# The impact of coyote removal after one year



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

In the latest edition of SFW's magazine The Sportsmen's Voice, there is a pretty good article detailing what has happened so far with the coyote removal study on Monroe Mountain. Although this study is far from over and results are, in no way, final, they are, nevertheless, very interesting.

As you may or may not know, as part of this study, does were captured from their winter range surrounding Monroe Mountain and transmitters were inserted into the vaginas of these does to monitor the survival of their fawns. Interestingly, of the females captured, 98% were pregnant. The mean parturition dates for these females was June 13th and only a handful of fawns were born later than June 18th. During the first year, "survival was not different between the predator removal study area and the control study area." Most interesting, though, are the causes of death among the fawns that did not survive their first 6 months--in the control area there were 15 deaths--2 still births, 9 predation mortalities, 2 died from abandonment, and 2 were chalked up to unknown causes; in the treatment area, there were 14 deaths--5 by predation, 1 by roadkill, 2 by disease, 3 by abandonment, and 3 to unknown causes.

So, what are the results indicating thus far? A couple things: 1) the does are being bred 2) the does are being bred early 3) that predation is mostly compensatory.

To me, the third part is most interesting--in the control area or area with predator removal, predation was the primary cause of death and 9 total fawns were killed by predators. In the treatment area where predator control is being conducted, only 5 fawns were preyed upon. So, what happened to even out the mortality? It appears as if nature "compensated" through roadkill, disease, and abandonment! Even if you chalk up the unknown causes of fawn mortalities to predation, there is a reduced number of fawn mortalities due to predation in the treatment area but similar numbers of total mortalities....


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

And the best part.....These studies have already been conducted elsewhere, with similar results. They where done in Idaho in the '90s, where even lion predation was shown to be compensatory. They were done in Colorado in the '90s, where it was shown that coyote predation was compensatory, and that habitat restoration was the only tried method that could increase deer. The study was also done in Wyoming where it was yet again determined that coyote predation on deer was compensatory. Did not keep them from having a coyote bounty program, and then trying to declare victory over nothing. 

I have a study in front of me right now, that shows a 260% increase in a deer population, over a 3 year period. And guess what? predator control had nothing to do with it. 

Utah sportsmen that believe that Option WTF? or coyote bounties, will increase deer numbers, need to have their collective heads checked.

Mark my words, coyote bounties, and Option WTF? will be touted as being successful in bringing up deer numbers. But I guarantee you that there will be no quantitative, peer reviewed science, to support such claims. And why would these things suddenly work now? We have been cutting hunters for 20 years with no long term increase in deer numbers. And there has never been a shred of scientific evidence to show that coyote predation is additive. Yet Utah sportsmen just keep on, keeping on, with same old, same old.


----------



## sknabnoj (Nov 29, 2012)

That's really interesting, nature definitely has a way of evening things out. I would say though that the sample was very small you referenced, I did not know however that the study had already been conducted and failed. Really good info... thanks for the update!


----------



## BradN (Sep 25, 2007)

The sample size is pretty small as I'm sure those conducting the study recognize. Coupled with three unknown causes of death (could they be from predators?), I think you are hard-pressed to state now that the losses are compensatory.

It will be interesting to watch the results of the study as it goes forward.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

BradN said:


> The sample size is pretty small as I'm sure those conducting the study recognize. Coupled with three unknown causes of death (could they be from predators?), I think you are hard-pressed to state now that the losses are compensatory.
> 
> It will be interesting to watch the results of the study as it goes forward.


This same basic study was conducted in Idaho from 1997-2003, only on a much bigger scale, with over 1000 deer monitored. This study was conducted across 8 game management units. Not only were coyotes extensively removed on control units, so were mountain lions.

Over a six year period, even when lions were removed, they could not bring up deer trend numbers.

This has been replicated in Wyoming and Colorado as well. You can marginally increase fawn survival with coyote removal. And you can marginally increase fawn to doe ratios with lion removal. Yet even with those combined effects, you can not increase the trend line. Therefor you can not grow deer with predator control.

You can cling to your myths and illusions all you want, Santa Claus and the Easter bunny, are not real.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

BradN said:


> Coupled with three unknown causes of death (could they be from predators?),


Even if you chalk up all unknown deaths as predator deaths, the results thus far look compensatory.

Also, as the study continues, the sample size will grow...

Again, also, so far this study is blowing the theory that the does are not being bred early enough out of the water...


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

The whole does not being bred early enough, has quite a few holes in it IMHO. That being said, at least it is attempting to address the supply side of things. It is at least looking at factors that may contribute to, or suppress, fawn production. And it is fawn production that we need to be looking at, that is what grows deer herds. So what drives fawn production?

