try to solve the problem of declining mule deer populations.


----------



## elkfromabove

klbzdad said:


> Thanks for the information, Lee. I sincerely wished I could have been there at least one of the days and was hoping to be there when both days were scheduled for the weekend. Good answers there and I hope they completely separate the two groups from each year so that there isn't any "myopathy" of data.


Shawn, 
Both Randy and David said they would try to keep them separate emails, but I may get only one email per week which includes both studies. I'll keep them separate as best I can also.

Edited: I wish you and Carlyle could have been there also, but I think you'd be proud of this old introvert geezer! There was a young female reporter representing I have no idea who, that was interviewing various people that Mr. Bateman told her about and, of course, I wasn't on his list. But I approached her anyway and gave her the scoop on our part in the project. Whether that shows up in some article or TV episode (or not) we'll just have to wait and see.

Well, I saw an article about the transplant in the local weekly paper, "TODAY" (odd name for a weekly paper) and again we weren't mentioned (or photoed), just BYU, DWR and SFW. Oh well! Maybe I should just turn this PR job over to one of them, NOT!


----------



## BPturkeys

elkfromabove said:


> Perhaps you ought to read the updates of last year's transplant and study which is regularly updated in the other thread (You all have to believe it now) which is now going on it's second year. While there may still be a question about it's success, it isn't very close to the 100% mortality rate we've be lead to believe, at least not yet! Is it worth it? That depends on who you're talking to and what you or they consider to be the costs, not only in terms of money and whose money it is, but also in terms of time, effort, safety and lost hunting opportunities. Could the transplant money be better spent on habitat?, road crossings?, fences,? predator control?, controlled burns?, disease control, and guzzlers? Those are questions and issues we will have to consider as we try to solve the problem of declining mule deer populations.


I have it from a reliable source that as of December...data probably from around Sept-Oct...the mortality rate for the first years transplant is around 51%. Hope to get updated data soon but it's my guess the mortality rate will be much higher since they will be compiled from harsh winter months. 
The first years transplant was simply a short move "up the hill a ways" onto property that at least some of the deer may be familiar with and adaptable to...this year the deer are being moved into a totally new habitat. Gee, I hope the SFW gets their publicity for this craziness, cause the deer sure aren't getting much help.
BUT...I want to say thanks to you hard working guys for giving your time and work to the project, in no way am I criticizing you for your efforts.


----------



## elkfromabove

BPturkeys said:


> I have it from a reliable source that as of December...data probably from around Sept-Oct...the mortality rate for the first years transplant is around 51%. Hope to get updated data soon but it's my guess the mortality rate will be much higher since they will be compiled from harsh winter months.
> The first years transplant was simply a short move "up the hill a ways" onto property that at least some of the deer may be familiar with and adaptable to...this year the deer are being moved into a totally new habitat. Gee, I hope the SFW gets their publicity for this craziness, cause the deer sure aren't getting much help.
> BUT...I want to say thanks to you hard working guys for giving your time and work to the project, in no way am I criticizing you for your efforts.


First of all, I'm not sure who your reliable source is, but my reliable sources, who are the 2 BYU professors/biologists doing the hands on study, have sent me 35 emails since the 1st session of the 2013 transplant on Jan 7th and 8th of last year and as of Jan 4th of this year we have 46 known dead, 5 missing, 2 slipped collars and 1 failed collar of the 102 transplanted deer. I guess if you're counting just the 46 known dead that's 45%. But if you add the 5 missing and not the bad collars, that's 50%. And if you're also counting the 3 bad collars, then it's 53%.

Second, the deer were moved 100 miles north to unfamiliar property east of Holden and this year they are being moved to that same exact place. I doubt that any of the transplanted deer knew/know that property.

Third, I'm not affiliated with SFW and our group, United Wildlife Cooperative, only got involved to assure that no public funds were spent on this project and to verify the transplant and study as a third party and to inform the public per our agreement with SFW, DWR, BLM and NRCS on the original range ride that started this whole process.

Fourth, while it's true that we got involved primarily for the above reasons, it's also true that we participated in the transplant itself in order to learn what was different about this transplant and study that would justify doing such transplants in the future instead of using hunts to remove the 500 required deer from this overutilized winter range. We've all learned a lot from this and will be able to determine the viability of such projects in the future.

Fifth, this is a 3 year study, as is the new one, and we can't yet call it over in only one year. There are other issues involved including reproduction, possible predator population increases, fawn to doe ratios, and migration changes among other things.

We appreciate your interest in these projects, but my suggestion to you is to change reliable sources and go to the original sources by following the updates on the other thread. I print the updates from Dave and Randy word for word (with a few occasional minor corrections for spelling, punctuation or math).


----------



## BPturkeys

Thanks Elk, perhaps I do need to check my source better. What is this "other thread" you refer to, sounds like I need to check it out. Many thanks
(PS. I'am a UWC member also)


----------



## elkfromabove

BPturkeys said:


> Thanks Elk, perhaps I do need to check my source better. What is this "other thread" you refer to, sounds like I need to check it out. Many thanks
> (PS. I'am a UWC member also)


 It's "You all have to believe it now". It usually gets bumped back a page or two between updates and it's now on page 2. (Don't bother asking about the title, I sorta highjacked it. Just read it from the beginning.)

Also, since you're a UWC member, feel free to give me your email address and I'll include you in my update forwarding list where you'll get the updates directly. Thanks,
Lee Tracy
UWC Southern Region Chair
[email protected]


----------



## elkfromabove

elkfromabove said:


> Both Randy and David said they would try to keep them separate emails, but I may get only one email per week which includes both studies. I'll keep them separate as best I can also.


I've decided to update both transplants (2013 and 2014) only on this thread because I've only gotten one update since the transplant in January and that update (see below) integrates both transplants to the point that it would be far too time consuming and confusing to separate them or post the update on both threads (this one and "You All Have to Believe It Now"). Besides, the title of this one better defines the content. Thanks!

Now for the update!

Mule deer translocation update for January 5 - January 31.

It has been a very busy several weeks. Thanks to all for help with a successful start to the second year of captures and releases associated with the Parowan Front transplant project. We captured and radio-marked 20 new resident deer on the Pahvant (control group) as well as recapturing 20 translocated deer from 2013 to evaluate body condition. We also captured 48* new deer along the Parowan Front and released them near Holden.

Mortality rates have slowed dramatically since deer returned to winter range during Fall of 2013 as none of the transplants from 2013 have died within the past 4 weeks. We picked up 2 translocated deer mortalities from the new translocation and 3 resident deer mortalities in January. We suspect one of the newly translocated deer mortalities to have been cougar predation; the other newly translocated deer mortality appears to be capture related (capture myopathy or related cause). Of the 3 resident deer, 1 mortality was capture related and we suspect the other 2 resident mortalities to be predation by coyotes (1) and a young cougar (1) based on teeth marks in collars and tracks in the snow.

One of the initial questions with the transplant was whether or not transplanted deer would suffer increased risk of capture myopathy (death due to stress** associated with capture). To date, there has been no difference between translocated and resident deer in terms of the percentage that die due to capture-related causes. Eight of 153* transplanted deer (5.2%) have died as a result of capture-related causes (e.g., injuries from capture or capture myopathy). By comparison, 8 of 163 (4.9%) resident deer captured as part of this project and the Monroe Mountain fawn survival project have died due to capture. The majority of these deaths have been related to injuries sustained during capture (e.g., broken backs, punctured lung, etc.).

Now that a full year has passed since the initial transplant, we've summarized the mortality information. Eight of 50 (16%) resident deer died during 2013 compared to 26 of 51 (51%) transplanted deer from January of 2013 and 21 of 51 (41%) transplanted deer from March of 2013. There may be another mortality or two before the March 2013 deer reach a full year and thus we do not expect to find a significant difference in survival between January and March transplants.

Average body fat estimates were 9.37% for resident Pahvant deer, 8.08% for 2013 transplants that were recaptured, and 7.97% for newly captured deer from the Parowan Front.

During the capture of resident deer and recapture of translocated deer from 2013 on the Pahvant we were able to capture a missing deer with a failed radio. We've replaced the radio on this female and expect regular contact with her moving forward. The recapture of this female underscores one of the big discoveries from the initial year. That discovery is the very high fidelity of transplanted deer to the winter range where they were released. Despite ranging far and wide during the summer, the vast majority of transplanted deer from 2013 have returned to the winter range (and often the very same couple of square miles) where they were released and spent the last winter. For a few of these deer, it would have been easier (and closer) to return to the Parowan Front. Translocation of mule deer to unused winter ranges may be a way to re-establish use of these ranges.

We are currently missing 5 translocated deer and 2 resident deer. Three of these deer have been missing for several months.

In summary, we've had 62 total mortalities (10 of 70 resident deer, 52 of 153 translocated deer) and 6 slipped collars (4 resident, 2 translocated). Fifty four resident deer and 94 translocated deer were alive and accounted for at the end of this week.

Thanks to all for continued interest and support.

David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)

From Lee:
*I believe the numbers are a bit off because I missed a couple of hours toward the end of the transplant of the second day because I had to pick up 3 grandkids from school and by the time we got back to the transplant site they were just dropping of the last deer. So the grandkids and I got to watch the processing and I thought the last deer was tagged with the number 52. However, since I wasn't helping this time I could have been mistaken. Also, there were 2 deaths from the previous day. One died on the processing table from a broken rib causing a punctured lung per the necropsy (autopsy) and the other deer wouldn't/couldn't stand up at the release site due to capture myopathy and had to be put down (head shot). In any case, we'll probably get the numbers cleared up with the next update.

**Stress can cause high temps, high blood pressure, rapid heartbeats, rapid and shallow breathing, and shock among other things.

Until the next update!

Lee Tracy
Southern Region Chair
United Wildlife Cooperative


----------



## elkfromabove

Hmm, Let's try again. This here computer of my son-in-law wouldn't let me* bold* when I wanted in the tables sent in this update and when I tried to fix it, it dumped the whole update. I guess I'm going to have to post and edit, and post and edit, and post and edit 'til I get this right.

I was hoping that the various updates would be simple to sort out, but such is not the case. Now we've got two 2013 Parowan updates (Jan & Mar), one 2014 Parowan update (so far) (Jan), and two Antelope Island updates (Feb to Oak Creek & Feb to San Juan) all in the same email! Please be patient, so I don't become a patient! I'll post this as best I can, but I may have to sort this out and start another thread for Antelope Island (or ignore that transplant).

Mule deer translocation update for February 1 - February 17

Mortality rates have remained low during February with only 2 translocated deer mortalities so far. Both of these deer were from the 2013 March translocation. One deer was found in the foothills between Fillmore and Holden, and appeared to be coyote predation. The other deer was found partially consumed and cached, suggesting cougar predation. With these 2 mortalities, it appears that annual survival of transplanted deer released in January of 2013 will be almost identical to that of deer released in March of 2013 at around 50% (after excluding the missing deer from the sample).

During the first week in February, we participated in the capture of mule deer on Antelope Island. Thanks to everyone for helping move 99 deer off of Antelope Island. These deer were released on the Oak Creek and the San Juan Mountain Ranges. These deer appear to be doing will with no mortalities to date other than 1 deer that died of capture trauma (internal bleeding, broken ribs, etc.). We (including Dustin Mitchell and Riley Peck) have observed many of these deer integrated into groups with resident deer.

We are currently missing 5 translocated deer and 2 resident deer. Three of these deer have been missing for several months. In an effort to help everyone keep track of the alive, missing, and dead deer information we will provide data in tabular format (see table below; thanks for the suggestion Greg).

In summary, 53 resident deer and 91 translocated deer (from Parowan) were alive and accounted for on the Pahvant Range. Forty nine of 49 deer were alive and accounted for on the San Juan at last check and Forty six of 47 deer on the Oak Creek Mountains were also alive and accounted for (1 missing).

Thanks to all for continued interest and support. Please forward to anyone else interested and let us know if there is additional information you would like reported in our regular updates.

David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)

Now, my version of the tables. It may take a few edits. Lee Tracy (UWC)

Parowan to Pahvant transplant & Pahvant resident control deer:
Jan'13-resident-*50*captured/*35*alive/*9*dead/*4*slipped collars/*2*missing
Jan'13-transplanted-*51*captured/*23*alive/*26*dead/*2*missing
Mar'13-transplanted-*51*captured/*23*alive/*23*dead/*2*slipped collars/*2*missing
Jan'14-resident-*20*captured/*18*alive/*2*dead
Jan'14-transplanted-*52*captured/*45*alive/*7*dead
Causes of death:
Jan'13-resident-*9*total/*1*cougar/*5*coyote/*2*unkown/*1*disease
Jan'13-trans-*26*total/*9*cougar/*2*coyote/*1*bobcat/*3*vehicle/*1*poacher/*6*unkown/*2*capture/*2*disease
Mar'13-trans-*23*total/*7*cougar/*5*coyote/*2*poacher/*5*unknown/*2*capture/*2*disease
Jan'14-resident-*2*total/*1*cougar/*1*capture
Jan'14-trans-*7*total/*1*cougar/*6*capture

Antelope Island to Oak Creek:
Feb'14-transplanted-*47*captured*/*46*alive/*1*missing

Antelope Island to San Juan:
Feb'14-transplanted-*50*captured**/*49*alive/*1*dead
Causes of death:
*1*total/*1*capture

*49 actually captured but 2 fawns were returned to the island without collars/radios
**51 actually captured but 1 fawn was returned to the island without a collar/radio

That wasn't too bad once I figured it out. (And edited!)
Until next time!
Lee Tracy (UWC)


----------



## elkfromabove

This update will be a summary of the latest transplant session we did on Sunday. (Mar 9th)

The volunteers started a few minutes after 8:00am with finishing up the setup that the DWR employees had started earlier. The helicopter crew (Dragonfly) had already gone out and were in the process of capturing the first batch. That first batch was our second smallest of the day with only 3 deer. In total, we captured 48 deer with only a single in the last few minutes of daylight. All of the other batches were 5 or 6 deer.

The original goal for the day was 40 deer, but they came in faster than anticipated. And the original goal for the session was 50 mature does, but two of the deer captured were fawns and the DWR decided at the end of the day that it wasn't worth coming back the next day to capture the other 4 does needed to fill the quota.

In any case, we did the normal testing, measuring, weighing, tagging, collaring, and injecting of the does. But this time, about a dozen of them were also given vaginal inserts like the Monroe does, so that the spring fawns could be studied as well. The 2 captured fawns (1 doe, 1 buck) were tagged and collared, but not measured or tested as much.

I haven't heard about the release, but I'll get that info later today and edit this update if needed.

All in all, this transplant went well and rather quickly even though there were far fewer volunteers than we've seen in the other sessions. Maybe the Sunday schedule had a lot to do with it. Also, again, SFW came up with a marvelous breakfast and lunch for which we were grateful.

I'll get back with you as soon as we get another update!

Thanks for viewing,
Lee Tracy (UWC)

Edited: All deer seemed to be ok at the release site. They were released at night and thus were reluctant to leave the trailers because of the darkness. Teresa said several of them laid on the ground for a few seconds or minutes in a sprawl as if to hide, but all eventually bounded off in different directions.

Edited again: I forgot to mention that per the ultrasound, 25 of the 26 mature does was pregnant, most with twins.


----------



## Lonetree

"One died on the processing table from a broken rib causing a punctured lung per the necropsy (autopsy) and the other deer wouldn't/couldn't stand up at the release site due to capture myopathy and had to be put down (head shot)."


Capture Myopathy: 
Physiological imbalances following excessive exertion, struggle and stress, frequently associated with capture, confinement and transport, particularly if a prolonged chase or struggling occurs. May occur associated with both physical capture and chemical immobilisation.
Intense muscular activity leads to anaerobic glycolysis, elevated lactic acid levels and metabolic acidosis. Also increased plasma potassium (hyperkalaemia) and catecholamine release, together resulting in reduced cardiac output, reduced tissue perfusion, severe muscle hypoxia and necrosis.
Selenium deficiency or vitamin E deficiency may predispose to the development of capture myopathy.

White Muscle disease:
White muscle disease (WMD) is a degenerative muscle disease found in all large animals. It is caused by a deficiency of selenium and/or vitamin E. In addition to WMD, selenium and vitamin E deficiencies can produce symptoms of ill thrift and reproductive losses: lower conception rates, fetal reabsorption, dystocia, retained placenta, reduced milk production, and reduced semen quality. WMD is most commonly found in newborns or fast growing animals.

Muscle that has been affected by WMD, or Capture Myopathy appear identical under a microscope.

Now these deer in the study have had blood tests, to check their mineral content, so they can't possibly have a mineral/selenium deficiency, right? I mean, I bet there are even some samples that show high selenium? And yet.........More to come on this part.

Consider this, chasing deer with net guns and helicopters, probably induces similar stresses as pack hunting, pursuit predators(coyotes). So if we had deer, that were experiencing subclinical selenium deficiencies, would it not be reasonable to assume, that pursuit predators would have an advantage, over a prey species, suffering from a condition, that creates weakness, when pursued, not to mention, probable repeated pursuit?

And if deer were suffering from such a condition, would you also see, higher fawn survival rates with the removal of coyotes(Monroe study)? And if the condition persisted, exacerbating other mortality issues, would you not then see those gains in fawn survival, lost in the long run, with predation looking to be compensatory, like has been seen over and over again in other predator removal studies, in the last decade or so?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Have you been reading Dale Carnegie books again?:grin:


----------



## Lonetree

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Have you been reading Dale Carnegie books again?:grin:


:mrgreen:


----------



## elkfromabove

Here's the latest!