The problem I see with the early/late breeding theory, is that it can only address part of the life cycle issues that we are seeing with mule deer. Early or late breeding has little bearing on doe and fawn health. In fact it is the health of does(and of course weather) that drives estrus, and induces the rut. So not only will healthy does drive a productive rutting season, it is the health of does that determine how well their fawns will do.

There have studies done on captive mule deer, that show that you can maintain a herd with marginal nutrition, and marginal health. These captive studies controlled the nutritional intake of mule deer to in order to study the full affect of nutrition. Deer that were fed marginal nutrition in the captive studies, best mimic what we have seen in the west for the last decade or so, flat numbers, that just self sustain. Under the same captive conditions, they increased the nutritional value of the feed available to the deer, and what do you get? Twins, and exponential growth. Growth of deer herds is dependent on fawn recruitment, rapid growth is dependent on the production of twins. And it is healthy does that produce twins. This is irregardless of whether they were bred early, or late, or by a mature 4 point, or a young two point.

Like I said, at least that part of the study is looking in the right place.


----------



## BradN (Sep 25, 2007)

Lonetree,

Apparently, you didn't read what I wrote. That might explain your DB response. If you want real discussions, perhaps you ought get out of attack mode. I see why you're a pseudo wildlife biologist. Your skills of observation suck.

My reference was to one study with a control group of 15 and test group of 15. Was there anything that I said that could possibly lead you to believe that I was "cling[ing] to myths and illusions"? Or that I doubted compensatory losses? I merely stated that I would like to see a sample size greater than 15. Apparently, those conducting the study do, too, as they are continuing the study. Kudos to them for actually suspending judgment until all the data is in.

Wyo2Utah, keep us posted on the results of the study. I'm interested.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Just an FYI...69 adult does were captured of which 68 were pregnant. VITs were inserted into 65 of the 68 captured females (3 of the females had vaginas too small to insert the transmitters). Of the 65 does with the VIT, 40 moved from their winter range into the study areas while 14 moved to summer range outside of the study area. Also, 7 does died prior to parturition and 4 migrated into the buffer area between study areas. The 40 does with transmitters that moved into the study area produced 61 fawns...of these, 2 were stillborn. 25 of the fawns were in the southern area and 34 in the northern study area. So, overall 59 fawns were monitored this past year...


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Brad

There is only one reason to cast doubt on whether the numbers are compensator or not, which is exactly what you were doing. 

The outcome wont be "interesting" it will be very predictable. Just as predictable as the tight focus on any short term reduction of fawn mortality, while ignoring the lack of long term trend increases independent of larger control groups. 

If in three trial studies, you paint a car red, and the result is a red car, what makes you think that painting a car red a fourth time, will get you a black car?

Considering that I have actually commissioned wildlife studies, and contribute to them, you don't really have a leg to stand on, in criticizing my wildlife biology "observation" skills.


----------



## BradN (Sep 25, 2007)

Apparently, at least one trained biologist disagrees with you. Why else would he or she even entertain doing another study?

As far as your powers of observation go, your ability to read simple English or read people could use a tremendous amount of sharpening. You jumped all over my comment without the vaguest idea of my perspective. My observations indicate that is rather normal for your participation here.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

BradN said:


> Apparently, at least one trained biologist disagrees with you. Why else would he or she even entertain doing another study?
> 
> As far as your powers of observation go, your ability to read simple English or read people could use a tremendous amount of sharpening. You jumped all over my comment without the vaguest idea of my perspective. My observations indicate that is rather normal for your participation here.


:grin: So what if one biologist may disagree with me. Our former director was a biologist that supported all kinds of biologically unsound policies. It means nothing.

I read and comprehend English at a college level, my IQ is no where near insufficient. I practice science, while you read it. As to my idea of your perspective, you are probably an advocate of predator control to increase ungulate populations. This being why you attempted to cast doubt on whether or not the predation in the study, was compensatory or not.

By all means, tell us what you think about the study, expound upon your comments about small sample sizes. This is in relation to what? point us to the bibliography, I'd like to see your reference information, to better understand the supporting work, for your thoughts on the subject. Or do your thoughts on the matter stand alone?