Mule deer translocation update for February 18 - March 12

*Project background/goals:* Only limited information is available from which to judge the efficacy of transplanting mule deer. As a consequence, SFW initiated and funded the current project with BYU, UDWR, and now Utah State Parks as partners. Project goals consist of evaluating the movements (including site fidelity) , reproduction, and survival of transplanted mule deer. We initially elected for a hard release (capture, transport, and immediate release) as opposed to a soft release (holding pens for acclamation period) because of the less practical and more costly nature of soft releases for broad-scale management. We chose to release deer in early (January) and late (March) winter because ungulate movement potential is often related to condition such that animals in better condition (early winter) may travel more than animals in poorer condition (end of winter). This line of thought suggested that deer released towards the end of winter (March) may be more likely to stay near the release sites then deer released earlier in the winter. Moreover, we were interested in whether or not managers could use transplants throughout the winter to address management issues (e.g. under or overused winter range, urban deer conflicts, etc.). Specific information related to the most recent developments is outlined below.

Thanks to all for help in completing the March 2014 round of transplants from the Parowan Front this past week, We captured, radio-collared, and relocated 48 deer (1 fawn released without radio) from the Parowan Front to Holden in a duplication of last year's efforts. There were no capture-related mortalities and all 48 deer left the trailers..

We've had 4 translocated deer mortalities in the last four weeks. Three of these mortalities occurred on the Oak Creek Mountains and 1 on the Pahvant. Two of the 3 mortalities on the Oak Creeks appear to be predation (1 cougar, 1 coyote). We are unsure of the cause of the third mortality as only the collar (no carcass) was located. Blood on the intact collar, however suggests the deer is dead (as opposed to a slipped collar) ant the collar was likely carried away from the carcass. The dead deer on the Pahvant was almost completely consumed, but snow erased any sign of tracks and left little evidence to determine cause of death.

Of note, there have been no mortalities of January 2013 transplants (now in their second year post release) for nearly 3 months (last one occurred in the middle of December). In our view, the movements and survival of transplanted deer during their second year will be one of the most important pieces of information associated with this study.

In addition, Dustin Mitchel reports that only 1 of the deer transplanted from Antelope Island to the San Juan unit has died to date. As of last week, the majority of transplanted deer were near release sites with a few beginning to move towards higher elevations.

We were able to locate 3 of our missing deer during our flight yesterday (2 resident and 1 translocated) on winter range between Fillmore and Holden. All 3 of the collars have weak signals and may be difficult to locate from the ground as spring approaches and deer begin moving toward summer range. With these deer located, we are now only missing 4 translocated deer, all of which were released in 2013 and have been missing for many months.

In summary, 55 resident deer and 139 translocated deer (from Parowan) were alive and accounted for on the Pahvant Range. Forty four of 44 transplanted deer on the Oak Creek Mountains were also alive and accounted for (see updated and corrected table below for summarized information).

Thanks to all for continued interest and support. Please forward to anyone else interested and let us know if there is additional information you would like reported in our regular updates.

David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)

*Parowan to Pahvant transplant & Pahvant resident control deer:*
Jan'13-resident-*50*captured/*37*alive/*9*dead/*4*slipped collars
Jan'13-transplanted-*51*captured/*23*alive/*26*dead/*2*missing
Mar'13-transplanted-*51*captured/*23*alive/*24*dead/*2*slipped collars/*2*missing
Jan'14-resident-*20*captured/*18*alive/*2*dead
Jan'14-transplanted-*52*captured/*46*alive/*6*dead
Mar'14-transplanted-*48*captured/*47*alive/*1*released w/o radio
*Causes of Death:*
Jan'13-res-*9*total/*1*cougar/*5*coyote/*2*unknown/*1*disease
Jan'13-trans-*26*total/*9*cougar/*2*coyote/*1*bobcat/*3*vehicle/*1*poach/*6*unknown/*2*capture/*2*disease
Mar'13-trans-*24*total/*7*cougar/*5*coyote/*2*poacher/*6*unknown/*2*capture/*2*disease
Jan'14-res-*2*total/*1*cougar/*1*capture
Jan'14-trans-*6*total/*1*cougar/*4*capture/*1*capture/disease?

*Antelope Island to Oak Creek Transplant:*
Feb'14-transplanted-*47*captured/*44*alive/*3*dead
*Causes of death:*
Feb'14-trans-*3*total/*1*cougar/*1*coyote/*1*unknown

*Antelope Island to San Juan Transplant:*
Feb'14-transplanted-*50*captured/*48*alive/*2*dead
*Causes of death:*
Feb'14-trans-*2*total/*1*unknown/*1*capture

Edited: Some of my figures don't match the original chart because there were some deer captured, transported and released that weren't collared and others that died in the trailers or at the release site that aren't counted as capture related, but I think I've got it right.

Lee Tracy (UWC)


----------



## Lonetree

So with every other species, we move them from areas where we have animals, to areas where we don't have them. This is of course to perpetuate the species, recover them to former ranges, or to supplement existing herds, that were typically transplanted themselves. But with deer its different, and let me make sure I understand this. With deer, we move them from areas where we have them, to areas we already have them, and the result is a net loss of deer, at great expense and effort? :-? Maybe I am missing something?


----------



## ridgetop

Lonetree, 
I'm pretty sure your missing something on so many different levels.


----------



## Vanilla

Looks like cougars are racist against transplanted deer...


----------



## Lonetree

ridgetop said:


> Lonetree,
> I'm pretty sure your missing something on so many different levels.


So true, just not this level, that's why I'm confused. If this was a thread about how to win friends on the internet, or "life outside of the unibomber shack", or maybe a thread about tailoring your comedy to an audience larger than one, then yeah, my bewilderment, and lack of understanding would be well founded. But I've been following this for over a year, and even with the help of others, I just can't find the practical, constructive use of deer transplants, in the context of mule deer conservation. Maybe it takes a particular perspective to grasp it?


----------



## DallanC

Lonetree said:


> But I've been following this for over a year, and even with the help of others, I just can't find the practical, constructive use of deer transplants, in the context of mule deer conservation. Maybe it takes a particular perspective to grasp it?


These are problem deer in over populated areas that are being transplanted right? The alternative is to have a hunt and kill them off which removes the over population problem. A dead deer helps 1 hunter. How many Does does it take to establish a herd? Death rate of 50% is bad but still, we are talking several hundred survivors to help boister existing herds. Survivors might just help hundreds of hunters down the road.

Its good research, and interesting to view the results.

-DallanC


----------



## Lonetree

DallanC said:


> These are problem deer in over populated areas that are being transplanted right? The alternative is to have a hunt and kill them off which removes the over population problem. A dead deer helps 1 hunter. How many Does does it take to establish a herd? Death rate of 50% is bad but still, we are talking several hundred survivors to help boister existing herds. Survivors might just help hundreds of hunters down the road.
> 
> Its good research, and interesting to view the results.
> 
> -DallanC


That is a death rate of 50%, during an upswing/rebound in the deer population, with deer that are relatively healthy. There is no "bolstering" affect, that is already happening on its own, as deer numbers rise, regardless of transplants. When they begin to fall, the numbers will make even less sense if this is attempted. Currently this is not, technically, costing us as sportsmen, but this will be the next $5 "fee" tacked onto big game tags in the future, that does nothing to actually grow deer, or hunter opportunity.

There is not currently a need to "establish" mule deer herds. There is a need to understand the limiting factors of existing herds, and this does nothing to address that.

Yes, the "results" are very interesting. And I never get tired of explaining the whole thing, while the out of state biologists and researchers, patiently wait for the punch line.


----------



## Lonetree

Question: What did we do with all the "problem" deer on Antelope island, in the past?


----------



## elkfromabove

Lonetree said:


> Question: What did we do with all the "problem" deer on Antelope island, in the past?


 I don't know, but maybe there weren't any "problem" deer on Antelope Island until we discovered we had found another justifiable use for Denny Austad's money. Or maybe we just transplanted more coyotes _to _Antelope Island to take care of the problem. :grin:


----------



## swbuckmaster

Yes good question, how come there hasn't been a problem with the deer on antelope island in the past. Was the state shooting does? The deer number problem seem to increase as soon as you could shed hunt and then hunt. Did they start shooting coyotes to give Denny more opportunity at bucks?


----------



## elkfromabove

It's been a while, but here's the latest update!
From Lee: As in previous updates the numbers on the tables include fawns that were not collared and do not include some does that died before being released. I'll make those adjustments. Additionally, this update makes reference to the annual report that was attached to the email, but it's basically a summary of all of the updates and I don't have the computer skills or the time to include it. If any of you want it, just email me at [email protected] msn.com and I'll forward it to you. Thanks, Lee

Mule deer translocation update for March 13 - April 7

*Project background/goals:* (From Lee, See prior update).

We presented the first year's results at the Utah Chapter of the Wildlife Society meetings and UDWR's Wildlife Section meetings in March. Additionally, we completed a short article on year one results for "The Sportsmen's Voice" (SFW's magazine) and have now finished the annual report.

As part of the annual report, we completed some additional analysis of survival rates during year one and have found strong support for age as an important influence with younger deer surviving better than older transplants. Annual survival of 2-year old transplants , for example, was estimated at 65% compared to only 29% for 7-year olds. Additional details on this discovery can be found in the attached report.

There are no new mortalities to report over the last month for resident deer (control group) or for translocated deer currently in their second year (moved during 2013). It has been nearly 4 months (mid December) since any of the January 2013 transplants (now in their second year post release) have died. If this pattern continues to hold, translocated deer will have much higher survival during their second year. In our view, the movements and survival of transplanted deer during their second year will be one of the most important pieces of information associated with this study.

We've had 11 translocated deer mortalities (all captured and released in 2014) since the last update. Three of these mortalities occurred on the Oak Creek Mountains and 8 on the Pahvant. We suspect 2 of the mortalities on the Oak Creeks to be predation (1 coyote, 1 cougar). We are unsure of the cause of the third mortality on the Oak Creeks as we found the deer mostly consumed, leaving very little evidence to determine cause of death. We suspect 2 of the 8 mortalities on the Pahvant to be cougar predation (tracks and cached), 2 to be coyote predation, 3 unknown (no carcass found for 2 of these deer), and 1 that we initially suspected had been poached. This deer had skeletal damage consistent with a high velocity impact. Cody Jones (local conservation officer) investigated, but could not locate a bullet and the cause of death remains unclear because the skeletal damage could have been caused by a vehicle collision or perhaps one of the weights from the net used to capture the deer. The mortality rate during the spring this year has been very similar to that observed in 2013 for the first transplant. In March and the first 10 days of April 2013, we lost 7 transplanted deer on the Pahvant compared to 8 this year.

We are currently missing 6 translocated deer and 2 resident deer. The 2 resident deer and 1 of the translocated deer were located on winter range during the last flight. All 3 of these deer have extremely weak signals and we were unable to locate them on the ground. One of the missing deer is from the March 2014 capture. The rest have been missing sinc early in 2013.

In summary, 53 resident deer and 129 translocated deer (from Parowan) were alive and accounted for on the Pahvant Range. Thirty eight of 41 transplanted deer on the Oak Creek Mountains were also alive and accounted for (see updated and corrected table below for summarized information)(From Lee, see the _really_ updated and corrected table below of summarized information ).

Thanks to all for continued interest and support. Please forward to anyone else interested and let us know if there is additional information you would like reported in our regular update.

David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)

From Lee: I'll get back with the tables in a bit. My daughter needs the computer! Ain't life grand!

Edited:
*Parowan to Pahvant transplant & Pahvant resident control deer:*
Jan'13-resident-*50*captured/*35*alive/*9*dead/*4*slipped collars/*2*missing
Jan'13-transplanted-*51*captured/*23*alive/*26*dead/*2*missing
Mar'13-transplanted-*51*captured/*22*alive/*24*dead/*2*slipped collars/*3*missing
Jan'14-resident-*20*captured/*18*alive/*2*dead
Jan'14-transplanted-*52*captured/*44*alive/*8*dead
Mar'14-transplanted-*47*captured/*40*alive/*6*dead/*1*missing
*Causes of Death:*
Jan'13-res-*9*total/*1*cougar/*5*coyote/*2*unknown/*1*disease
Jan'13-trans-*26*total/*9*cougar/*2*coyote/*1*bobcat/*3*vehicle/*1*poach/*6*unknown/*2*capture/*2*disease
Mar'13-trans-*24*total/*7*cougar/*5*coyote/*2*poach/*6*unknown/*2*capture/*2*disease
Jan'14-res-*2*total/*1*cougar/*1*capture
Jan'14-trans-*8*total/*1*cougar/*2*unknown/*4*capture (unable to resolve, but will keep looking, Lee)
Mar'14-trans-*6*total/*2*cougar/*2*coyote/*2*unknown

*Antelope Island to Oak Creek Transplant deer:*
Feb'14-transplanted-*47*captured/*38*alive/*6*dead/*3*missing
*Causes of Death:*
Feb'14-trans-*6*total/*2*cougar/*2*coyote/*2*unknown

*Antelope Island to San Juan Transplant deer:*
Feb'14-transplanted-*50*captured/*48*alive/*2*dead
*Causes of Death:*
Feb'14-trans-*2*total/*1*unknown/*1*capture

Until next update!
Lee Tracy (UWC)


----------



## elkfromabove

Another update! (From Lee, Again, see previous update for my disclaimers about "Project background/goals" and the tables below)

Mule deer translocation update for April 8 - April 24.

We've had 4 translocated deer mortalities (2 Pahvant, 2 Oak Creek), 1 slipped collar (translocated), and 2 resident deer mortalities (all captured and released in 2014) since the last update.

*Pahvant *(2 translocated, 2 resident, 1 slipped collar)
- 1 translocated deer and 1 resident deer are suspected coyote predations
- 1 translocated deer mortality was caused by a vehicle collision on the east side of the mountain range (near highway 50).
- 1 resident deer was found mostly consumed leaving very little evidence to determine cause of death.
- 1 slipped collar found near a fence. The necklace material appears to have failed prematurely.
*Oak Creek *(2 translocated)
- 1 translocated deer mortality was a cougar predation (tracks and cached).
- 1 translocated deer mortality was found mostly consumed, with very little evidence to determine cause of death.

As of the last check, there have been 4 total mortalities from the deer translocated to the San Juan Unit (Thanks Dustin). The table below has been updated to reflect changes.

It has been more than 4 months since any of the deer released in January of 2013 have died and now nearly 2 months since any of the deer released in March of 2013 have died. If this pattern continues to hold, transplanted deer will have much higher survival in their second year following release.

CWD results came back negative for the January 2014 Parowan capture and the February 2014 Antelope Island capture (Thanks Leslie).

We are currently missing 7 translocated deer and 2 resident deer. The 2 resident deer ande 1 of the translocated deer were located on winter range during the last flight. All 3 of these deer have extremely weak signals and we were unable to locate them on the ground. Two of the missing deer are from the 2014 translocations. The rest have been missing since early in 2013.

Thanks to all for continued interest and support. Please forward to anyone else interested and let us know if there is additional information you would like reported in our regular updates.

*Parowan to Pahvant transplanted and Pahvant resident control deer:*
Jan'13-resident-*50*captured/*35*alive/*9*dead/*4*slipped collars/*2*missing
Jan'13-transplanted-*51*captured/*23*alive/*26*dead/*2*missing
Mar'13-translocated-*51*captured/*22*alive/*24*dead/*2*slipped collars/*3*missing
Jan'14-resident-*20*captured/*16*alive/*4*dead
Jan'14-transplanted-*51*captured/*43*alive/*7*dead/*1*missing (corrected from previous update)
Mar'14-transplanted-*47*captured/*37*alive/*8*dead/*1*slipped collar/*1*missing
*Causes of Death:* From Lee: There was a change in the older cougar/coyote figures (from 1 cougar and 5 coyote to 2 cougar and 4 coyote) for the resident deer on Jan 2013, but I'm not sure if it was just a typo. In any case I'll just include the change until I find out otherwise. The other changes are either new or corrected.
Jan'13-res-*9*dead/*2*cougar/*4*coyote/*2*unknown/*1*disease
Jan'13-trans-*26*dead/*9*cougar/*2*coyote/*1*bobcat/*3*vehicle/*1*poach/*6*unknown/*2*capture/*2*disease
Mar'13-trans-*24*dead/*7*cougar/*5*coyote/*2*poach/*6*unknown/*2*capture/*2*disease
Jan'14-res-*4*dead/*1*cougar/*1*coyote/*1*unknown/*1*capture
Jan'14-trans-*7*dead/*2*cougar/*1*unknown/*4*capture (corrected from previous update)
Mar'14-trans-*8*dead/*2*cougar/*2*coyote/*1*vehicle/*3*unknown (new)

*Antelope Island to Oak Creek Transplanted deer:*
Feb'14-transplanted-*47*captured/*36*alive/*8*dead/*3*missing (new)
*Causes of Death:*
Feb'14-trans-*8*dead/*3*cougar/*2*coyote/*3*unknown (new)

*Antelope Island to San Juan Transplanted deer:*
Feb'14-transplanted-*50*captured/*44*alive/*6*dead (new)
*Causes of Death:*
Feb'14-trans-*6*dead/*1*cougar/*1*vehicle/*2*unknown/*2*capture (new)

Thanks for looking! Until next time.
Lee Tracy (UWC)


----------



## elkfromabove

elkfromabove said:


> It's been a while, but here's the latest update!
> From Lee: As in previous updates the numbers on the tables include fawns that were not collared and do not include some does that died before being released. I'll make those adjustments.


From Lee: This update is edited by myself for simplification of the numbers. If you prefer the original send me an email request at [email protected]sn.com.

Mule deer translocation update for April 25 - May 27

*Project background/goals: *(From Lee, See prior updates).

Since the last update, we have had 5 translocated deer mortalities on the Pahvant (1 from Jan 2013, 1 from Mar 2013, 1 from Jan 2014, 2 from Mar 2014), 2 resident deer mortalities on the Pahvant (both from Jan 2013) and 3 translocated deer mortalities on the Oak Creeks.

Pahvant
-2 translocated deer and 1 resident deer are suspected coyote predations
-1 translocated deer appears to be a bobcat predation (cached and small
cat tracks).
-1 resident deer was found whole with little scavenging. There was no
evidence on or around the carcass (caching, tracks, wounds, etc.) to
determine cause of death. It is probable that this deer died from a
cause other than predation, but given the heat, it was too decomposed
to determine which disease it had died from.
-2 translocated deer were found almost completely consumed (likely
coyotes) with limited evidence to confirm cause of death.