----------



## bowhunt3r4l1f3 (Jan 12, 2011)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. IMO the real way to improve the size and health of the heard, is to allow forest fires to burn! Obviously we should protect peoples homes. But if no homes are in danger, I don't see why we should stop nature from doing what it needs done. This article really puts it in perspective. http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/mule_deer_wafwa.pdf


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

bowhunt3r4l1f3 said:


> I've said it before, and I'll say it again. IMO the real way to improve the size and health of the heard, is to allow forest fires to burn! Obviously we should protect peoples homes. But if no homes are in danger, I don't see why we should stop nature from doing what it needs done. This article really puts it in perspective. http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/mule_deer_wafwa.pdf


In the case of low intensity forest fires, that patch work the land scape, and create successional growth, then yes, that could be beneficial to some locales. But given the 300-400 year life cycle of forests in Utah, and our 165 years of interference, forests, especially in Utah, are a very small part of the equation.

Also, the evidence is not there, for fires driving numbers prior to the 1900s. Large scale fires through the 20s, 30s, and 40s, can not account for the high numbers of deer in the 40s, because successional growth takes time. Additionally, fire trends follow drought trends, and that is the 30s in a nut shell. Those fires could account for deer number increases later in the century. From 1986-1988 we had some of the largest fires the West has ever seen, but there is no correlative evidence that these fires have benefited the grand scheme of mule deer in the short or long term.

You are right though, it is about feed. And more importantly it is about what makes for quality feed.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

Lonetree, what effect do you see the CRP program having on our deer? pm if you wish. Very interested in how that correlates to the trends relating to mule deer.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Lots more CRP in S Idaho, its affects would be localized. The vast majority of the West is unaffected by CRP, so I cant see it playing into the bigger picture much. From a nutritional point of view, it has a stabilizing affect, and does not remove biomass, which is a good thing for deer. 

Of the 100 or so "possibles" that I have started on, 98% of them are like CRP, road mortality, predation, hunting pressure, etc. While one or more may be at play, at any one locale, none of them, even in combination, can be brought into focus across the entire range of the Mule deer. When we get to a certain point on the tree, where an issue appears to be too localized, you have to zoom out, and put it in context. 

There are two things, that are not localized, and affect Mule deer, across the west. That is weather, and nutrition. Zoom back from just Mule deer, and you will find these two compounding issues are global, and correlative across time. 

If you look at the early '90s for example, you have additional Mule deer declines in the west. But it is not just Mule deer, you have sharp declines in moose, and bighorn sheep at the same time in the West. Zoom out a little further, and you have moose and sheep declines that correlate in Alaska and Canada at the same time. Zoom out even further, and you will find moose declining in Norway, at the same time. Weather is the number one factor that can be correlated to all events. In the case of moose and sheep, nutritional deficiencies along with the weather, were identified as culprits in several of these locations as well. And in several locations in the West, prior to these weather events, Mule deer had been shown to suffer from sub-clinical nutritional deficiencies.

Fast forward to ~2008/2009, and the unprecedented wet springs we received for several years. You see a sharp drop in moose numbers in several places in the West, and Norway again(not as pronounced). At the same time, Bighorn sheep that inhabit certain areas, also show disease and declining numbers. And Mule deer numbers stay flat lined, or even decline in some places. 
The driest year on record in the West, 2012, grew deer and Bighorn sheep in the West. Weather and nutrition are the best examples of how that occurred. 

So, we can keep down the same road we have been on for 20+ years, and ignore what is going on, while trying to attribute it to other things. Or we can roll up our sleeves, and take a hard look at what it is that is actually affecting our wildlife and the future of hunting. I plan to keep hunting into the future, and I intend to leave that legacy to my my children. More of the same old Utah BS is not going to get me there. And I will not be taking kindly to those that intend to continue with that course.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

BradN said:


> Apparently, at least one trained biologist disagrees with you. Why else would he or she even entertain doing another study?


Because the public gets involved!!!

We see this time and time again in both big game and fisheries management. Our biologists are constantly asked (forced) to "look at alternate ways" of managing. The majority of the time, they are asked by the public to do things that have failed over, and over, and over. The general public has very short memories. Consider Johnson Reservoir, and the numerous times it has been suggested that it needs to be managed as a trout fishery. Or, consider the yearly cries for "3-point or better" management. Or semi-annual request to remove special regs from Minersville.

We have a RAC and a WB, numerous special interest groups, and political leaders that just LOVE to get their hands into the management sector. The result is that our biologists and managers are forced to constantly do studies and implement practices that have historically failed. That doesn't mean that they (biologists) agree with it. Often times, they do it because they have been told to do it.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

PBH

Well said, and on point. 

The "public" needs to be involved, but we have to look at what is driving their participation, and where they get their information from.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

So through tree ring mapping of prehistoric droughts, and wet cycles, and archeological evidence of Amerindian hunting success. We know that big game numbers have ebbed and flowed for centuries in the West. And much of this is driven by weather. And we have all heard everyone say, there is nothing we can do about the weather. And that may be so. But it is looking more and more like there is something exacerbating the weather driven declines. After centuries of bouncing back from these population dips, it appears there may be a tipping point, or additive factor, that is driving some declines to the point they are not recoverable. That is where we need to look for answers.


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> :grin: So what if one biologist may disagree with me. Our former director was a biologist that supported all kinds of biologically unsound policies. It means nothing.


I assume that your talking about Karpowitz, so I'll toss in a few cents worth of information.

Karpowitz was the lead in a study done in the Book Cliffs in, 1984, if memory serves me, that found that 37 percent of fawns born during the study died within the first year and that 44 percent of those that did die were killed by coyotes. This study was undertaken on the heels a similar study done a decade earlier in the La Sal Mountains the found that 73 percent of fawns died during the first year and that 36 percent of those deaths were due to coyote predation.

I don't think a whole lot of conclusions were drawn from these studies regarding how coyote predation ultimately affected overall mule deer populations, but they are suggestive that in certain areas that coyote predation _might_ be a limiting factor.

I recall Karpowitz mentioning this study on several occasions, but it was always with the caveat of an all-out war against coyotes likely not producing particularly worthwhile results. But he did suggest that targeted and strategic coyote removal performed in just the right areas and at just the right time of year (spring) could have a positive effect on deer populations in those areas where coyote predation appeared to be a limiting factor.

Subsequent to these mentions by Karpowitz it seemed to me that various sportsman's groups latched onto the idea that a coyote war would grow the deer herds, and they managed to ram the coyote bounty program through the state legislature and force it upon the DWR. I've never talked to a wildlife biologist who didn't like the idea of gathering more data from studies, but at the same time, I've never talked to a single biologist at the DWR who thinks the deer herds are going to be helped in any substantial way over a sustained period of time by a mass slaughter of coyotes. As one of them said, "It's like trying to dig a hole in the ocean."

As PBH mentioned, a lot of these programs and studies are done to placate the public's and legislator's demands for them. The biologists at the DWR simply do what they're told, and then make the best of it by collecting whatever data they can which, with luck, might serve as ammunition for not taking the same approach ten or twenty years from now when the whole idea recycles itself again.

It might also be relevant to point out that the entire mule deer issue is largely an issue only because we hunters say that it is. Prior to the arrival of the pioneers, deer populations were apparently quite low, so in reality the whole effort to "restore" deer herd populations is an effort to address public rather than ecological concerns. It's very difficult to separate social issues from wildlife management issues, but if the public does want bigger deer herds, they really ought to listen to the biologists on whether or not it's doable and how best to go about achieving it.


----------



## flinger (Nov 19, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> So through tree ring mapping of prehistoric droughts, and wet cycles, and archeological evidence of Amerindian hunting success. We know that big game numbers have ebbed and flowed for centuries in the West. And much of this is driven by weather. And we have all heard everyone say, there is nothing we can do about the weather. And that may be so. But it is looking more and more like there is something exacerbating the weather driven declines. After centuries of bouncing back from these population dips, it appears there may be a tipping point, or additive factor, that is driving some declines to the point they are not recoverable. That is where we need to look for answers.


http://climate.usurf.usu.edu/news/12090 ... rought.pdf


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

HunterGeek said:


> I assume that your talking about Karpowitz, so I'll toss in a few cents worth of information.
> 
> Karpowitz was the lead in a study done in the Book Cliffs in, 1984, if memory serves me, that found that 37 percent of fawns born during the study died within the first year and that 44 percent of those that did die were killed by coyotes. This study was undertaken on the heels a similar study done a decade earlier in the La Sal Mountains the found that 73 percent of fawns died during the first year and that 36 percent of those deaths were due to coyote predation.
> 
> ...


If you have high coyote predation, they are just doing their job. The predation is a symptom, of the bigger problem. '84 Was wet, after the '83-'84 winter. You would expect to see declining numbers. This is one of the reasons that coyote predation is compensatory, they may be preying on a week and already declining base. Coyotes are not the apex predators of deer.

Lions rarely go after bighorn sheep, but if you introduce disease, or malnourishment to the mix, then suddenly the lions become sheep predators. Same with coyotes.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

"It might also be relevant to point out that the entire mule deer issue is largely an issue only because we hunters say that it is. Prior to the arrival of the pioneers, deer populations were apparently quite low"

Archeologically that is debatable. There are plenty of trapper references, of both few, and many deer. And trapper accounts of twins, when deer are seen. These are of course only a few references. But if you look at the diets of Amerindians, the first choice was of course sheep, and mule deer was second. Also there were once 1000s of buffalo in Utah, but they were gone 60+ years before the pioneers.