Oak Creeks
-2 translocated deer mortalities are suspected coyote predations.
-1 translocated deer was found almost completely consumed (likely
coyotes) with limited evidence to confirm cause of death.

San Juan
As of the last check, there have been 5 total mortalities from the deer
translocated to the San Juan Unit (sic, 6 counting one that died in
the trailer before being transplanted). The majority of deer have stayed
close to the release site with some limited movement south.

Transplanted deer in their second year continue to demonstrate high survival with only 2 deaths to date for deer in their second year (n=44 deer). As a comparison, we have observed a total of 4 mortalities for resident deer captured in 2013 (36 deer alive at the beginning of January).

The attached kmz (google earth) file shows the spatial location of all mortalities to date.................. From Lee: Email me if you want it. I'll forward the whole update as I received it.

We have observed a lot of movement to summer range from both resident and translocated deer in recent weeks and are currently missing 9 Pahvant translocated deer (5 from 2013 - most are long-term missing, 4 from 2014), 2 Pahvant resident deer, and 3 on the Oak Creeks. We expect to be able to access the top of the Pahvant this week as a couple of very large drifts melt out and should be able to find many of these deer. One of the most interesting questions to be answered over the next couple of weeks is whether deer in their 2nd summer following translocation will return to the areas they summered in last year.

Thanks to all for continued interest and support. Please forward to anyone else interested and let us know if there is additional information you would like reported in our regular updates.

David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)

From Lee: Edited Tables:

*Parowan Front to Pahvant Transplanted and Pahvant Resident Control Deer:*
Jan 13-res-*50*captured-*32*alive-*11*dead-*4*slipped collar-*3*missing
Jan 13-trans-*51*captured-*21*alive-*27*dead-*3*missing
Mar 13-trans-*51*captured-*21*alive-*25*dead-*2*slipped collar-*3*missing
Jan 14-res-*20*captured-*15*alive-*4*dead-*1*missing
Jan 14-trans-*51*captured-*39*alive-*8*dead-*4*missing
Mar14-trans-*47*captured-*35*alive-*10*dead-*1*slipped collar-*1*missing
*Causes of Death:*
Jan 13-res-*11*dead-*2*cougar-*5*coyote-*3*unknown-*1*disease
Jan 13-trans-*27*dead-*9*cou-*2*coy-*2*bobcat-*3*vehicle-*1*poach-*6*unk-*2*capture-*2*dis
Mar 13-trans-*25*dead-*7*cou-*5*coy-*2*poach-*7*unk-*2*cap-*2*dis
Jan 14-res-*4*dead-*1*cou-*1*coy-*1*unk-*1*cap
Jan 14-trans-*8*dead-*2*cou-*1*coy-*1*unk-*4*cap
Mar 14-trans-*10*dead-*2*cou-*3*coy-*1*veh-*4*unk

*Antelope Island to Oak Creek Transplanted Deer:*
Feb 14-trans-*47*captured-*33*alive-*11*dead-*3*missing
*Causes of Death:*
Feb 14-trans-*11*dead-*3*cou-*4*coy-*4*unk

*Antelope Island to San Juan Transplanted Deer:*
Feb 14-trans-*50*captured-*44*alive-*6*dead
*Causes of Death:*
Feb 14-trans-*6*dead-*1*cou-*1*veh-*2*unk-*2*cap

Thanks for looking, until next update,
Lee Tracy (UWC)


----------



## elkfromabove

elkfromabove said:


> From Lee: This update is edited by myself for simplification of the numbers. If you prefer the original send me an email request at [email protected].
> 
> Mule deer translocation update for May 28 - June 21
> 
> *Project background/goals: *(From Lee, See prior updates).
> 
> We have had 2 translocated deer mortalities (1 from January 2014, 1 from March 2014) on the Pahvant since the last update (no resident, 2nd year transplants, or Oak Creek deer mortalities). We suspect both of these deer were cougar predations. Deer in their second year continue to demonstrate much higher survival than year 1 and at this point it looks like it is comparable to resident deer.
> 
> Additionally, survival rates appear to be higher this year than last year-particularly for January transplants. Between January and June of 2013, we picked up radio collars from 5 resident deer, 12 January transplants, and 12 March transplants (sample sizes were 50, 51, and 51, respectively). During that same time frame in 2014, we've picked up collars from only 6 January 2014 transplants, 11 March 2014 transplants, and 11 February 2014 (Oak Creek) transplants (sample sizes were 48, 47, and 47 respectively). Moreover, at last count, only 5 (sic 6) of the deer transplanted to the San Juan unit have died.
> 
> We have observed that many of the 2013 translocated deer have returned directly to the areas they ended the summer in last year during spring migration. It will be interesting to make a formal comparison of movement (from GPS data) as deer transitioned from winter to summer ranges.
> 
> We are still seeing movements of 2014 translocated deer. We currently have 2 deer from the 2014 translocation on the Beaver. We suspect that 2 of our missing 2014 deer may also be on the Beaver. We also have 3 deer from Antelope Island that have moved from the Oak Creeks to areas north of Mona.
> 
> We are currently missing 10 translocated deer (5 from 2013-most are long-term missing, 5 from 2014) on the Pahvant, 3 on the Oak Creeks, and 1 resident deer. We suspect some of the missing 2014 translocated deer have moved south since our last flight and may be on the Beaver. We hope to locate these deer on our next flight.
> 
> Thanks to all for continued interest and support. Please forward to anyone else interested and let us know if there is additional information you would like reported in our regular updates.
> 
> David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)
> 
> From Lee: Edited Tables:
> 
> *Parowan Front to Pahvant Transplanted and Pahvant Resident Control Deer:*
> Jan 13-res-*50*captured-*34*alive-*11*dead-*4*slipped collar-*1*missing
> Jan 13-trans-*51*captured-*21*alive-*27*dead-*3*missing
> Mar 13-trans-*51*captured-*20*alive-*25*dead-*2*slipped collar-*4*missing
> Jan 14-res-*20*captured-*16*alive-*4*dead
> Jan 14-trans-*51*captured-*40*alive-*9*dead-*2*missing
> Mar14-trans-*47*captured-*32*alive-*11*dead-*1*slipped collar-*3*missing
> *Causes of Death:*
> Jan 13-res-*11*dead-*2*cougar-*5*coyote-*3*unknown-*1*disease
> Jan 13-trans-*27*dead-*9*cou-*2*coy-*2*bobcat-*3*vehicle-*1*poach-*6*unk-*2*capture-*2*dis
> Mar 13-trans-*25*dead-*7*cou-*5*coy-*2*poach-*7*unk-*2*cap-*2*dis
> Jan 14-res-*4*dead-*1*cou-*1*coy-*1*unk-*1*cap
> Jan 14-trans-*9*dead-*3*cou-*1*coy-*1*unk-*4*cap
> Mar 14-trans-*11*dead-*3*cou-*3*coy-*1*veh-*4*unk
> 
> *Antelope Island to Oak Creek Transplanted Deer:*
> Feb 14-trans-*47*captured-*33*alive-*11*dead-*3*missing
> *Causes of Death:*
> Feb 14-trans-*11*dead-*3*cou-*4*coy-*4*unk
> 
> *Antelope Island to San Juan Transplanted Deer:*
> Feb 14-trans-*50*captured-*44*alive-*6*dead
> *Causes of Death:*
> Feb 14-trans-*6*dead-*1*cou-*1*veh-*2*unk-*2*cap
> 
> Thanks for looking, until next update,
> Lee Tracy (UWC)


From Lee: At this point it's just easier and faster to update by editing the last update, so that's what I'll keep doing.


----------



## elkfromabove

elkfromabove said:


> From Lee: This update is edited by myself for simplification of the numbers. If you prefer the original send me an email request at [email protected].
> 
> Mule deer translocation update for June 22 - July 22
> *Project background/goals: *(From Lee, See prior updates).
> 
> Additional CWD lab results came back from 2014 transplants. CWD was not detected in any of the deer moved over the past two years (Thanks Leslie).
> 
> We have had 4 translocated deer mortalities (2 from Jan 2014, 2 from Mar 2014) on the Pahvant, 1 translocated deer mortality on the Oak Creeks (2014), 2 resident deer mortalities (2013 capture), and 1 slipped collar (2014) since the last update.
> 
> Pahvant
> -2 translocated deer are suspected cougar predations.
> -2 translocated deer died from unknown causes (mostly consumed and not cached).
> -2 resident deer were cougar predations
> -1 translocated deer slipped collar
> 
> Oak Creeks
> -1 translocated deer mortality appears to be a coyote predation.
> 
> San Juan
> As of this week, there have been 7 total mortalities from the deer translocated to the San Juan Unit (sic, 8 counting one that died in the trailer before being transplanted). Eight of the deer have moved north of their release sites and up onto the mountain. the rest have moved a little south of their release sites and are still on winter range (Thanks Dustin). These deer released on the San Juan have demonstrated the highest initial (February - July) survival rates of any group at about 80% so far.
> 
> Translocated deer in their second year (initially released in 2013) continue to demonstrate high survival in year 2 that is comparable to resident deer.
> 
> We have focused efforts on downloads of GPS collars over the last month. The general pattern observed is that translocated deer in their second year show much less on an exploration phase (in comparison to their first year) as they transition from winter range to summer range. Summer range use patterns are smaller in year 2 than year 1 and much more similar to space-use patterns of resident Pahvant deer. Most of the 2nd year transplants moved directly this spring to areas where they ended the summer in 2013. (From Lee: Dave then refers to an attached kmz file which uses a map to show patterns, but I can neither open nor attach to this post. Sorry, but if you want to see it, email me and I'll forward the whole email from Dave.)
> 
> We are currently missing 13 translocated deer (5 from 2013-most are long term missing, 8 from 20014) on the Pahvant, 2 on the Oak Creeks, and 2 resident deer. We expect to locate many on these deer in our upcoming flight.
> 
> Thanks to all for continued interest and support. Please forward to anyone else interested and let us know if there is additional information you would like reported in our regular updates.
> 
> David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)
> 
> From Lee: Edited Tables:
> 
> *Parowan Front to Pahvant Transplanted and Pahvant Resident Control Deer:*
> Jan 13-res-*50*captured-*31*alive-*13*dead-*4*slipped collar-*2*missing
> Jan 13-trans-*51*captured-*23*alive-*27*dead-*1*missing
> Mar 13-trans-*51*captured-*20*alive-*25*dead-*2*slipped collar-*4*missing
> Jan 14-res-*20*captured-*16*alive-*4*dead
> Jan 14-trans-*51*captured-*35*alive-*11*dead-*4*missing-*1*slipped collar
> Mar14-trans-*47*captured-*29*alive-*13*dead-*1*slipped collar-*4*missing
> *Causes of Death:*
> Jan 13-res-*13*dead-*4*cougar-*5*coyote-*3*unknown-*1*disease
> Jan 13-trans-*27*dead-*9*cou-*2*coy-*2*bobcat-*3*vehicl-*1*poach-*6*unk-*2*cap-*2*dis
> Mar 13-trans-*25*dead-*7*cou-*5*coy-*2*poach-*7*unk-*2*cap-*2*dis
> Jan 14-res-*4*dead-*1*cou-*1*coy-*1*unk-*1*cap
> Jan 14-trans-*11*dead-*5*cou-*1*coy-*1*unk-*4*cap
> Mar 14-trans-*13*dead-*2*cou-*3*coy-*1*veh-*6*unk
> 
> *Antelope Island to Oak Creek Transplanted Deer:*
> Feb 14-trans-*47*captured-*33*alive-*12*dead-*2*missing
> *Causes of Death:*
> Feb 14-trans-*12*dead-*3*cou-*5*coy-*4*unk
> 
> *Antelope Island to San Juan Transplanted Deer:*
> Feb 14-trans-*50*captured-*43*alive-*7*dead
> *Causes of Death:*
> Feb 14-trans-*7*dead-*2*cou-*1*veh-*2*unk-*2*cap
> 
> Thanks for looking, until next update,
> Lee Tracy (UWC)


The above is a current update per my editing. Lee


----------



## elkfromabove

elkfromabove said:


> From Lee: This update is edited by myself for simplification of the numbers. If you prefer the original send me an email request at [email protected].
> 
> Mule deer translocation update for July 23 - August 11
> 
> *Project background/goals: *(From Lee, See prior updates).
> 
> We have had 1 slipped collar (ripped fabric) on the Pahvant (January 2013 translocation) and 3 translocated deer mortalities (all from the Oak Creeks) since the last update. All 3 of the mortalities on the Oak Creek Mountains appear to be cougar predation (evidence of caching) Updated mortality tables below.
> 
> As of the last check (July 2014), there have been 7 total mortalities from the deer translocated to the San Juan Unit. Eight of the deer have moved north to their release sites and up into the mountain. However, the majority have moved a little south of their release sites and are still on winter range. Deer released onto the San Juan Unit have demonstrated the highest initial survival of any release group.
> 
> Thanks to all for continued interest and support. Please forward to anyone else interested and let us know if there is additional information you would like reported in our regular updates.
> 
> David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)
> 
> From Lee: Edited Tables:
> 
> *Parowan Front to Pahvant Transplanted and Pahvant Resident Control Deer:*
> Jan 13-res-*50*captured-*31*alive-*13*dead-*4*slipped collar-*2*missing
> Jan 13-trans-*51*captured-*20*alive-*27*dead-*1*slipped collar-*3*missing
> Mar 13-trans-*51*captured-*21*alive-*25*dead-*2*slipped collar-*3*missing
> Jan 14-res-*20*captured-*15*alive-*4*dead-*1*missing
> Jan 14-trans-*51*captured-*35*alive-*11*dead-*4*missing-*1*slipped collar
> Mar14-trans-*47*captured-*29*alive-*13*dead-*1*slipped collar-*4*missing
> *Causes of Death:*
> Jan 13-res-*13*dead-*4*cougar-*5*coyote-*3*unknown-*1*disease
> Jan 13-trans-*27*dead-*9*cou-*2*coy-*2*bobcat-*3*veh-*1*poach-*6*unk-*2*cap-*2*dis
> Mar 13-trans-*25*dead-*7*cou-*5*coy-*2*poach-*7*unk-*2*cap-*2*dis
> Jan 14-res-*4*dead-*1*cou-*1*coy-*1*unk-*1*cap
> Jan 14-trans-*11*dead-*5*cou-*1*coy-*1*unk-*4*cap
> Mar 14-trans-*13*dead-*3*cou-*3*coy-*1*veh-*6*unk
> 
> *Antelope Island to Oak Creek Transplanted Deer:*
> Feb 14-trans-*47*captured-*30*alive-*15*dead-*2*missing
> *Causes of Death:*
> Feb 14-trans-*15*dead-*6*cou-*5*coy-*4*unk
> 
> *Antelope Island to San Juan Transplanted Deer:*
> Feb 14-trans-*50*captured-*43*alive-*7*dead
> *Causes of Death:*
> Feb 14-trans-*7*dead-*2*cou-*1*veh-*2*unk-*2*cap
> 
> Lee Tracy (UWC)


Until next time!


----------



## elkfromabove

elkfromabove said:


> From Lee: This update is edited by myself for simplification of the numbers and separate transplants. If you prefer the original send me an email request at [email protected].
> 
> Mule deer translocation update for August 12 - September 24
> 
> *Project background/goals: *(From Lee, See post 16).
> 
> It has been a busy month as we have focused on retrieval of radio collars from dead deer, location of missing deer (from the ground and regularly scheduled flights), and downloading of locations from deer with GPS radios.
> 
> Since the last update, we have had 4 translocated deer mortalities (1 from Mar 2013, 1 from Jan 2014, 2 from Mar 2014) on the Pahvant and 4 translocated deer mortalities on the Oak Creeks.
> 
> Pahvant
> -1 translocated deer was a cougar predation.
> -1 translocated deer and 1 resident deer died from unknown causes.
> -2 translocated deer appear to have been poached (cut collars); both have been reported to the local conservation officer.
> 
> Oak Creeks
> -2 deer died from unknown causes.
> -1 deer was a cougar predation.
> -1 deer was hit by a vehicle in Springville (approximately 115 kilometers/72 miles from where it was released). This deer had moved north from the Oak Creeks to southern Utah County in the weeks following its release in February and was regularly detected on the Wasatch Front, southwest of Springville until its death this month.
> 
> San Juan
> As of the last check, there have been 12 total mortalities (From Lee: 5 since the last update) from the deer translocated to the San Juan unit. Despite an uptick in mortalities during the past month, deer released onto the San Juan unit have the highest initial survival of any release group.
> 
> We were able to locate several of our missing deer on a flight during the last week and now have downloaded locations from all deer with GPS radios within the last 2 months.
> 
> Thanks to all for continued interest and support. Please forward to anyone else interested and let us know if there is additional information you would like reported in our regular updates.
> 
> David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)
> 
> From Lee: Edited Tables:
> 
> *Parowan Front to Pahvant Transplanted and Pahvant Resident Control Deer:*
> Jan 13-res-*50*captured-*31*alive-*13*dead-*4*slipped collar-*2*missing
> Jan 13-trans-*51*captured-*20*alive-*27*dead-*1*slipped collar-*3*missing
> Mar 13-trans-*51*captured-*20*alive-*26*dead-*2*slipped collar-*3*missing
> Jan 14-res-*20*captured-*14*alive-*5*dead-*1*missing
> Jan 14-trans-*51*captured-*35*alive-*11*dead-*1 *slipped collar-*4*missing
> Mar14-trans-*47*captured-*29*alive-*14*dead-*1*slipped collar-*3*missing
> *Causes of Death:*
> Jan 13-res-*13*dead-*4*cougar-*5*coyote-*3*unknown-*1*disease
> Jan 13-trans-*27*dead-*9*cou-*2*coy-*2*bobcat-*3*veh-*1*poach-*6*unk-*2*cap-*2*dis
> Mar 13-trans-*26*dead-*7*cou-*5*coy-*3*poach-*7*unk-*2*cap-*2*dis
> Jan 14-res-*5*dead-*1*cou-*1*coy-*2*unk-*1*cap
> Jan 14-trans-*11*dead-*5*cou-*1*coy-*1*unk-*4*cap
> Mar 14-trans-*14*dead-*3*cou-*3*coy-*1*veh-*1*poach-*6*unk
> 
> *Antelope Island to Oak Creek Transplanted Deer:*
> Feb 14-trans-*47*captured-*27*alive-*19*dead-*1*missing
> *Causes of Death:*
> Feb 14-trans-*19*dead-*7*cou-*5*coy-*1*veh-*6*unk
> 
> *Antelope Island to San Juan Transplanted Deer:*
> Feb 14-trans-*50*captured-*38*alive-*12*dead
> *Causes of Death:*
> Feb 14-trans-*12*dead-*2*cou-*1*veh-*2*unk-*2*cap-*5*not yet listed


Thanks for keeping up!
Lee Tracy (UWC)


----------



## wyoming2utah

All of this transplant stuff should give us a really good idea how many does we can harvest off over-objective units in the future....!


----------



## Bax*

Thanks Lee!

Question: most entries look like this


> *Antelope Island to Oak Creek Transplanted Deer:
> *Feb 14-trans-*47*captured-*27*alive-*19*dead-*1*missing


Does that mean that when 47 were captured, 19 died immediately? Or does it mean that since Feb 14, 19 have died as of this date?

I ask because I have seen deer die quickly due to stress.


----------



## elkfromabove

Bax* said:


> Thanks Lee!
> 
> Question: most entries look like this
> 
> Does that mean that when 47 were captured, 19 died immediately? Or does it mean that since Feb 14, 19 have died as of this date?
> 
> I ask because I have seen deer die quickly due to stress.


It means that 19 have died since being captured, in this case Feb 2014. (Actually, overall, a couple died while on the table being processed, a few died in the trailer before being released, but most died at or near the release sites the first year. In the death table, the ones that were identified as dying from capture-related issues (capture injuries, trailer injuries, processing, high temp, racing heart, fainting, etc.) are listed as "cap", but not all of them were directly from stress/myopathy, though, admittedly, some of the "unknowns" could be. And, I personally suspect some of the other deaths are indirectly related to stress, ie; predations, vehicle, disease, but that would be difficult to determine.


----------



## elkfromabove

wyoming2utah said:


> All of this transplant stuff should give us a really good idea how many does we can harvest off over-objective units in the future....!


 Hold that thought! UWC is!


----------



## Iron Bear

wyoming2utah said:


> All of this transplant stuff should give us a really good idea how many does we can harvest off over-objective units in the future....!


And also gives us a really good idea what kills more deer then any other single factor.

Cougar.


----------



## elkfromabove

Iron Bear said:


> And also gives us a really good idea what kills more deer then any other single factor.
> 
> Cougar.


There were 4 members (and 1 alternate) of the Mule Deer Panning Committee directly involved with this transplant and it made a difference regarding deer management as it relates to cougars, as you'll see when our recommended plan comes out next month. We couldn't go where most of us wanted to go with cougar management, but we did make a couple of proposals for biological management of mule deer/cougar populations. We'll have to see where the DWR and Wildlife Board takes them. But regardless of what happens in December at the Wildlife Board meeting, the future of cougar and deer management plans will have to be more integrated.


----------



## Lonetree

Iron Bear said:


> And also gives us a really good idea what kills more deer then any other single factor.
> 
> Cougar.


Yet you still can't show that lions killing deer is what suppresses deer numbers. But hey 1+1=3 right?

I mean who would have ever thought that deer would be predated by the predator that evolved along side of them for 10,000 years. It is so profound!

Like I have told you before, when you can demonstrate that the removal of lions increases the long term trend line of deer populations, then maybe you will be taken seriously.


----------



## Lonetree

elkfromabove said:


> There were 4 members (and 1 alternate) of the Mule Deer Panning Committee directly involved with this transplant and it made a difference regarding deer management as it relates to cougars, as you'll see when our recommended plan comes out next month. We couldn't go where most of us wanted to go with cougar management, but we did make a couple of proposals for biological management of mule deer/cougar populations. We'll have to see where the DWR and Wildlife Board takes them. But regardless of what happens in December at the Wildlife Board meeting, the future of cougar and deer management plans will have to be more integrated.


Yet more proof that there is absolutely no ****ing hope what so ever for deer in this state, or anywhere else in the West.

Lets tie one more thing, like B/D ratios, that only appears to be tied to deer populations to the "biological management" of deer.

EFA, you guys don't even know what "biological" means.


----------



## Lonetree

wyoming2utah said:


> All of this transplant stuff should give us a really good idea how many does we can harvest off over-objective units in the future....!


 Do you mean carrying capacity, or objective? Maybe some other made up, arbitrary metric?

Either way, I would tend to agree, deer transplants are just about as ****ing stupid as it gets.


----------



## elkfromabove

Lonetree said:


> Yet more proof that there is absolutely no ****ing hope what so ever for deer in this state, or anywhere else in the West.
> 
> Lets tie one more thing, like B/D ratios, that only appears to be tied to deer populations to the "biological management" of deer.
> 
> EFA, you guys don't even know what "biological" means.


And so your failed tactics continue! Wake up! Your message becomes negative along with your rhetoric! I tried 3 different times in the Mule Deer Committee to get a Nutrition Section placed in the Mule Deer Plan because I happen to agree with you on many issues, not because of your posts, but because I did a lot of research on my own after the Parowan Front range ride and because some other state mule deer plans have a Nutrition Section. BUT I could never get the conversation past your asinine online posts which everyone knew about. And, unfortunately, I lost some credibility for even bringing it up. Thanks!

FWIW, I did manage to get the word "nutrition" placed in the habitat section by making a deal with Shannon after the meeting. I promised not to bring it up again if he would at least mention it!


----------



## Lonetree

elkfromabove said:


> And so your failed tactics continue! Wake up! Your message becomes negative along with your rhetoric! I tried 3 different times in the Mule Deer Committee to get a Nutrition Section placed in the Mule Deer Plan because I happen to agree with you on many issues, not because of your posts, but because I did a lot of research on my own after the Parowan Front range ride and because some other state mule deer plans have a Nutrition Section. BUT I could never get the conversation past your asinine online posts which everyone knew about. And, unfortunately, I lost some credibility for even bringing up. Thanks!
> 
> FWIW, I did manage to get the word "nutrition" placed in the habitat section by making a deal with Shannon after the meeting. I promised not to bring it up again if he would at least mention it!


In all seriousness, I'm glad you are educating yourself. Here is a whole boat load more: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/education/ Start here: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/sulfonylureas/ for a better explanation on a piece of the "nutrition" issue. Much of what we see in regard to "nutrition" is most likely secondary nutritional issues, and many of the ways in which habitat restoration is being approached, only makes things worse, and actually creates the problem, see here: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/service/25-stansbury-mountains-ut/

I have 100 times more of this, just not the time to organize it all online.

So everyone knows about it, but because I'm an ******* they can't do anything to help the deer? Sounds to me like the problem is a bunch of people who let their feelings get in the way of their ability, or more likely willingness to look at actual science. And don't get me started about the politics and money.

Failed tactics? You all know about it, don't you? I'm not a sales man or a politician, only a messenger. Reality sells it self, whether you are buying or not.

The committee's and the DWR's failure to look at and address the science on the ground, is not because of me, but it certainly serves as a good cop out doesn't it?

That failure is a complete lack of vision for the future, respect for the past, or a responsibility to either. While also being self hamstrung by the current political fiefdoms and power structure.

This process is not about the deer. And cop outs about me, only go to prove that.


----------



## Lonetree

"FWIW, I did manage to get the word "nutrition" placed in the habitat section by making a deal with Shannon after the meeting. I promised not to bring it up again if he would at least mention it!"--EFA

The only thing that has been shown to increase the trend line of declining deer over the last 30 years, and it took deals being made to get the word included one time.

Studies demonstrating said population increases based on "nutrition":
http://deerlab.org/Publ/pdfs/23.pdf
http://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/ResearchMammalDeer.aspx

And we still have not covered the proposed causes of these nutritional deficiencies.

Studies show predation is not suppressing deer numbers.

Studies show that increased nutrition is the only thing to reverse the downward trend of deer.

And additional work from all over the West shows causative correlation between the amount, time frame, and locations of pesticide applications, on wildlife population declines.

So how do we respond to this body of knowledge? By cutting hunting permits, tying things like buck to doe ratios to permit numbers(just a grasp at a biological metric to justify tag reductions), a focus on predator control, and more habitat "improvements".

Like I said, the wildlife, and us as hunters don't have a prayer. And that sure as **** is not my fault.


----------



## Iron Bear

Lonetree said:


> Yet you still can't show that lions killing deer is what suppresses deer numbers. But hey 1+1=3 right?
> 
> I mean who would have ever thought that deer would be predated by the predator that evolved along side of them for 10,000 years. It is so profound!
> 
> Like I have told you before, when you can demonstrate that the removal of lions increases the long term trend line of deer populations, then maybe you will be taken seriously.


Last I checked cougar have been killing more of the Parowan deer then any other factor. Not a single deer mortality has been chalked up to selenium or pesticides.

Weirdo!


----------



## Lonetree

Iron Bear said:


> Last I checked cougar have been killing more of the Parowan deer then any other factor. Not a single deer mortality has been chalked up to selenium or pesticides.
> 
> Weirdo!


Last I checked, removal of lions does not increase deer population numbers. And that is ultimately what the argument of predator control is about. It is not about a static situation, of maintaining a fixed number. If its removal does not increase deer numbers, or its interaction is not shown to decrease deer numbers over the long term, it is not primary to the issues at hand, which are depressed and declining deer numbers.

Weirdo? Because you can't articulate your dis-proven position on deer and lions? Like I said, its so profound that you keep observing that lions eat deer, that is an amazing observation. Whats next, you going to tell us the sky is blue....on clear days.......Show us what actually causes deer to decline, and then show us what grows more deer.


----------



## Iron Bear

I don't know what your talking about. Removing cougar has resulted in increased deer populations time and time again. 

Continue your ride down the river in Egypt. And preoccupy yourself with distractions like minerals and pesticides. 


Goof ball!


----------



## Lonetree

Iron Bear said:


> I don't know what your talking about. Removing cougar has resulted in increased deer populations time and time again.
> 
> Continue your ride down the river in Egypt. And preoccupy yourself with distractions like minerals and pesticides.
> 
> Goof ball!


You saying it, does not make it so. Please show us the studies and reference material to support your claim.

This study: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wmon.4/abstract had the same results as a dozen other studies in the West, over the last 20+ years.

From the study: "Although mountain lion removal increased mule-deer survival and fawn ratios, we were unable to demonstrate significant changes in population trend with mountain lion removal. In conclusion, benefits of predator removal appear to be marginal and short term in southeastern Idaho and likely will not appreciably change long-term dynamics of mule deer populations in the intermountain west"

In other words, lion predation was compensatory. Meaning that the increase in survival and fawn ratios, did not translate into more deer. Those deer that did not get killed by lions, died anyway of other things.

You don't understand the first thing about population dynamics. And I'm a goof ball because of it?


----------



## Lonetree

IB, you should be on the deer committee too.


----------



## Lonetree

To all the other faint-hearted doubters, that disagree with what I'm saying. That is quite all right, you are entitled to your opinions.

But if you believe so strongly that your positions are correct, and that I am wrong. Please step up, put some real effort into, and show everyone that that is the case. Not just that that is your belief, but that it is the reality on the ground. Only good things for deer and deer hunters can come from actually understanding what is, and has been going on with our herds. 

If I am wrong, please demonstrate as much, with more than just your unfounded beliefs on the subject.


----------



## stillhunterman

elkfromabove said:


> And so your failed tactics continue! Wake up! Your message becomes negative along with your rhetoric! I tried 3 different times in the Mule Deer Committee to get a Nutrition Section placed in the Mule Deer Plan because I happen to agree with you on many issues, not because of your posts, but because I did a lot of research on my own after the Parowan Front range ride and because some other state mule deer plans have a Nutrition Section. BUT I could never get the conversation past your asinine online posts which everyone knew about. And, unfortunately, I lost some credibility for even bringing it up. Thanks!
> 
> FWIW, I did manage to get the word "nutrition" placed in the habitat section by making a deal with Shannon after the meeting. I promised not to bring it up again if he would at least mention it!


Thanks for your efforts Lee, and real sorry you had to take some grief doing so. It's still very appreciated...


----------



## Lonetree

Yeah, that's too bad that some one had to take some heat doing the right thing, that never happens.

Let me reiterate. Lee, "credibility" of individuals is completely irrelevant to the issues at hand. It is about the information, science is suppose to inform management. That is part of the NAMWC, and that is what the UWC claims to support. Those tenets are completely separate from the people that value them, and those that seek to destroy them.

I would not sweat it too much, I have no great expectations of the committee. Its going to be business as usual while hunters suffer more. That has already been decided.


----------



## elkfromabove

Lonetree said:


> Yeah, that's too bad that some one had to take some heat doing the right thing, that never happens.
> 
> Let me reiterate. Lee, "credibility" of individuals is completely irrelevant to the issues at hand. It is about the information, science is suppose to inform management. That is part of the NAMWC, and that is what the UWC claims to support. Those tenets are completely separate from the people that value them, and those that seek to destroy them.
> 
> I would not sweat it too much, I have no great expectations of the committee. Its going to be business as usual while hunters suffer more. That has already been decided.


Your tactics remind me of trying to get my children, grandchildren, wife or aging (now deceased) parents to take a nasty medicine. I could talk all day long about how good it was for them by showing them healthy adults who took it and by showing them study after study of the benefits and by telling them how many of their friends were taking it and by challenging them to prove why it wouldn't work, but in the end I had to either bully/threaten them into taking it (your tactic) or sweeten it up with some sugar/syrup (my tactic). The difference is that science/biology doesn't have to have a nasty delivery as you have made it. You say you want to get more science into deer management, but you intentionally make it taste so nasty and negative per your comments about the committee, UDWR and us (even those who agree with you, but don't take things far enough to suit you) that I (and lots of others) wonder if your ulterior motive is opposite of your stated motive and you're really looking for an "I told you so" moment rather than results. In any case, I think it's ultimately about you and not the deer and certainly not about us and I'd appreciate it if you would stay off of these updates and start your own threads. These are just meant to be updates with minor observations and questions per my original post.

Lee Tracy
Proudly, UWC


----------



## swbuckmaster

Lee I apreciate the updates and your service


----------



## Lonetree

elkfromabove said:


> You tactics remind me of trying to get my children, grandchildren, wife or aging (now deceased) parents to take a nasty medicine. I could talk all day long about how good it was for them by showing them healthy adults who took it and by showing them study after study of the benefits and by telling them how many of their friends were taking it and by challenging them to prove why it wouldn't work, but in the end I had to either bully/threaten them into taking it (your tactic) or sweeten it up with some sugar/syrup (my tactic). The difference is that science/biology doesn't have to have a nasty delivery as you have made it. You say you want to get more science into deer management, but you intentionally make it taste so nasty and negative per your comments about the committee, UDWR and us (even those who agree with you, but don't take things far enough to suit you) that I (and lots of others) wonder if your ulterior motive is opposite of your stated motive and you're really looking for an "I told you so" moment rather than results. In any case, I think it's ultimately about you and not the deer and certainly not about us and I'd appreciate it if you would stay off of these updates and start your own threads. These are just meant to be updates with minor observations per my original post.
> 
> Lee Tracy
> Proudly, UWC


Like I said, I'm not a politician. If people need candy and to have their hand held, then they probably need to grow the **** up. Nasty enough for you?

Again, proof that this is mostly about politics, money, and dynasties. It really has nothing to do with actually fixing the deer situation. If it did, that would be the focus, and peoples personalities would be damned.

Most of what is going to be done has already been decided, I'm not all that concerned with getting you guys to adopt anything in particular, it was never going to happen in the first place. I had that confirmed by other channels, some time ago, that's why some of you quit hearing from me.

Its all a show, to say the public is represented. If there were any actual science guiding policy, we would not be in the hurt that we are in. And if the continuation of that crisis did not feed the current system, politics, and power structures so well, we might actually have some deer.

I'd like to tell a whole lot of folks, what ever, you get what you deserve. But after 20 years of wildlife declines, and lost hunting, I'm a little fed up to say the least.

So guys keep playing deer managers, and telling your selves that you are making things better. Nothing could be further from the truth. Its just more of the same BS that brought us the last 20 years of the "Quality Era".

Yeah!, less deer, and less hunting!


----------



## Lonetree

Wildlife as Public Trust Resources
Elimination of Markets for Game
Allocation of Wildlife by Law
Wildlife Should Only be Killed for a Legitimate Purpose
Wildlife is Considered an International Resource
Science is the Proper Tool for the Discharge of Wildlife Policy
Democracy of Hunting
Not secret committees of power brokers, that keep giving sportsmen that they claim to represent the shaft.


----------



## Lonetree

Caveat: If the UDWR, or any of the wildlife orgs of the last 20 years, or the mule deer committee understood the actual science on the ground. Then the policies that they promote and have implemented over the last 20 years, would have reversed the down ward trend of deer and wildlife declines. Proof that such an understanding is not possessed by those making policy...........The last 20 years of declines, and reduced hunting. And nothing proposed is in any way shape or form, different from that failed legacy.

Its funny, I get hit with, "whats your solution". uh, really?