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> This is one of the reasons that coyote predation is compensatory, they may be preying on a week and already declining base.


I largely agree that coyote predation is largely compensatory. For example, those fawns not killed by coyotes may very well have died from other causes in the absence of that predation. The net effect being the same number of deer surviving.

Despite the compensatory nature of coyote predation there may be instances in, especially, marginal situations where it could become additive to some degree. My gut feeling is that it's a minor player, but I also view studies that shed more light on the subject or sort through some of the details and variable as being beneficial, despite the money possibly having gone to more useful endeavors.



Lonetree said:


> Archeologically that is debatable. There are plenty of trapper references, of both few, and many deer. And trapper accounts of twins, when deer are seen. These are of course only a few references. But if you look at the diets of Amerindians, the first choice was of course sheep, and mule deer was second. Also there were once 1000s of buffalo in Utah, but they were gone 60+ years before the pioneers.


True, and it would be interesting to have better data instead of anecdotal, historic accounts where conclusions and generalizations are iffy at best. Utah Indians certainly preferred meat from big game animals, but the percentage of that meat in their diets is debatable, especially before the arrival of horses.

Again, my gut tells me that, in general, mule deer populations were significantly lower in pre-pioneer days, as were predator populations. Whatever the situation, a natural balance of some sort would have occurred between predator, prey and habitat. It very well could also have been cyclical to some degree.

It would be enormously interesting to go back in time and visit the area with Father Escalante's party. Better still would be to wander the area several hundred years early during the Fremont and Anasazi eras. I would love to see for myself just what it looked like - pinyon-juniper coverage, bunch grass prevalence, brush growth and, of course, to see for myself how many deer I might run across. Of course, that's not possible so all we can do is infer what we think we know from the sketchy and incomplete evidence.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

If you have the chance, read Osborne Russell's Journal of a trapper. It is good stuff, and has very accurate information for parts of Northern Utah, pre pioneer.

Prior to, and after the arrival of the horse, bighorn sheep were the preferred food, and had been for hundreds of years. Like I said, deer were the second choice. This is very consistent of archeological sites across the west. Buffalo comes in third, even with the vast amount of them available, and the centuries of buffalo jumps. 

The "natural balance" would have been "the cycle". These cycles would have ebbed and flowed with the weather cycles. Take a look at the link Flipper provided, it is good reading. "Balance" is just a smooth flow up and down, between relative highs and lows.

If you want to travel back in time, and who doesn't? Google "Packrat midden" or "White throated wood rat midden" Some of these middens are hundreds of years old, and can tell us a lot about what the landscape looked like in the past.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Lonetree said:


> If you have the chance, read Osborne Russell's Journal of a trapper. It is good stuff, and has very accurate information for parts of Northern Utah, pre pioneer.


https://user.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/html/ruslintr.html

-DallanC


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

HunterGeek said:


> Again, my gut tells me that, in general, mule deer populations were significantly lower in pre-pioneer days, as were predator populations. Whatever the situation, a natural balance of some sort would have occurred between predator, prey and habitat. It very well could also have been cyclical to some degree.
> 
> It would be enormously interesting to go back in time and visit the area with Father Escalante's party. Better still would be to wander the area several hundred years early during the Fremont and Anasazi eras. I would love to see for myself just what it looked like - pinyon-juniper coverage, bunch grass prevalence, brush growth and, of course, to see for myself how many deer I might run across. Of course, that's not possible so all we can do is infer what we think we know from the sketchy and incomplete evidence.


Pre-pioneer deer numbers? google: Post-1900 Mule Deer Irruptions - Gruell


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

One issue to consider on these predation studies is that in order to give credit to a predator for the kill it practically has to happen before the biologists eyes or leave a business card behind claiming responsibility. Otherwise the mortality gets chalked up as unknown. 

All these studies are subjective and up to interpretation. Not even close to an exact science. 

Does a predator have to kill a deer with its claws and teeth to get blame or credit? A wet doe being chased in the middle of February by a coyote or cougar has no effect on birth rates? I'm not the study finder so I will leave it to those here that are to ignore or deny my request. Post some links to studies done on body condition of livestock in areas with high predator populations vs one's without. Plain and simple predators make prey nervous. We cant even hike the hills looking for antlers without a lesson on not disturbing deer. We cant even ride a horse in areas in the winter because of wintering animals. All because harassing them or even making them nervous can and will ultimately lead to there death. Why do some believe ATV's have any effect on wildlife populations? If you think a human only causes stress in deer you're a fool or bias as can be. 