----------



## elkfromabove

elkfromabove said:


> Here's the latest update.
> 
> From Lee: As in previous updates the numbers on the emailed tables include fawns that were not collared and do not include some does that died before being released. I'll make those adjustments. Additionally, this update makes reference to 2 images (GPS movement locations of 2 deer) attached to the email and I don't have the computer skills nor the time to include them. If any of you want the original email, just email me at [email protected] msn.com and I'll forward it to you. Thanks, Lee
> 
> Mule deer translocation update for September 25 - October 21.
> 
> *Project background/goals:* (From Lee, See post #16).
> 
> It has been a relatively quiet month for mortalities. Since the last update, we have picked up 3 translocated deer collars (2014) and 1 resident deer collar (2013) from the deer released on the Pahvant and 1 translocated deer collar from the Oak Creek s(2014). Survival of transplants during their second year (released in 2013) remains high and at this point appears comparable to that of resident deer.
> 
> - Pahvant
> --Three translocated deer died of unknown causes. Two of these deer were found almost completely consumed with very little left to determine cause of death. The carcasses were not cached and mountain lion predation seems unlikely. The scattered nature of the carcass for one of these deer suggests coyotes as the proximate cause of death, whereas the other was found draped over a log relatively intact. The third collar was found by a hunter on the Beaver Mountains without any carcass. This deer had a GPS collar, but we lost contact with it (collar likely failed) back in May of 2014. Thanks to Steve Hodges for finding and reporting this collar.
> 
> -Oak Creeks
> --One deer died from unknown causes.
> 
> -San Juan
> -- Dustin Mitchell reports that there have been 15 total mortalities (sic;16 counting one that died in the trailer before release), (49 deer released with a radio) on the San Juan unit with a breakdown as follows: 4 coyote predation, 2 cougar predation, 3 vehicle collision, and 6 unknown (and 1 capture). Deer released onto the San Juan unit have the highest initial survival of any release group. Thirteen of the surviving 34 deer are up on Elk Ridge whereas 21 remain on the winter range near the release area. Interestingly, there have been fewer long range movements of deer transplanted from Antelope Island (less migratory herd) compared to deer moved from the Parowan Front (stronger migration pattern).
> 
> The GPS collars are coming to the end of their useful battery life and we have been busy downloading GPS points which requires approaching carefully to within a couple hundred yards of radio-marked animals. Preliminary analysis of these GPS points has revealed heavy use of several habitat treatment projects in winter range on the Pahvant. Attached (From Lee, see my note above) are two images of GPS locations for two different translocated deer (#106 and #108, both released in 2013) showing heavy use of habitat treatments (areas with reduced tree cover) during winter. Deer #108 (yellow points) made very heavy use of a 446 acre chaining and reseeding (FY 2010 project) on the Fillmore WMA (From Lee: Holden WMA per Google Earth). Similarly, the other image (blue points) show deer #106 using a 650 acre bull hog project completed in 2005 and a 432 acre pinion-juniper removal project (2012 hand crew lop and scatter) in the Wide Canyon area (From Lee: Nixon WMA per Google Earth) (Thanks Nathan and Trail for the treatment layers). We are excited about the opportunity to evaluate GPS data and movement information more thoroughly in the coming months.
> 
> Our focus over the next month will be evaluation of reproductive output for translocated and resident deer and we will be very busy assessing whether or not deer have fawns. (From Lee: I think they are referring to still surviving fawns from earlier this spring.) If anyone is interested in helping, let us know.
> 
> Thanks to all for continued interest and support. Please forward to anyone else interested and let us know if there is additional information you would like reported in our regular update.
> 
> David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)
> 
> Tables below edited by Lee:
> *Parowan to Pahvant transplant & Pahvant resident control deer:*
> Jan'13-resident-*50*captured/*30*alive/*14*dead/*4*slipped collars/*2*missing
> Jan'13-transplanted-*51*captured/*21*alive/*27*dead/*1* slipped collar/*2* missing
> Mar'13-transplanted-*51*captured/*20*alive/*26*dead/*2*slipped collars/*3*missing
> Jan'14-resident-*20*captured/*14*alive/*5*dead/*1*missing
> Jan'14-transplanted-*51*captured/*35*alive/*13*dead/*1*slipped collar/*2*missing
> Mar'14-transplanted-*47*captured/*26*alive/*17*dead/*1*slipped collar/*3*missing
> *Causes of Death:*
> Jan'13-res-*14*total/*3*cougar/*5*coyote/*5*unknown/*1*disease
> Jan'13-trans-*27*total/*9*cou/*2*coy/*2*bobcat/*3*vehicle/*1*poach/*6*unk/*2*cap/*2*dis
> Mar'13-trans-*26*total/*7*cou/*5*coyote/*3*poach/*7*unknown/*2*capture/*2*disease
> Jan'14-res-*5*total/*1*cougar/*1*coyote/*2*unknown/*1*capture
> Jan'14-trans-*13*total/*6*cougar/*1 *coyote/*2*unknown/*4*capture
> Mar'14-trans-*17*total/*3*cougar/*3*coyote/*1*veh/*1 *poach/*9*unknown
> 
> *Antelope Island to Oak Creek Transplant deer:*
> Feb'14-transplanted-*47*captured/*27*alive/*19*dead/*1*missing
> *Causes of Death:*
> Feb'14-trans-*19*total/*7*cougar/*5*coyote/*1*vehicle/*6*unknown
> 
> *Antelope Island to San Juan Transplant deer:*
> Feb'14-transplanted-*50*captured/*34*alive/*16*dead
> *Causes of Death:*
> Feb'14-trans-*16*total/*2*cougar/*4*coyote/*3*vehicle/*6*unknown/*1*capture
> 
> Until next update!
> Lee Tracy (UWC)


Thanks!


----------



## Idratherbehunting

These updates are awesome. Thanks Lee!


----------



## elkfromabove

Updated by editing:


elkfromabove said:


> Here's the latest! (From Lee - Edited for clarity.)
> 
> Mule deer translocation update for October 22 - November 26 (2014)
> 
> *Project background/goals: *(See post #16)
> 
> Since the last update we have had 2 translocated deer mortalities (1 from Jan 2013, 1 from Mar 2014) and 2 resident deer mortalities (1 from Jan 2013, 1 from Jan 2014) on the Pahvant, and 1 translocated deer mortality (Feb 2014) on the Oak Creeks.
> 
> - Pahvant
> - 1 resident deer and 2 translocated deer died of unknown causes. The
> resident deer was found on winter range and had very little left to
> determine the cause of death. The 2013 translocated deer has been dead
> for some time. We attempted to retrieve the collar from this deer
> several times but were unable to locate it. As for the other
> translocated deer (2014), we recently observed this female with 1
> fawn. This carcass was scattered with some evidence that coyotes may
> have been the cause of death, but it was difficult to confirm.
> - The other resident deer was found about 300 meters from Main Street
> in Fillmore and we suspect this deer to have been killed by coyotes.
> 
> - Oak Creeks
> - 1 deer died from unknown causes.
> 
> - As we approach the conclusion of the second year, it is clear that survival of transplants is much higher in their second year compared to the first year. To date, for example, 40 of 48 (85 percent) deer released in 2013 have survived 2014. During the same time period, 42 of 54 (78 percent) resident deer survived.
> 
> - We've spent much of November assessing fawn production/survival. This assessment takes a great deal of time and will be our focus for at least the next month. To date we have observed 10 resident deer from 2013 (4 with at least I fawn, 2 with twins) and 10 translocated deer from 2013 (6 with at least 1 fawn, 2 with twins), and 14 translocated deer from 2014 (4 with at least 1 fawn). Although early, fawn:doe ratios appear to be higher than last year and it appears that translocated deer are successfully reproducing. If anyone is interested in helping with this process, please let us know.
> 
> - We picked up 2 very weak signals from missing translocated deer during the past month on winter range and observed 2 with failed radios (1 resident, 1translocated). In each case, deer were alive, simply with a weak signal or a failed radio. These examples highlight one of the most important discoveries associated with this project. In short, transplanted deer have extremely high fidelity to the winter range where they were released despite ranging far and wide during the summer. Based on initial assessment and movements this year, it appears a similarly high percentage have returned. Translocation of mule deer holds promise as a strategy to reestablish use of unused or underutilized winter ranges.
> 
> Thanks to all for continued interest and support. Please forward to anyone else interested and let us know if there is additional information you would like reported in our regular updates.
> 
> David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)
> 
> (Tables below edited by Lee:
> *Parowan to Pahvant transplant & Pahvant resident control deer:*
> Jan'13-resident-*50*captured/*29*alive/*15*dead/*4*slipped collars/*2*missing
> Jan'13-transplanted-*51*captured/*20*alive/*28*dead/*1*slipped collar/*2*missing
> Mar'13-transplanted-*51*captured/*20*alive/*26*dead/*2*slipped collars/*3*missing
> Jan'14-resident-*20*captured/*13*alive/*6*dead/*1*missing
> Jan'14-transplanted-*51*captured/*35*alive/*13*dead/*1*slipped collar/*2*missing
> Mar'14-transplanted-*47*captured/*25*alive/*18*dead/*1*slipped collar/*3*missing
> *Causes of Death:*
> Jan'13-res-*15*total/*3*cougar/*6*coyote/*5*unknown/*1*disease
> Jan'13-trans-*28*total/*9*cou/*2*coy/*2*bobcat/*3*vehicle/*1*poach/*7*unk/*2*cap/*2*dis
> Mar'13-trans-*26*total/*7*cou/*5*coy/*3*poach/*7*unknown/*2*capture/*2*disease
> Jan'14-res-*6*total/*1*cougar/*1*coyote/*2*unknown/*2*capture
> Jan'14-trans-*13*total/*6*cougar/*1*coyote/*2*unknown/*4*capture
> Mar'14-trans-*18*total/*3*cou/*4*coy/*1*veh/*1*poach/*9*unknown
> 
> *Antelope Island to Oak Creek transplant deer:*
> Feb'14-transplanted-*47*captured/*27*alive/*20*dead
> *Causes of death:*
> Feb'14-trans-*20*total/*7*cougar/*5*coyote/*1*vehicle/*7*unknown
> 
> (No change is mentioned)
> *Antelope Island to San Juan transplant deer:*
> Feb'14-transplanted-*50*captured/*34*alive/*16*dead
> *Causes of death:*
> Feb'14-trans-*16*total/*2*cougar/*4*coyote/*3*vehicle/*6*unknown/*1*capture
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Lee (UWC)


----------



## elkfromabove

elkfromabove said:


> From Lee: This update is edited by myself for simplification of the numbers and for easier posting of updates (note the dates.) If you prefer the original send me an email request at [email protected].
> 
> Mule deer translocation update for November 27 - January 20
> 
> *Project background/goals: *(From Lee, See post #16).
> 
> Since the last update, we have had 1 translocated deer mortality on the Pahvant (Jan 2014) and 2 translocated deer mortalities (Feb 2014) on the Oak Creeks.
> 
> Pahvant:
> - 1 translocated deer was found on winter range and had very little left to determine cause of death.
> 
> Oak Creeks:
> - 1 translocated deer was likely a coyote predation. This deer was found a little south of Vernon (approx. 49 mi. north of the release site). She was one of four deer released onto the Oak Creeks to leave the mountain.
> - 1 translocated deer with an unknown cause of death. This deer collar was found near a small clump of hair. However, we were unable to locate a carcass to assess cause of death.
> 
> San Juan:
> - No update given.
> 
> Survival of deer in their 2nd year (transplanted in 2013) remains high and is as good as resident deer from our reference group. We've now completed a second full year for the first group of deer moved from the Parowan Front to the Pahvant Range in January of 2013. Survival in year 2 for these deer was 91 percent (20/22).
> 
> Currently most of the deer released onto the Pahvant can be found on winter range between Holden and Fillmore. Fidelity to release areas remains high, although there have been a few deer that have wintered on the east and south end of the Pahvant this year.
> 
> We've spent much of December and January assessing reproduction. This assessment takes a great deal of time and we have been conservative in assessing fawns during this process. Because we have only assigned fawns to radio-marked deer when it has been very clear, it is likely that our estimates are biased low. Nonetheless, any bias should be consistent across groups (resident, year 1 transplants, year 2 transplants) making a relative comparison informative. To date we have observed 18 resident deer (4 with at least 1 fawn, 3 with twins, 10 total fawns), 15 translocated deer from 2013 (4 with at least 1 fawn, 4 with twins, 12 total fawns) and 21 translocated deer from 2014 (9 with at least 1 fawn, 9 total fawns).
> 
> One of the highlights of the past two months was observing deer number 60. Deer 60 was initially transplanted in January of 2013 as a 4 year old. She successfully raised a single fawn in year 1 (2013). This year, we observed her with 2 fawns and what appeared to be a yearling (likely the fawn from last year).
> 
> Thanks to all for continued interest and support. Please forward to anyone else interested and let us know if there is additional information you would like reported in our regular updates.
> 
> David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)
> 
> From Lee: Edited Tables:
> 
> *Parowan Front to Pahvant Transplanted and Pahvant Resident Control Deer:*
> Jan 13-res-*50*captured-*27*alive-*15*dead-*4*slipped collar-*4*missing (2 more missing)
> Jan 13-trans-*51*captured-*19*alive-*28*dead-*1*slipped collar-*3*missing (1 more missing)
> Mar 13-trans-*51*captured-*20*alive-*26*dead-*2*slipped collar-*3*missing
> Jan 14-res-*20*captured-*13*alive-*6*dead-*1*missing
> Jan 14-trans-*51*captured-*34*alive-*14*dead-*1*slipped collar-*2*missing
> Mar14-trans-*47*captured-*25*alive-*18*dead-*1*slipped collar-*3*missing
> *Causes of Death:*
> Jan 13-res-*15*dead-*3*cougar-*6*coyote-*5*unknown-*1*disease
> Jan 13-trans-*28*dead-*9*cou-*2*coy-*2*bobcat-*3*vehicle-*1*poach-*7*unk-*2*capture-*2*dis
> Mar 13-trans-*26*dead-*7*cou-*5*coy-*3*poach-*7*unk-*2*cap-*2*dis
> Jan 14-res-*6*dead-*1*cou-*1*coy-*2*unk-*2*cap
> Jan 14-trans-*14*dead-*6*cou-*1*coy-*3*unk-*4*cap
> Mar 14-trans-*18*dead-*3*cou-*4*coy-*1*veh-*1*poach-*9*unk
> 
> *Antelope Island to Oak Creek Transplanted Deer:*
> Feb 14-trans-*47*captured-*25*alive-*22*dead
> *Causes of Death:*
> Feb 14-trans-*22*dead-*7*cou-*6*coy-*1*veh-*8*unk
> 
> *Antelope Island to San Juan Transplanted Deer:*
> Feb 14-trans-*50*captured-*34*alive-*16*dead
> *Causes of Death:*
> Feb 14-trans-*16*dead-*2*cou-*4*coy-*3*veh-*6*unk-*1*cap


Thanks for looking. Until next update,
Lee Tracy (UWC)


----------



## Iron Bear

Cougar sure kill a bunch of deer. 

Sure defies logic to manage for capacity cougar while trying to increase the deer herd.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish

Iron Bear said:


> Cougar sure kill a bunch of deer.
> 
> Sure defies logic to manage for capacity cougar while trying to increase the deer herd.


I'll disagree with you here.

Point 1. Cougar's by nature will pick off the sick, old, and young (Easy prey) resulting in a stronger and healthier herd. (Evolution)

Point 2. Cougar's only kill to eat and typically do not kill just to kill (Like Coyotes) Cougar's only need to make a kill every few weeks.

Point 3. Cougar's have a massive territory 30 to 150 square miles. They are solitary and territorial.

Point 4. Cougar's don't kill nearly as many deer as winter and cars.

The issue is not the cougar's killing the transplant deer it is not having the necessary mental and physical capacity to adapt to their new environment.


----------



## duck jerky

MuscleWhitefish said:


> I'll disagree with you here.
> 
> Point 1. Cougar's by nature will pick off the sick, old, and young (Easy prey) resulting in a stronger and healthier herd. (Evolution)
> 
> Point 2. Cougar's only kill to eat and typically do not kill just to kill (Like Coyotes) Cougar's only need to make a kill every few weeks.
> 
> Point 3. Cougar's have a massive territory 30 to 150 square miles. They are solitary and territorial.
> 
> Point 4. Cougar's don't kill nearly as many deer as winter and cars.
> 
> The issue is not the cougar's killing the transplant deer it is not having the necessary mental and physical capacity to adapt to their new environment.


So did you look at the numbers? looks like the cougar's killed a few and who's to say the ones that they were un sure how they died didn't die by cougars?

And yes cars kill far more but to say cougars have no impact on deer numbers is false.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish

duck jerky said:


> So did you look at the numbers? looks like the cougar's killed a few and who's to say the ones that they were un sure how they died didn't die by cougars?
> 
> And yes cars kill far more but to say cougars have no impact on deer numbers is false.


The numbers in terms of percentage

Pahvant

Resident
Jan 13 20% Cougar
Jan 14 16% Cougar

Transplant
Jan 13 32% Cougar
Mar 13 26% Cougar
Jan 14 43% Cougar
Mar 14 16% Cougar

Oak Creek 
Feb 14 31% Cougar

San Juan
Feb 14 13% Cougar

I think it is clear the transplanted deer are easier prey, because they do not have the necessary tools to survive in their new environment or become sick.


----------



## Iron Bear

Point 1 a cougar will make a kill once a week on average. Young old weak or 200" buck. If it can sink its teeth into its neck it will kill it. 

Point 2 a cougar like any other cat will kill just because the opportunity presents itself. Ask any sheep herder if a cat will make more than one kill in a night. 
Point 3 a cougar will live for yrs in a single canyon so long as it has the prey base it needs and isn't kicked out by a bigger badder cat. 

There are about 2000 cougar in Utah resulting in about 100,000 dead deer per yr in Utah to cougar alone. Cars account for less than 10,000. Is my 4th point. 

Dollars to donuts cougar are killing native deer at similar rates as transplanted deer. 

How many of the deer in these studies have died from roadkill or starvation? Or sickness?


----------



## Groganite

yikes


----------



## Idratherbehunting

You know, there's a pretty easy way to test the impact cougars have on deer. Just start planting them on antelope island. That's the closest to a controlled population that I am aware of that you could measure the impact and eliminate variables. Either a bunch of the deer disappear, proving managing for both to be at capacity is unrealistic, or it turns out that the cats dominate. Then we could sell trophy cat hunts eventually instead.


----------



## Iron Bear

^^^^ yep put one cat for every 150 deer like the rest of the state. Then send 3 hunters for every buck on that island and you will soon learn what the rest of the states deer herds have had to endure.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish

Iron Bear said:


> Point 1 a cougar will make a kill once a week on average. Young old weak or 200" buck. If it can sink its teeth into its neck it will kill it.
> 
> Point 2 a cougar like any other cat will kill just because the opportunity presents itself. Ask any sheep herder if a cat will make more than one kill in a night.
> Point 3 a cougar will live for yrs in a single canyon so long as it has the prey base it needs and isn't kicked out by a bigger badder cat.
> 
> There are about 2000 cougar in Utah resulting in about 100,000 dead deer per yr in Utah to cougar alone. Cars account for less than 10,000. Is my 4th point.
> 
> Dollars to donuts cougar are killing native deer at similar rates as transplanted deer.
> 
> How many of the deer in these studies have died from roadkill or starvation? Or sickness?


Point 1: We are both right. It varies. Female with cubs 3 days - Regular Cat a few weeks. Source http://carnivoractionplans1.free.fr/wildcats.pdf

Point 2: Cougars only account for 5.7% of domestic sheep & goat deaths. Coyotes on the other hand provide 60% Source http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1628

Point 3: I guess that could happen, but I would guess that is normally not the case.

Point 4: Do you have a solid source that suggests that cougars are killing 100,000 deer per year? Cougars will also eat big insects, hares, porcupines, skunks, raccoon, mice, lizards, elk, big horn sheep, coyote cubs, bobcat kittens, even mountain lion kittens, etc - I assume you didn't factor that into your numbers.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish

Idratherbehunting said:


> You know, there's a pretty easy way to test the impact cougars have on deer. Just start planting them on antelope island. That's the closest to a controlled population that I am aware of that you could measure the impact and eliminate variables. Either a bunch of the deer disappear, proving managing for both to be at capacity is unrealistic, or it turns out that the cats dominate. Then we could sell trophy cat hunts eventually instead.


We can't do that. They will kill all the big horn sheep that we can sell to other states.

;-)


----------



## massmanute

So, 'Bear, I'm starting to get the impression you don't like Cougars. Are you a Utes fan?


----------



## wyoming2utah

Iron Bear said:


> How many of the deer in these studies have died from roadkill or starvation? Or sickness?


Wrong question again, IB....the right question would be, "How many deer would die from roadkill or starvation or sickness if there weren't any cougars?"

Again, you completely dismiss or do not understand the idea of compensatory predation. My bet is that a very similar number of deer would die if predation were removed...as has happened on the monroe unit and numerous other studies that have been posted on this site over and over again every time you bring up your nonsense.

Removing predators from a population is only going to help the deer herd when their predation is additive....IB's theories are way too simplistic and don't consider other factors that lead to deer predation (like deer health and habitat and weather).


----------



## wyoming2utah

Just a few more thoughts on deer and predation:

Recent studies in utah are showing that adult deer survival is high (around 85%) and fawn survival is low (around 55%). So, in order for Utah's deer population to increase we need better survival of fawns...hence, all the work on controlling coyote populations.

But, the real issue goes back to habitat. Utah's range trend studies are documenting "a steady decline in the quality of mule deer habitat." And, studies in both Colorado and Idaho have shown that "habitat quality and quantity is the main factor limiting population growth" of mule deer. So, if the quality and quantity of mule deer habitat declines...it makes complete sense that predation by coyotes and cougars will go up. This is mother nature's way of keeping animals within a habitat's carrying capacity. Also, when habitat is good predation rates go down...

Also, early results of Utah's study on highway mortality of deer shows that only about 12.5% of all deer killed by motorists are documented and picked up. That means that for every deer documented, 7 more are being killed....and, that doesn't include those that are hit, wounded, and die later. Using the above numbers and the fact that around 4000-5000 deer are documented as being killed each year by motorists, that actual number is much higher and probably closer to 40,000. The real question, though, is how many of those 40,000 mortalities are additive? And, if our mule deer habitat quality and quantity is declining...aren't any attempts at reducing highway mortality and predation merely band-aid approaches to a bigger problem?


----------



## DallanC

It all has a cumulative effect... we need to attempt to address all issues we can reasonably do so.


-DallanC


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Biggest issue is degrading habitat. Both via pesticide use on " habitat improvements" and the encroachment and complete take over of cheat grass throughout the western landscape. When you can stop cheat grass you'll solve the biggest burden on our wildlife the last few decades. If you can find a biological and safe method to push back at cheat grass you'll stop seeing the large amounts of pesticides being used that are poisoning our wildlife and stop losing ground to such an envasive and successful plant species . Eradication of cheat grass is what will improve the west .


----------



## MuscleWhitefish

wyoming2utah said:


> Just a few more thoughts on deer and predation:
> 
> Recent studies in utah are showing that adult deer survival is high (around 85%) and fawn survival is low (around 55%). So, in order for Utah's deer population to increase we need better survival of fawns...hence, all the work on controlling coyote populations.
> 
> But, the real issue goes back to habitat. Utah's range trend studies are documenting "a steady decline in the quality of mule deer habitat." And, studies in both Colorado and Idaho have shown that "habitat quality and quantity is the main factor limiting population growth" of mule deer. So, if the quality and quantity of mule deer habitat declines...it makes complete sense that predation by coyotes and cougars will go up. This is mother nature's way of keeping animals within a habitat's carrying capacity. Also, when habitat is good predation rates go down...
> 
> Also, early results of Utah's study on highway mortality of deer shows that only about 12.5% of all deer killed by motorists are documented and picked up. That means that for every deer documented, 7 more are being killed....and, that doesn't include those that are hit, wounded, and die later. Using the above numbers and the fact that around 4000-5000 deer are documented as being killed each year by motorists, that actual number is much higher and probably closer to 40,000. The real question, though, is how many of those 40,000 mortalities are additive? And, if our mule deer habitat quality and quantity is declining...aren't any attempts at reducing highway mortality and predation merely band-aid approaches to a bigger problem?


More habitat equals a longer way a cougar/yote has to go to find a meal. The opposite is visa versa.

So, with the habitat how would we go about increasing it?

Building, highway, and free range restrictions in high use areas?

Winter feeding?

Deer only dry farms?

I have heard the habitat argument before, but have no idea what an applicable solution would be.

Now, as far as the coyotes go....

What if we stocked rabbits like rainbow trout? Why chase a deer when there is a rabbit around every corner? ;-)

There really is only one predator that will hunt an adult coyote and I think we can ask Idaho on how that went. ;-)

More deer habitat will equal less deer predation by yotes.


----------



## Iron Bear

40,000 is junk. That's over 100 a day everyday on average. What a bunch of malarkey. Most are killed in the winter. So you believe during the winter 150 or so deer are being hit per day. And about to 20 are being reported? So 130 people or so everyday are just saving their auto insurance claims for other occasions? I understand not all deer vehicle incursions result in significant damage. But many do. And it's higher than 12%. So I don't for a second believe very many people hit a deer and wreck their vehicle and don't make an insurance claim. 

Just a bit of critical thinking.

Compensatory predation is only in effect if and when the prey is at capacity. You hang on to a tiny thread that the deer herd is at capacity. When it is in fact currently growing. There are symptoms to an at capacity prey base. None of which the Utah deer herds are showing. Capacity is only assumed it's not definitively know. Herd objective is a political number almost pulled from thin air. And should not be confused with capacity. 

Predation however is compensatory in that a deer killed by a predator is a deer that cannot be harvested by a hunter. Or hit by a car or die of old age. 

Back to the thread. It's nice to know what is killing the most deer. And the single biggest killer of deer that we can identify is cougar. Not cars not starvation not disease not ATV's not shed hunters not poachers not cold weather not poor habitat not hunters not even coyote. 

And I'm not surprised. I know that a cougar will make a kill about every week. And if we estimate there to be as many as 2000 cougar In Utah I can assume with great confidence that as many as 100,000 deer are being killed by them. We can change that number.


----------



## wyoming2utah

IB, again (like always) you gloss over all studies that show your ideas are false...so I am not surprised. The truth remains that our adult deer population is surviving well and that our fawn population is not....the focus of growing our deer herds should and is focused on improving fawn mortality.

Also, carrying capacity is a fluid number that changes from year to year...any growth we have had in recent years reflects also growth in carrying capacity. Our mild winters are probably the cause of our small increases in deer numbers...if this winter were much more severe with much more snow and colder temperatures, you would see a drop in deer numbers and higher predation....not because of more cougars, but because carrying capacity would be dropping. And, just an FYI compensatory predation is in effect when the prey are at OR NEAR carrying capacity. Also an FYI, a big reason so much habitat work has and is being done in Utah is because we are at or near our carrying capacity and the only way we can grow our deer herds to the objective is to improve that carrying capacity by increasing the quality and quantity of habitat.

The funny thing about your ideas is that time and again, states and studies have been performed where cougars have been removed from the population over the course of years and the deer don't recover or rebound....can you answer why this is so? Can you explain why, if cougars are the reason our deer numbers aren't higher, these studies are showing that removal of coyotes is NOT increasing deer numbers?

I didn't think so!


----------



## Iron Bear

Idk exactly what studies you are referring to. But Zion pine valley and panguitch have had liberal cougar harvest and seen substantial increases in deer numbers. So has Morgan east canyon and chalk creek. There are other instances where cougar removal/reduction has resulted in deer increases. Timp and AF come to mind.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish

Iron Bear said:


> Idk exactly what studies you are referring to. But Zion pine valley and panguitch have had liberal cougar harvest and seen substantial increases in deer numbers. So has Morgan east canyon and chalk creek. There are other instances where cougar removal/reduction has resulted in deer increases. Timp and AF come to mind.


Having Hunted Panguitch a lot, I think your idea is a little skewed.

Panguitch is unique in that you can go from 9,000 feet to 6,000 feet of wildlife land in 25 miles in either direction from Panguitch Lake.

There is a lot of land the deer can go, which makes it longer for each cougar to travel to find a meal.

I lived in Morgan and there is a very healthy population of cougars (Maybe the largest in the state), but there is also a lot of thick land that will open into dry farms. Which, is great deer habitat. During the hunt - they hang in the thickest nastiest parts however. It is the same principal though. High elevations with good low elevation wintering ground. Morgan also have a robust population of porcupines, which are another prey for the mountain lion.

Wintering grounds with food and high elevation grounds from fawn growth during the summer.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Iron Bear said:


> Idk exactly what studies you are referring to. But Zion pine valley and panguitch have had liberal cougar harvest and seen substantial increases in deer numbers. So has Morgan east canyon and chalk creek. There are other instances where cougar removal/reduction has resulted in deer increases. Timp and AF come to mind.


http://mcbadeer.com/MULE_DEER_PREDATOR_STUDY.pdf

http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1494&context=etd

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...sCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=4800&context=etd

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ae/2014/971809/

These should give you a start....not like they haven't been posted before for you though!


----------



## MuscleWhitefish

Below is an interesting article about the big horn sheep of Antelope Island.

They do not have a fear of cougars, so when they are transported they are at a disadvantage.

http://www.usu.edu/ust/index.cfm?article=24327


----------



## MuscleWhitefish

wyoming2utah said:


> http://mcbadeer.com/MULE_DEER_PREDATOR_STUDY.pdf
> 
> http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1494&context=etd
> 
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...sCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
> 
> http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
> article=4800&context=etd
> 
> http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ae/2014/971809/
> 
> These should give you a start....not like they haven't been posted before for you though!


#Science


----------



## Iron Bear

I don't have personal field experience on the pang. Im just pointing out the obvious on paper. More cougar harvesting going on in those units and herds increasing significantly. And those units are all at or above objective today. 

I know Morgan quite well. The habitat there is not anything special that 20 other units in Utah don't have. But what it does have is plenty of private land that won't let the statewide deer management insanity take place. They have always kept predators in check better there. And they sure as heck won't put up with marginal B/D ratios like 1/10. Lastly they manage hunters. 

And have spent little on habitat restoration relative to places like Monroe. What gives? 

Porcupine you say? Great point. I guess it could be a chicken and egg question. I'd say Morgan has an abundance of pigs because of the cougar control. Back in the days of 1080 and before LE cougar hunting everywhere had lots of porcupine. 

#reality


----------



## wyoming2utah

Iron Bear said:


> I don't have personal field experience on the pang. Im just pointing out the obvious on paper. More cougar harvesting going on in those units and herds increasing significantly. And those units are all at or above objective today.


Hmmm...so you put 1 and 1 together. That simple, huh? How about we look a little closer at some of the facts and actual cougar mortality for some different units:
Total mortality from 1990-2013
Panguitch -- 288
Pauns -- 190
Henry's -- 74
Monroe -- 286
Boulder -- 303
Fish Lake -- 428
Beaver -- 426
Morgan -- 146

Interesting....are the units with the highest cougar harvest/mortality the ones over their deer objectives? By the way, Monroe is the most interesting to me because cougar harvest was really high until 1999--about the same time the cougar study began on the mountain--and about the same time when deer numbers plummeted on the unit. Why would deer numbers drop when cougar harvest and mortality and cougar numbers were at their lowest if cougars are to blame for low deer numbers? Also, and even more interestingly, at about the same time cougar harvest numbers increased, so did deer numbers. Why?

The fact is that cougar harvest on Panguitch has not been noticeable different and possible even less than other nearby units that are below objective...so, why is its deer population above the objective? Also, if you dig even deeper, you would notice that cougar harvest on Panguitch was higher 10-15 years ago when the population dropped in size and number...was that due to predation by cougars as well because that math is much more difficult than the 1 plus 1 formula you are using...!

It is funny how the unit with the least amount of cougar harvest is the one everybody loves so much...!

Also, for what it is worth, the cougar harvest numbers from Morgan were much higher ten years ago....

It is funny how you spout things off...yet, none of your comments can be supported with evidence.


----------



## Iron Bear

Can't harvest cats that aren't there. Maybe it's that units I mentioned have a lower cougar/deer ratio from a higher cougar harvest history. 

Simply stated many things kill deer. Cougar kill more then any single factor in Utah. A buck killed by a cougar is a buck that cannot be harvested by a hunter. It's a crying shame we manage for capacity cougar while trying to grow the deer herd and cut tags to get there. Then fret about hunter retention and recruitment.We can have cougar and deer too. Do we need 1 cat for every 150 deer. Can't we do with 1 cat for every 300 deer? And give the deer a break and at the same time increase hunter harvest? Would it help if the DWR sold a tag that allowed a hunter to hunt 24/7/365 buck doe or fawn. 2 conditions they can only harvest one deer a week but need to wear a fur suit and walk on all fours? Would that then make the deers death compensatory therefore not worth even considering it as a limiting factor. Geez. Booooooooo! 

Enough said from me for now.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Iron Bear said:


> Can't harvest cats that aren't there. Maybe it's that units I mentioned have a lower cougar/deer ratio from a higher cougar harvest history.


Except for the fact that the exact opposite is true and as I showed you those units do NOT have a higher cougar harvest history (in fact, some of them have a LOWER cougar harvest history!)...take the Monroe, for example, when the cats were at their highest numbers, the deer herd started rebounding. And, when cats were at their all time lowest numbers (after years of heavy harvest), deer numbers crashed. That is exactly the opposite of what you say should be happening...

Also, you keep talking about "capacity" cougars...what the heck is that? We are well below carrying capacity for mountain lions. In fact, our lion numbers are down...if we stopped managing for any cougar harvest and allowed the population to boom. Then, we would see some additive predation on deer.

Again, the key to growing our deer herd doesn't have anything to do with mountain lions...and everything to do with finding a way to help our fawns survive until adulthood. And, all the research tells us the way to do that is improve the "quantity" and "quality" of our habitat.

By the way, I am still waiting for ANY kind of sound scientific evidence to support any of your claims or ideas....can you do it?


----------



## wyoming2utah

Oh...and, by the way, the Zion unit had high cougar harvest until about 2003 and then it was cut in about half. Since then, cougar harvest has been a little lower than nearby units.

The Pine Valley has had historically LOW cougar harvest numbers in comparison with nearby units....where are you coming up with these ideas that these units have had such high cougar harvest?


----------



## swbuckmaster

IB in areas that have low buck doe ratios like Monroe the cats were forced to eat the does. When the predators key in on the does it affects the fawn crops w2u talks about. 

W2U can take his studies and stuff them. No Rancher in their right mind wanting to grow a goat or sheep herd would allow a cougar to come in and kill a goat or sheep every week off his ranch. No rancher in his right mind would say hey its only compensatory predation those sheep would have died any ways thanks cougar for killing them. Hell no the rancher would fix the cat problem and enjoy the profits he makes culling his own herd. We as "deer ranchers" are no different. The worthless coyote, cougars, auto collisions, habitat loss, ect are all eating our deer proffits.


----------



## wyoming2utah

And the two of you can continue to live ignorant lives as stupid people....I don't care have it your way. Again, though, neither of you can come up with any scientific evidence to prove us wrong. Again, if you are right SWmaster, how come deer numbers don't go up when cougar numbers go down?

Comparing the raising of livestock to wild animals in the wild is nothing like comparing apples to oranges....is it? I mean after all, aren't livestock domesticated? Yeah...if we were to domesticate mule deer we could compare the raising of them to livestock; otherwise, it is a stupid comparison. How often do we herd mule deer down into pastures and feed them hay...? The last I checked domesticated animals depended on humans to survive...I mean, hell, don't a lot of ranchers even immunize their cattle? Dang, shouldn't we also be immunizing all our mule deer too?


----------



## swbuckmaster

wyoming2utah said:


> And the two of you can continue to live ignorant lives as stupid people....I don't care have it your way. Again, though, neither of you can come up with any scientific evidence to prove us wrong. Again, if you are right SWmaster, how come deer numbers don't go up when cougar numbers go down?


WYoming it ain't apples to oranges comparisons!