Subjective. Some don't want to manage by killing off one species to increase another many biologist feel this way. So they want to find something other than predators to blame. In this case they look to habitat as to the reason for poor body condition ect. Besides their the ones with the tools and resources so who's going to counter otherwise? 

Study guys, can you post some links to some of the effects elk were having on habitat before reintro of wolf to YNP. And what they are seeing in terms of aspen and willow conditions post reintro. Now the elk are running scared all the time and not just hanging out in the open valley's stripping willow and eating every aspen leaf below 10 ft.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> One issue to consider on these predation studies is that in order to give credit to a predator for the kill it practically has to happen before the biologists eyes or leave a business card behind claiming responsibility. Otherwise the mortality gets chalked up as unknown.
> 
> All these studies are subjective and up to interpretation. Not even close to an exact science.
> 
> ...


You are kind of missing the point, but at the same time getting it.

If you have sub-clinical disease, and an unhealthy deer population, then coyotes are going to prey on them. And you hit on a very good point about pressure, yes, chasing them all winter long stresses them worse, and makes them succumb to predation, that is how it works. But if the deer are healthy, then predators testing them and stressing them, will not cause them to succumb to predation. If the prey base is healthy, then they can deal with and handle stress. Animals suffering from clinical selenium deficiency, for example, can literally be scared to death, it is called capture myopathy.

Control groups, best explain how reducing predators, can not increase prey. One area receives predator control, and one area does not. You then monitor both areas. If predator control increased deer numbers, that would play out in the areas with predator control. This has not been the case in study after study. In these studies, roughly the same number of deer die in the areas with predator control, and with out predator control. So if predators are not killing them, then something else does, hence the compensatory nature of it. In order to grow deer under these conditions, you have to identify the limiting factor, which is not predation. Even if you remove all the predators, two and four legged, deer numbers would not explode, unless the deer were healthy and the conditions driving their health were all playing along.

I am not sure what you are getting at with the wolves. The willow and aspen regeneration is good for the Elk, and deer, and bighorn sheep, and cutthroat trout, and grizzlies, etc. A healthy herd can manage the predation, that is how it works. Last year in Wyoming you could shoot three elk, and they had a record harvest, even with the big bad wolf. Why? Because these elk are healthy.

As for livestock, much of what we know about body condition, and base line health of wild ungulates, is derived form the vast amount of work done on livestock. We grow livestock a very particular way, and to achieve good body condition, we summer them in one place, and then move them to better winter ranges. We inoculate them against disease, and we supplement their diets with vitamins and minerals to make sure they are as healthy possible. Because it is their health, that drives their production, and in turn drives the livestock economy.

Any single study, can be called "subjective", but when you take multiple studies, done by multiple people, in several states, and you have the data from those studies verified by independent scientists, then it is called, published, peer reviewed science. this is gold standard of scientific information. And lets not forget, many of these studies showing that predation is compensatory, set out with the goal to prove the hypothesis, that predation was additive.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

elkfromabove said:


> Pre-pioneer deer numbers? google: Post-1900 Mule Deer Irruptions - Gruell


Gruell's study predates our understanding of many health factors that are of concern to cervids, and therefor could not take these things into account. Conversion of grass and forbes, into browse, creating high nutritional value food, which is what Gruell's work points to as the reason for mule deer explosions, is spot on, it is about nutrition. So why do we not see this playing now?

Further more, the coexistence of prehistoric(pioneer) bison and mule deer, is not addressed. Which from a grazing conversion point of view, needs to be taken into account, at least for baseline understanding.

Lastly, you can go to areas within any one of the 7 "ecoregions" that mule deer occupy, and look at the affects of fire. You can not chart long term trends in these areas that deviate from the rest of the West. Not only that, fire can have nothing but a negative affect in some of these regions, especially those with non-migratory herds.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

www.*fs.fed.us*/rm/pubs_int/int_gtr206.pdf Go to page 24, and read from there on for pre 1900s deer observations. Most of these were in the 1800s, and it should be noted that the winter of 1825 was very severe, and we were in a wet cycle, which would predispose deer numbers to be in decline. With a greater extirpation of bison having already occurred in Utah.

On page 26, the following is attributed to Osborne Russell 1834-1840, for Northern Utah:
"These trappers described the occurrence of buffalo, antelope, elk, and incidental deer. Utah area generally did not have abundant game. Indians depended mainly on insects, seeds, fruits, and small animals as sources of food."

Anyone who has read Russell's journal knows this is very inaccurate. This description leaves out many references to numerous bighorn sheep. And while russell does not ever mention hunting or killing deer in Ogden for example, he does mention eating it. Many of the other trapper references are not in their entirety, and have been questioned by others besides me.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> One issue to consider on these predation studies is that in order to give credit to a predator for the kill it practically has to happen before the biologists eyes or leave a business card behind claiming responsibility. Otherwise the mortality gets chalked up as unknown.


It doesn't matter....even if all the unknown deaths are chalked up as predation deaths, the results still look compensatory!

IB, read this again: "Any single study, can be called "subjective", but when you take multiple studies, done by multiple people, in several states, and you have the data from those studies verified by independent scientists, then it is called, published, peer reviewed science. this is gold standard of scientific information.* And lets not forget, many of these studies showing that predation is compensatory, set out with the goal to prove the hypothesis, that predation was additive*."

I even bolded the "good" stuff....


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> A healthy herd can manage the predation, that is how it works. Last year in Wyoming you could shoot three elk, and they had a record harvest, even with the big bad wolf. Why? Because these elk are healthy.


This is the funny thing....if you were to listen to most hunters they would tell you about how the big bad wolf has decimated elk populations in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. The reality, though, is that the elk populations of those states have actually gone up or stayed the same since wolf reintroductions.

On the flip side, the wolf-lovers are now crying wolf over the number of wolves being legally killed and hunted in those states...can't we have some middle ground people?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Middle ground? :grin: That will not sustain existing dynasties, or foster the new ones.


Elk vs deer, and some other thoughts: If you google “patagonian huemel” you will find information on a small deer in South America. This deer is very endangered, with very low numbers, ~1500. It has been in decline since the 1800s. One of the key factors that is believed to be driving the decline of this animal, is iodine and selenium deficiency. This area is prone to these deficiencies, and it has shown up in cattle, and people as well. So one might think that other Cervids, would not do well in this area either? Yet, introduced red deer do well in habitat formerly occupied by huemul. Red deer are the European equivelant of North American Elk. Moose in Norway have experienced die offs, with studies pointing to mineral deficiencies being part of the problem. Interestingly, the red deer in Norway, have not been affected the same way as the moose. 


Back in Chile: The Huemul has suffered from nutritional issues for so long, that all the bucks only sport 2 point racks. This is of course not normal, and vary rare examples of pre-decline racks show standard forking, as you would expect to see in Cervids. The norm was 4 points, with some being 5.


“Se and iodine are intricately interacting, with deﬁciencies of Se causing secondary iodine deﬁciency, and due to their basic biochemical functions, their effects span many aspects of biology and ecology. Endangered ungulates suffering from deﬁciencies of these two trace minerals in other montane regions of the world have exhibited reduced reproductive rates, reduced growth rates of juveniles, higher predation rates on juveniles, and increased susceptibilities to diseases. We suspect similar underlying causes to be responsible for the current predicament of the huemul.” ---Flueck 


How this could relate to the theory of early/late breeding:
“Se is the active part of several enzyme systems involved in oxygen metabolism (e.g.GPx) functioning at very basic biochemical levels,38 and deﬁciency is thus expressed in myriad ways. In all animal species studied, Se deﬁciency impairs reproductive performance of both males and females. It affects litter size, conception rate, embryonic mortality, age of ﬁrst breeding, neonatal mortality, and also causes retention of placentas.39 In ruminant neonates, White Muscle Disease (WMD) is a common expression of deﬁciency. For Se-deﬁcient males, spermatogenesis may continue, but with abnormalities, leading to a reduction in sperm tail stability. Consequently, sperm count and fertility are sharply reduced even though some sperm motility may persist.39”--Flueck


If some does were not taking on the first estrus cycle, and went into estrus again, you would see fawns spread across a larger period in the spring. With some does taking on the first cycle, and some on the second cycle. This would lead you to correctly observe that the does were being bred during the second cycle. 


So, if you had wet spring cycles that were driving sub-clinical mineral deficiencies, that were causing reproductive problems durring the rut, it could manifest as low recruitment, and fawning being spread out. So the fawn study being conducted, is exactly what you would do, to test if breeding were occurring, and when it was occurring. If the conditions that were driving your breeding problem, are no longer present, at the time of testing, ie. You had a dry/productive previous year, then you are not going to see the problem manifest at the time of fawning. At least not in a dramatic fashion.