I can't dumb it down any more then saying removing predators completly out of the mix for many years will allow for larger increases in your deer herd in the good weather years.

I would rather have doe or cow tags issued to me to control the numbers then to allow cats, coyotes, road kill ect to dictate how long I wait between tags.

Predators remove my slice of the pie!


----------



## MWScott72

Man, all this talk about cougars has led me to starting to think about doing a cougar hunt in the near future. Something to check off the list and experience. I've done no research on it...just curious, what does a typical guided hunt run with dogs?

My brain is churning on this....


----------



## swbuckmaster

W2U your a little fish biologist even you understand if there are too many big lake trout, fisherman, carp, and egg sucking eels the limit you as a Kokane fisherman will get to keep will go down with competition. It's no different for deer!


----------



## swbuckmaster

MWScott72 said:


> Man, all this talk about cougars has led me to starting to think about doing a cougar hunt in the near future. Something to check off the list and experience. I've done no research on it...just curious, what does a typical guided hunt run with dogs?
> 
> My brain is churning on this....


About 2,000 and up


----------



## MuscleWhitefish

swbuckmaster said:


> W2U your a little fish biologist even you understand if there are too many big lake trout, fisherman, carp, and egg sucking eels the limit you as a Kokane fisherman will get to keep will go down with competition. It's no different for deer!


The point is he has tried to make is that the predators are less of a problem than habitat decreasing.

The studies show that if there is a healthy balance between predator and prey populations increase.

I don't see how you can blame the demise of the deer herd on a creature that can have a range of 350 sq miles, but if that range is limited to 15-25 sq miles, because of the habitat loss. Then you might have a problem, but the problem is the habitat and not the predation.

If a lion has to travel farther to find game, because of great habitat - naturally it's kills will go down.

Now, back to my point.

Lions will kill the weak, sick, old, or young. The ones that are too weak to survive, thus strengthening the herd.

Funny, you bring up Kokanee.

The Kokanee in the gorge get big, because of predation. If you removed all of the lake trout, carp, and burbot. The population would explode into stunted fish. Go watch the spawn next fall at porcupine and you'll see what happens when predators are lacking in a lake.


----------



## elkfromabove

elkfromabove said:


> From Lee: This update is edited by myself for simplification of the numbers. It also refers to some attachments which I didn't include. If you prefer the original email end me an email request at [email protected].
> 
> Mule deer translocation update for January 21 - February 21
> 
> *Project background/goals: *(From Lee, See post #16).
> 
> Since the last update, we have had 1 slipped collar and 5 translocated deer mortalities on the Pahvant and 2 translocated deer mortalities on the Oak Creeks.
> 
> Pahvant
> -1 translocated deer (2013) had a slipped collar. The necklace material failed prematurely.
> -1 translocated deer (2014) was likely a coyote predation.
> -2 translocated deer mortalities (1 from Jan 2013, 1 from Mar 2014) appear to be cougar predations (cached and tracks).
> -2 unknown causes of mortality (Jan 2014). Both of these collars were found without a carcass and under snow, making it difficult to find any evidence to determine cause of death.
> 
> Oak Creeks (Feb 2014)
> -2 unknown causes of mortality. Both collars were found without a carcass and it is likely that the collars were carried off by predators/scavengers. However, there was enough evidence (e.g. smell of the collar, blood on collar) to suggest that the collars were not slipped.
> 
> San Juan (Feb 2014)
> -Info not included in body of update but listed in table.)
> 
> Recently we have concentrated on picking up GPS collars that have fallen off (programmed to fall off 105 weeks after being placed on the deer). We will no longer have regular contact with these deer and will count them as slipped collars when the collar is picked up (see table below).
> 
> Survival of deer in their 2nd year (transplanted in 2013) remains high. Initial estimates of survival show 76% (41/45) of resident deer survived 2014 compared to 83% (40/48 ) of 2nd year transplants. Annual survival of deer transplanted in 2014 was 49% for Oak Creeks, 55% for San Juan, 58% for March transplants to Pahvant, and 76% for January transplants to Pahvant.
> 
> Currently most of the deer released onto the Pahvant can be found on winter range between Holden and Fillmore. Fidelity to release areas (i.e., return to winter range after one or two years following release) has averaged more than 90 percent across years and groups of transplanted deer. This finding may be the most important, although there have been a few deer that have wintered on the east and south end of the Pahvant this year.
> 
> The attached photos are of translocated deer (2013 and 2014) with fawns. Fawn production has been similar for transplants compared to resident deer in each year and overall fawn production appears higher on the Pahvant compared to 2013.
> 
> We presented results from the initial two years to the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) Mule Deer Working Group (consisting of big game coordinators and mule deer biologists from each of the western states (From Lee: and Canadian Providences and Mexico) . Some of the highlights of that presentation are attached. (See update introduction.)
> 
> Thanks to all for continued interest and support. Please forward to anyone else interested and let us know if there is additional information you would like reported in our regular updates.
> 
> David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)
> 
> From Lee: Edited Tables:
> 
> *Parowan Front to Pahvant Transplanted and Pahvant Resident Control Deer:*
> Jan 13-res-*50*captured-*25*alive-*15*dead-*7*slipped collar-*3*missing
> Jan 13-trans-*51*captured-*14*alive-*29*dead-*4 *slipped collar-*4*missing
> Mar 13-trans-*51*captured-*19*alive-*26*dead-*3*slipped collar-*3*missing
> Jan 14-res-*20*captured-*13*alive-*6*dead-*1*missing
> Jan 14-trans-*51*captured-*32*alive-*16*dead-*3*slipped collar-*3*missing
> Mar14-trans-*47*captured-*25*alive-*18*dead-*2*slipped collar-*2*missing
> *Causes of Death:*
> Jan 13-res-*15*dead-*3*cougar-*6*coyote-*5*unknown-*1*disease
> Jan 13-trans-*29*dead-*10*cou-*2*coy-*2*bobcat-*3*vehicle-*1*poach-*7*unk-*2*capture-*2*dis
> Mar 13-trans-*26*dead-*7*cou-*5*coy-*3*poach-*7*unk-*2*cap-*2*dis
> Jan 14-res-*6*dead-*1*cou-*1*coy-*2*unk-*2*cap
> Jan 14-trans-*16*dead-*6*cou-*1*coy-*5*unk-*4*cap
> Mar 14-trans-*18*dead-*4*cou-*4*coy-*1*poach-*1*veh-*8*unk
> 
> *Antelope Island to Oak Creek Transplanted Deer:*
> Feb 14-trans-*47*captured-*22*alive-*24*dead-*1*missing
> *Causes of Death:*
> Feb 14-trans-*24*dead-*7*cou-*6*coy-*1*veh-*10*unk
> 
> *Antelope Island to San Juan Transplanted Deer:*
> Feb 14-trans-*50*captured-*28*alive-*20*dead-*2*missing
> *Causes of Death:*
> Feb 14-trans-*20*dead-*2*cou-*4*coy-*3*veh-*10*unk-*1*cap
> 
> Thanks for looking, until next update,
> Lee Tracy (UWC)


(With the collars dropping off, some of the table numbers aren't adding up because the deer with dropped collars are listed as slipped collars and are still listed as alive and/or missing. We'll just have to go by the numbers in the captured and dead columns because I have no way of knowing the fate of those other deer.)

Until next month!
Lee, Pres. UWC


----------



## Vanilla

Lee, I'm trying to make sense of these numbers a little bit. (Not considering any slipped collars or missing deer as dead for this purpose) 

Parowan-Pahvant:
-30% of the Pahvant resident deer captured in 2013 have died. 
-30% of the Pahvant resident deer captured in 2014 have died. 
-54% of the deer transplanted in 2013 have died. 
-35% of the deer transplanted in 2014 have died. 

AI-Oak Creek
-23% of deer transplanted in 2014 have died. 

AI-San Juan
-12% of deer transplanted in 2014 have died. 

Will be interesting to see how many more 2014 resident deer die in the next year. 30% after a year was already equal to the two-year total from 2013 residents. 

Also interesting that AI deer are doing better in both locations than Parowan transplants are doing.


----------



## elkfromabove

TS30 said:


> Lee, I'm trying to make sense of these numbers a little bit. (Not considering any slipped collars or missing deer as dead for this purpose)
> 
> Parowan-Pahvant:
> -30% of the Pahvant resident deer captured in 2013 have died.
> -30% of the Pahvant resident deer captured in 2014 have died.
> -54% of the deer transplanted in 2013 have died.
> -35% of the deer transplanted in 2014 have died.
> 
> AI-Oak Creek
> -23% of deer transplanted in 2014 have died.
> 
> AI-San Juan
> -12% of deer transplanted in 2014 have died.
> 
> Will be interesting to see how many more 2014 resident deer die in the next year. 30% after a year was already equal to the two-year total from 2013 residents.
> 
> Also interesting that AI deer are doing better in both locations than Parowan transplants are doing.


Sorry, but I think you must have caught me between edits. I update by editing an older update and the numbers you saw are from that old update. The Antelope Island numbers now are quite a bit higher than the ones you saw. Please re-read the tables since I have trouble trying to coordinate the numbers with the text and his table disclaimers/bottom page notes (a, b, c, d, e, f, g) about deer dying on the table or in the trailers before release, and fawns released without collars either at the release site or the capture site. He counts some as captured but not released and some of the deaths aren't counted as capture related. My update counts all deaths and only the deer that are collared and released on the release site. 
For instance his text notes a coyote predation, but it doesn't show up in the table as coyote. I still haven't quite sorted that out yet.


----------



## Vanilla

Definitely caught between an edit. I'll look closer at the new numbers later. 

Just trying to make sense what, if anything, the numbers mean. (Other than most transplanted deer die.)


----------



## elkfromabove

This year's transplant will start this Monday, March 2, beginning at 7:30am at the mouth of Cottonwood Canyon north of Paragonah. Take the I-15 east Frontage Road off the Paragonah exit and drive north just past the I-15 rest stop then turn right. Dress warm! It'll probably take 2 or 3 days because we're going to capture 75 to 100 does since we didn't have an early winter transplant session. (If there are any weather delays, I'll edit this post.)

Lee (UWC)

They're behind on some other projects, so the new schedule calls for a Monday afternoon start, but we're not sure of the time.

Edited again: It's now been moved to Tuesday, but again the we don't know the time. And the storm in the area may slow it down even more! I'll post updates ASAP! And, FWIW, I just read an old email on my UWC email address and discovered that this batch of does is going to the Oak Creeks! That'll complicate the updates!!!! :-(

Edited: NOW IT'S WEDNESDAY!! Again no time and again, depending on that crazy weather where it's putting more snow on the ground in the valley than it is on the mountain.

Edited: It's on for this morning (Thursday) at 7:30! In fact, I'm just about to leave! Also tomorrow! Come on down!


----------



## elkfromabove

This update will be a report on the transplant sessions that took place Thursday and yesterday.

On Thursday, 7:30 am, we started out at the sagebrush flats near the mouth of Cottonwood Canyon northeast of the I-15 east rest stop north of Paragonah and we actually captured 41 deer (does). However, one of the early ones broke her hip in her struggle with the net and when we tried to release her on the capture site, she could only use her front legs, so we had to put her down. So, we ended up with 40 transplanted that day. All were in pretty good shape, but the overall health seemed just a little down from last year, though we did find a few (5 or 6) that were in better shape than last year at this time. It seemed like there was a wider spread on the body health numbers (weight, fat, body measurements). I'm not sure what that meant, but this crazy weather down here probably had something to do with it. Some of them may have stayed up on the hill longer or found young growth coming up early or were in better shape when they came. We found only 2 of the 40 wasn't pregnant and all the ones I saw had twins. Basically, my jobs were to take the temps, help with the rectal tissue extractions for CWD and clean the tables and thermometers between captures, although I also helped with the gurney pickups and trailer loading. Between captures, I also helped with the public relations aspect (We had a few visitors.). It was amazing to see the teamwork! We had people in the right places at the right times all day long.

All of the deer were tagged, but not all were collared. Since this batch is going to the Oak Creek Mountains (west of Scipio), there isn't the same intensity in the study as there has been on the Pahvant, so my future updates won't account for all 40 we did today nor all we do tomorow. We finished about 6:30 pm and moved to an area south of Summit for some captures Friday morning.

Friday:
We spent 4 hours at the new location, capturing 16 does. Again, they were all in good shape and all were pregnant.

While there, we had a traveler, backpack and all, walk up from the I-15 frontage road to tell us there was a live deer caught in the frontage road fence, so we sent a crew down to get it out. And they came back with an interesting story. Apparently, the helicopter had got it moving and it panicked and got caught in the fence. It seems that when they cut the fence to let it out, it was slow to get up, but it finally went off on a staggering, limping trot when one of the crew noticed it only had 3 legs. It was still close enough to see pretty clear and, as it turned out, the missing leg had healed, so who knows how long it had been that way or who knows how long it will live before it can't outrun the coyotes. In any case, they wished it well and sent it on it's way.

At 11:30, we than packed up again and returned to Cottonwood because Jason (DWR) wanted to concentrate where the range damage was the worst. There we captured 22 more does with only 1 not pregnant. So, in 2 days we captured 79 deer and transplanted 78 of them and 75 were pregnant (96%). I don't know how many were radio collared because there were actually 3 stations (2 inside the tent and 1 outside) and the new chopper crew were faster (and cheaper) than Dragonfly (They charged $300 per capture.) and I couldn't keep track. The updates will tell the story anyway.

Now, this is the last scheduled capture of the Parowan Front study, but the updates will continue all year. Stay tuned.

Thanks,
Lee


----------



## elkfromabove

elkfromabove said:


> Another update!
> 
> From Lee: This current update is an edit of a previous update because it's easier. The email sent from Dave has been edited by myself for English errors and clarity.
> 
> Mule deer translocation update for February 22 - April 8.
> 
> Project background/goals: (From Lee: see post #16
> 
> Since the last update, we (SFW and UDWR) translocated another group of deer (see tables below) from the Parowan Front to the Oak Creek Mountains. These deer were released in the same area that deer from Antelope Island were released in 2014.
> 
> Since the last update, we have had 3 mortalities on the Pahvant (2 resident, 1 translocated) and 4 translocated deer (2015) mortalities on the Oak Creeks.
> 
> *Pahvant*
> - 2 resident deer appeared to be cougar predations (cached, tracks, bite marks).
> - 1 unknown cause of mortality (translocated deer from January 2014). This deer was found near the same area as one of the resident deer above and may have been cougar predation. However, there was little left of the carcass and we were unable to find any evidence to definitely determine cause of death.
> 
> *Oak Creek *(2015 transplants)
> - 3 capture related mortalities. (From Lee: This number excludes a deer that had to be put down prior to being collared because of a broken hip during capture. However, I have included it in the tables below as a collared deer that died from capture related injuries).
> - 1 unknown cause of mortality. This deer had been scavenged and very little was left to aid in determining the cause of death.
> 
> Despite the 3 (sic 4) capture related mortalities, capture and transplant-related causes of death remain low (5%) and in line with expected rates for helicopter capture. (From Lee: see following post.)
> 
> We have picked up most of the GPS collars that have fallen off (programmed to fall off 105 weeks after being placed on deer). We will no longer have regular contact with these deer and will count them as slipped collars when the collar is picked up (see tables below).
> 
> Currently most of the deer released onto the Pahvant can be found on winter range between Holden and Fillmore. Fidelity to release areas (ie: return to winter range after one or two years following release) has averaged more than 90 percent across years and groups of transplanted deer. In our opinion, this finding is perhaps the most important from the past two years as translocation appears a viable management strategy to establish or reestablish use of unused winter ranges.
> 
> We presented results from the initial two years at the Utah Chapter of the Wildlife Society annual meeting and have completed a rough draft of our annual report. We will pass this report along once the final edits are completed. Highlights (fact sheet) of the information included in the report are attached (From Lee: see next post).
> 
> Thanks for continued interest and support. Please forward to anyone else interested and let us know if there is additional information you would like reported in our regular updates.
> 
> (Tables below edited by Lee for easier reading):
> 
> *Parowan to Pahvant Transplanted and Pahvant Resident Control Deer:*
> Jan'13-resident-*50*captured/*18*alive/*16*dead/*12*slipped collars/*4*missing
> Jan'13-transplanted-*51*captured/*14*alive/*29*dead/*4*slipped collars/*4* missing
> Mar'13-translocated-*51*captured/*15*alive/*26*dead/*7*slipped collars/*3*missing
> Jan'14-resident-*20*captured/*13*alive/*7*dead
> Jan'14-transplanted-*51*captured/*30*alive/*18*dead/*1*slipped collar/*2*missing
> Mar'14-transplanted-*47*captured/*24*alive/*18*dead/*3*slipped collar/*2*missing
> *Causes of Death:*
> Jan'13-res-*16*dead/*5*cougar/*6*coyote/*4*unknown/*1*disease
> Jan'13-trans-*29*dead/*10*coug/*2*coyote/*2*bobcat/*3*vehicle/*1*poach/*7*unk/*2*cap/*2*disease
> Mar'13-trans-*26*dead/*7*cougar/*5*coyote/*3*poach/*7*unknown/*2*capture/*2*disease
> Jan'14-res-*7*dead/*2*cougar/*1*coyote/*2*unknown/*2*capture
> Jan'14-trans-*18*dead/*7*cougar/*2*coy/*5*unk/*4*cap
> Mar'14-trans-*18*dead/*4*cougar/*4*coyote/*1*vehicle/*1*poach/*7*unk/*1*cap
> 
> *Antelope Island to Oak Creek Transplanted Deer:*
> Feb'14-transplanted-*47*captured/*22*alive/*24*dead/*1*missing
> *Causes of Death:*
> Feb'14-trans-*24*dead/*7*cougar/*6*coyote/*1*vehicle/*10*unknown
> 
> *Antelope Island to San Juan Transplanted Deer:*
> Feb'14-transplanted-*50*captured/*27*alive/*21*dead/*2*missing
> *Causes of Death:*
> Feb'14-trans-*21*dead/*2*cougar/*4*coyote/*3*vehicle/*10*unknown/*2*capture
> 
> *Parowan to Oak Creek Transplanted Deer:*
> Mar'15-transplanted-*79*cap/*41*collars/*36*alive/*5*dead
> *Causes of Death:*
> Mar'15-trans-*5*dead/*1*unknown/*4*capture
> 
> David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)


Thanks for looking! Until next time.
Lee Tracy (UWC)


----------



## elkfromabove

From Lee: see previous post.

"Highlights of the Mule Deer Translocation Project (April 2015)

*Impetus* - Very little and often conflicting information on success of transplanted mule deer. SFW initiated and funded a 3-year project with BYU, UDWR, and Utah State Parks as partners to monitor success of transplanted mule deer. Below are some of the highlights from the past 2 years.

*Captures and Translocations*
- 70 female deer captured and released near Fillmore, Utah (control group).
- 102 female deer captured near Cedar City and moved north to the Pahvant range (2013).
- 96 female deer captured near Cedar City and move north to the Pahvant range (2014).
- 99 deer captured on Antelope Island and moved south to the Oak Creek (49 deer) and San Juan (50 deer) units (2015.
-100 deer captured on Antelope Island and moved south to the Dutton (50 deer) and San Juan (50 deer) units (2015).
-78 deer captured near Cedar City and moved north to the Oak Creek range (2015).

*Predator Control*
- Over 400 coyotes removed by USDA wildlife services in preparation for releases.

*Capture and Transplant-related Mortalities*
- Only 17 of 338 (5.0%) intensively monitored deer died of capture-related or transplant-related causes within the first few weeks of and release (Note that the 338 number excludes the 100 deer moved from Antelope Island in 2015 and 37 unmarked deer moved from the Parowan Front to the Oak Creeks in 2015). The vast majority of these deaths were attributed to injuries sustained during capture and this observed 5% rate in not different from that commonly observed in traditional capture and release projects (general range is 3-5%). Thus, moving deer did not result in high rates of capture myopathy (death due to stress from capture and transport).

*Annual Survival*
- Annual survival of resident deer (control group) ranged between 76% (2014) and 86% (2013).
- Annual survival of transplants in their first year ranged from 48% to 76% depending on year (Fig 1).
- Much higher annual survival (83%) for transplants in their second year following release (2014).
- Predation by cougars and coyotes identified as cause of majority of deaths.
- Strong support for age as a predictor of survival for transplanted deer (young deer survived much better than older deer).

*Reproduction*
- Transplanted deer regularly observed with fawns. During Fall of 2014, for example, we carefully observed 18 resident deer with at least 10 total fawns and 36 transplants with at least 21 total fawns.

*Physical Condition*
- Average body fat estimates were 9.4% for resident Pahvant deer in January of 2014, 8.1% for transplants from 3013 that were recaptured in January of 2014, and 8.0% for newly captured (January 2014) deer on the Parowan front. Transplanted deer were in good physical condition after a year on the Pahvant.

*Movements and Site Fidelity*
- Initial analysis of GPS data shows translocated deer moving much more than resident deer, particularly during the initial summer following release.
- Despite ranging far and wide during the initial summer, however, more than 90% of transplanted deer returned to the winter range where they were released. For a few of these deer, it would have been easier (and closer) to return to the Parowan front.

*Conclusions*
- Transplants could benefit mule deer populations by helping to establish or reestablish use of underutilized winter ranges.
- Work to improve habitat, manage predators, fence highways, limit poaching, etc. will also be required to continue increasing populations in Utah.

*- Thanks to everyone for dedication, funding and passionate support of this and other projects."*

From Lee: The original email also includes a couple of charts, one showing apparent survival rates and the other showing average percent body fat. If any of you want the original email, pm me.


----------



## elkfromabove

elkfromabove said:


> From Lee: This update is edited by myself for simplification of the numbers. If you prefer the original send me an email request at [email protected].
> 
> Mule deer translocation update for April 9 - June 5 (2015)
> 
> *Project background/goals: *(From Lee, See post #16).
> 
> Since the last update, we have had 1 slipped collar (2014 transplant to the Oak Creeks _(from Antelope Island)_ and 8 translocated deer mortalities on the Oak Creeks (all 2015 transplants) _(from Parowan Front). From Lee: Per the tables, there also was 1 slipped collar on the Pahvant, Jan 2013._
> 
> Oak Creeks
> -1 slipped collar (2014 transplant). The necklace material appears to have failed prematurely.
> -1 deer was found tangled in a fence.
> -2 unknown causes of mortality. These deer had been scavenged and very little was left to aid in determining the cause of death.
> -2 mortalities were caused by vehicle collisions.
> -3 mortalities appear to be cougar predations (cached and drag marks).
> 
> Developments over the last few months continue to reinforce the idea that transplanted deer demonstrate lower survival than resident deer during the initial year following release (all of the mortalities in the last two months have been from deer released in 2015) but not in year two or three post release (no mortalities for 2013, 2014, or resident deer over the past two months).
> 
> Some deer can still be found on winter range, but most have migrated. Currently deer are spread from the north to south end of the Pahvant and Oak Creek Mountains with radio signals audible from both the east and west sides of these ranges.
> 
> We have been very busy analyzing data, completing the annual report for year 2 (attached) _(From Lee: Email me for an original copy of this update which includes the attachment.)_ and presenting the results to biologists and managers at the mule deer and elk workshop.
> 
> Over the next 6 months, we will continue to monitor radio-marked deer and complete the final report for this project which is scheduled to finish at the end of 2015. Regular (approximately monthly) updates will continue through 2015.
> 
> Thanks to all for continued interest and support. Please forward to anyone else interested and let us know if there is additional information you would like reported in our regular updates.
> 
> David Smedley & Randy Larsen (BYU)
> 
> From Lee: Edited Tables:
> 
> *Parowan Front to Pahvant Transplanted and Pahvant Resident Control Deer:*
> Jan 13-res-*50*captured-*18*alive-*16*dead-*12*slipped collar-*4*missing
> Jan 13-trans-*51*captured-*13*alive-*29*dead-*5*slipped collar-*4*missing
> Mar 13-trans-*51*captured-*15*alive-*26*dead-*7*slipped collar-*3*missing
> Jan 14-res-*20*captured-*13*alive-*7*dead
> Jan 14-trans-*51*captured-*30*alive-*18*dead-*1*slipped collar-*2*missing
> Mar14-trans-*47*captured-*24*alive-*18*dead-*3*slipped collar-*2*missing
> *Causes of Death:*
> Jan 13-res-*16*dead-*5*cougar-*6*coyote-*4*unknown-*1*disease
> Jan 13-trans-*29*dead-*10*cou-*2*coy-*2*bobcat-*3*vehicle-*1*poach-*7*unk-*2*capture-*2*dis
> Mar 13-trans-*26*dead-*7*cou-*5*coy-*3*poach-*7*unk-*2*cap-*2*dis
> Jan 14-res-*7*dead-*2*cou-*1*coy-*2*unk-*2*cap
> Jan 14-trans-*18*dead-*7*cou-*2*coy-*5*unk-*4*cap
> Mar 14-trans-*18*dead-*4*cou-*4*coy-*1*veh-*1*poach-*7*unk-*1*cap
> 
> *Antelope Island to Oak Creek Transplanted Deer:*
> Feb 14-trans-*47*captured-*21*alive-*24*dead-*2*missing
> *Causes of Death:*
> Feb 14-trans-*24*dead-*7*cou-*6*coy-*1*vehicle-*10*unk
> 
> *Antelope Island to San Juan Transplanted Deer:*
> Feb 14-trans-*50*captured-*27*alive-*21*dead-*2*missing
> *Causes of Death:*
> Feb 14-trans-*21*dead-*2*cou-*4*coy-*3*veh-*10*unk-*2*cap
> 
> *Parowan Front to Oak Creek Transplanted Deer:*
> Mar'15-trans-*79*cap/*41*collars-*28*alive-*13*dead
> *Causes of Death:*
> Mar'15-trans-*13*dead-*3*coug-*2*veh-*3*unk-*4*cap-*1*disease


Thanks for looking! Until next update,
Lee Tracy (UWC)


----------



## elkfromabove

elkfromabove said:


> Another update! (From Lee, Again, see previous update for my disclaimers about "Project background/goals" and the tables below)
> 
> Mule deer translocation update for June 6 - September 2.
> 
> Since the last update we have had 1 slipped collar on the Pahvant, 8 transplanted deer mortalities on the Pahvant, and 3 transplanted deer mortalities on the Oak Creeks (2015 transplants). We have had a total of 13 transplanted deer mortalities this year on the San Juan (thanks Dustin!).
> 
> *Pahvant:*
> *- *1 slipped collar (2013 transplant). The necklace material appears to have failed prematurely.
> - 3 unknown causes of mortality (2 from 2013, 1 from 2014). These deer had mostly been scavenged and very little was left to aid in determining the cause of death.
> - 2 mortalities appear to be predation, 1 cougar, 1 coyote (2014 transplants).
> - 3 mortalities were caused by vehicle collisions on I-15 and I-70 (2014 transplants).
> 
> *Oak Creeks*:
> - 1 mortality appears to be coyote predation (2015 transplant).
> - 2 unknown causes of mortality (2015 transplants). These deer had been scavenged and very little was left to aid in determining the cause of death. Identifying causes of death is more difficult in the summer as the decomposition process moves much more quickly in the heat.
> 
> *San Juan*:
> - 10 unknown causes of mortality (2 from 2014, 8 from 2015).
> - 2 mortalities appear to be predation, 1 cougar, 1 coyote (2015 transplants).
> - 1 capture related mortality (2015 transplant).
> 
> Results from this year confirm the pattern found in each of the past two years where deer survival is lower than average during the initial year following release (often around 50%), but then back in line with survival rates of resident deer during year two or three post release (typically near 85% average annual survival). In the first 8 months of 2015, for example, we've confirmed mortalities for 5% of resident deer, 8% of deer transplanted to the Pahvant in 2013, 15% of deer transplanted to the Pahvant in 2014, 8% of deer transplanted to the Oak Creeks in 2014, 7% of deer transplanted to the San Juan in 2014, 32% of deer transplanted to the Oak Creeks in 2015, and 40% of the deer released on the San Juan in 2015. We suspect this pattern will continue and we will end up with about 50% survival for deer released in 2015 with 80-90% survival for resident deer and deer in years 2-3 following release.
> 
> We also continue to observe a very strong relationship between annual survival and the estimated age of transplanted animals. Attached is a figure showing this relationship where young (2-3 year olds) animals survive the initial year at nearly 3x the rate of older deer. It is also interesting to note that younger deer in their second year following release are also surviving better than older deer.
> 
> Currently, deer are spread from the north to south end of the Oak Creek Mountains and from the north end of the Pahvant to the north end of the Beaver Mountains (south of the Pahvant), with radio signals audible from both the east and west sides of each mountain range.
> 
> We have been very busy over the past several months analyzing data and drafting a thesis that will become two manuscripts for the peer-reviewed literature (one on survival of translocated mule deer; one on movements and space use of translocated animals from this study).
> 
> Over the next few months, we will continue to monitor radio-marked deer and complete the final report for this project which is scheduled to finish at the end of 2015. Regular (approximately monthly) updates will continue through 2015.
> 
> Thanks to all for continued interest and support. Please forward to anyone else interested and let us know if there is additional information you would like reported in our regular updates.
> 
> David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)
> 
> *Parowan to Pahvant transplanted and Pahvant resident control deer:*
> Jan'13-resident-*50*captured/*18*alive/*16*dead/*12*slipped collars/*4*missing
> Jan'13-transplanted-*51*captured/*12*alive/*30*dead/*5*slipped collars/*4*missing
> Mar'13-translocated-*51*captured/*13*alive/*27*dead/*8*slipped collars/*3*missing
> Jan'14-resident-*20*captured/*13*alive/*7*dead
> Jan'14-transplanted-*51*captured/*27*alive/*21*dead/*1*slipped collar/*2*missing
> Mar'14-transplanted-*47*captured/*22*alive/*20*dead/*3*slipped collar/*2*missing
> *Causes of Death:*
> Jan'13-res-*16*dead/*5*cougar/*6*coyote/*4*unknown/*1*disease
> Jan'13-trans-*30*dead/*10*cou/*2*coy/*2*bobcat/*3*vehicle/*1*poach/*8*unk/*2*capture/*2*dis
> Mar'13-trans-*27*dead/*7*cou/*5*coy/*3*poach/*8*unk/*2*cap/*2*dis
> Jan'14-res-*7*dead/*2*cou/*1*coy/*2*unk/*2*cap
> Jan'14-trans-*21*dead/*7*cou/*2*coy/*2*veh/*6*unk/*4*cap
> Mar'14-trans-*20*dead/*5*coug/*5*coy/*1*poach/*1*veh/*7*unk/*1*cap
> 
> *Antelope Island to Oak Creek Transplanted deer:*
> Feb'14-transplanted-*47*captured/*22*alive/*24*dead/*1*missing
> *Causes of Death:*
> Feb'14-trans-*24*dead/*7*cougar/*6*coyote/*1*veh/*10*unknown
> 
> *Antelope Island to San Juan Transplanted deer:*
> Feb'14-transplanted-*51*captured/*27*alive/*23*dead/*1*missing
> Jan'15-transplanted-*50*captured/*25*collared/*13*alive/*11*dead/*1*missing
> *Causes of Death:*
> Feb'14-trans-*23*dead/*2*cougar/*4*coy/*5 *vehicle/*10*unk/*2*capture
> Jan'15-trans-*11*dead/*1*cou/*1*coy/*8*unk/*1*cap
> 
> *Parowan to Oak Creek Transplanted Deer:*
> Mar'15-transplanted-*79*captured/*41*collared/*22*alive/*16*dead/*3*missing
> *Causes of Death:*
> Mar'15-trans-*16*dead/*3*cou/*1*coy/*2*veh/*5*unk/*4*cap/*1*dis


Until next time,
Lee Tracy (UWC)


----------



## Iron Bear

Correct me if I'm mistaken. 

Cougar are still in the lead for killing more deer then anything else. 

Besides unknown of which you got to assume some of those unknown are cougar kills.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Iron Bear said:


> Correct me if I'm mistaken.
> 
> Cougar are still in the lead for killing more deer then anything else.
> 
> Besides unknown of which you got to assume some of those unknown are cougar kills.


maybe...and then you kill all the cougars and the other causes of death rise. So, what's your point?


----------



## Iron Bear

Never said kill all the Cougars. 

Let's just not manage them to their capacity. Then wonder why we can't increase the deer herd.

My point is that cougar are killing more deer in Utah then any other single factor. 

So before you cut a tag from a hunter reduce the cougar pop to get the relief trying to be achieved.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish

Iron Bear said:


> Never said kill all the Cougars.
> 
> Let's just not manage them to their capacity. Then wonder why we can't increase the deer herd.
> 
> My point is that cougar are killing more deer in Utah then any other single factor.
> 
> So before you cut a tag from a hunter reduce the cougar pop to get the relief trying to be achieved.


What if the unknown is Black Bears?

What if the unknown is Pesticides?

What if the unknown is Golden Eagles?

What if the unknown is poison plants that the deer eat by mistake?

What if the unknown is a deer stepping on a rattle snake?

What if the unknown is Sasquatch?

There are a lot more factors that go into the unknown and growing a deer herd than cougar and other predators.

I think there is research that will say all of these is a factor in growing deer herds, well maybe not sasquatch.

Do we kill all the cougars?

Do we kill all the black bears?

Do we ban pesticides?

Do we kill all golden eagles?

Do we hire people to go out and remove all poison plants?

Do we trap and kill all the snakes?

Do we murder the endangered sasquatch?


----------



## LostLouisianian

MuscleWhitefish said:


> What if the unknown is Black Bears?
> 
> What if the unknown is Pesticides?
> 
> What if the unknown is Golden Eagles?
> 
> What if the unknown is poison plants that the deer eat by mistake?
> 
> What if the unknown is a deer stepping on a rattle snake?
> 
> What if the unknown is Sasquatch?
> 
> There are a lot more factors that go into the unknown and growing a deer herd than cougar and other predators.
> 
> I think there is research that will say all of these is a factor in growing deer herds, well maybe not sasquatch.
> 
> Do we kill all the cougars?
> 
> Do we kill all the black bears?
> 
> Do we ban pesticides?
> 
> Do we kill all golden eagles?
> 
> Do we hire people to go out and remove all poison plants?
> 
> Do we trap and kill all the snakes?
> 
> Do we murder the endangered sasquatch?


Well I am relatively certain there is some data regarding how many deer black bears, eagles, snakes and sasquatch kill per year and it is fairly low. Pesticides/herbicides is a hot issue on here as you well know and there is NO reliable data PROVING CONCLUSIVELY that herbicides/pesticides is having an impact on deer mortality. I mean let's be honest, if herbicides and pesticides had a dramatic impact on deer mortality there would be no deer in Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska or the farm belt, which happens to have more deer and bigger deer than anywhere else.

You didn't mention coyotes, feral dogs or automobiles....all of which have a significant impact on deer numbers.

I also find it rather incredible that deer numbers are now actually UP in Utah given that they don't have nuts, can't eat due to under or over bites, are selenium deficient and are starving for magnesium sludge and are eating herbicide treated foliage and grasses by the bushel fulls. How on earth are these deer even surviving given all the maladies they are suffering from let alone increasing to levels not seen in 20+ years...next thing you know dogs will be sleeping with cats and the world will be inside out.


----------



## Vanilla

Why do we have to assume that some of the unknowns are cougar kills? Quite contrary, you CAN'T assume they are cougar kills, or all the data ends up being invalid. You can't assume an unknown is anything other than just that: Unknown. It is 100% possible that not a single unknown is a cougar kill. Just like it is possible every one is. 

All that said, I agree that Cougars are the root of all problems in Utah. They pretty much suck. GO UTES!


----------



## DallanC

What was the final result of this study?


-DallanC


----------