Gotta go pay more bills.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

How do we combat SE deficiencies?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Dahlmer said:


> How do we combat SE deficiencies?


More importantly, do we have a selenium or micro nutritional deficiency problem?

There is a lot of evidence that says we do. The science on the subject says that wet springs will reduce selenium bio-availabilty and have a reducing effect on some animals. If you look back over the last 30 years, the early eighties, the early nineties, 2008-2011, and the deer, moose, and bighorn sheep trends would seem to agree.

This phenomenon will occur naturally, without any interference from man. This is because rain is already mildly acidic. So the animals have been dealing with these cycles for thousands of years. The issue appears to be one of why, some animals don't seem to bounce back from it, like they should. Man has made acid rain events more acidic over the years, so this is one factor. But by itself, it can not account for the bigger picture. There appears to be another factor exacerbating the situation. That may be the ultimate cause, that needs to be looked at and addressed.

As for acid rain, it depends on the kind. There is nitric, sulfuric, and phosphoric. These all have different causes. Some head way has already been made with regard to some of these. Sulfur emissions have been reduced in diesel fuels for example, this reduces sulfuric acid contributions to the atmosphere. Unfortunately, much of the emissions may be coming from places like China, so it is a little different to deal with.

First thing is first, you have to identify, and verify the problem. Then you can look at solutions. At a minimum, when you identify the problem, even in the absence of clear solutions, you now know where to look, and you know where not to look. This gives you some clarity, in the way you proceed with your management.

Start with weather and nutrition, and test it. Then look for the additive problems, that are compounding things. If you look at the spread and intensity of mountain pine beetles, and tree health. You will see that it took off in the early eighties, and peaked out around 2009. Increases in mercury movement in the landscape and wildlife over the same time frame, follows some similar trends. Over lay deer trends, weather, the price of rice in China, and it really starts to look like something.

If I remember right, there have been ~10 moose that have been shown to have White Muscle Disease, in Utah, over the last decade. WMD is caused by selenium deficiencies. So there is a start point. You look for history, the past is prologue.


----------



## Rspeters (Apr 4, 2013)

Lonetree said:


> WMD is caused by selenium deficiencies. So there is a start point. You look for history, the past is prologue.


So, your posts are too long for me, but I think I get the picture, coyotes with selenium deficiencies are somehow used to create Weapons of Mass Destruction?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Rspeters said:


> So, your posts are too long for me, but I think I get the picture, coyotes with selenium deficiencies are somehow used to create Weapons of Mass Destruction?


No, no....WMD.....stands for.... :grin: that's good.


----------



## 105Coues (Feb 13, 2013)

I don't care who ya are. Now thats FUNNY!:mrgreen:


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Looks like the deer study is going against your theory lonetree and is suggesting predators as the problem. Seeing most of those selenium deficient does that were transplanted are carrying 2 and 3 fawns. The ones that are dieing are dieing from lions and poachers or the shock of transplant itself. The data is also going against any previous data. Who would have thought?

Ill bet if they could collar their fawns the coyotes will get most of them. 

Whether you like it or not lonetree 1080 was the cause of the deer increase not selenium, acid rain, or dry springs.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> Looks like the deer study is going against your theory lonetree and is suggesting predators as the problem. Seeing most of those selenium deficient does that were transplanted are carrying 2 and 3 fawns. The ones that are dieing are dieing from lions and poachers or the shock of transplant itself. The data is also going against any previous data. Who would have thought?
> 
> Ill bet if they could collar their fawns the coyotes will get most of them.
> 
> Whether you like it or not lonetree 1080 was the cause of the deer increase not selenium, acid rain, or dry springs.


It is very obvious that you do not know what you are talking about. You are talking about a completely different study, than what is being discussed in this thread. You are referring to the Parowon translocation study, this thread is about the Monroe study. The Parowan study is in no way complete, and predation as a limiting factor is not even being looked at. This study is not complete, but only 10% of the resident deer have died, compared to 17.6% of translocated deer. This is not any kind of success story, that is overturning the current understanding of deer translocation. Popquiz? How come more resident deer are not being killed? Also, the 3 deer that died "related to capture", do you know what they died from, and what causes it?

As for the Monroe Study: You obviously don't know the difference between compensatory or additive predation. And this one incomplete study is not going against all the others, try to keep up. So far, it has shown predation to be compensatory, which is in line with the vast majority of studies.

As for twins and triplets, well, maybe you have not been paying attention to my predictions on the matter. 2012 was very dry, the driest on record in the West, since the '30s. Dry springs make for good nutrient content in browse species. This means fat, energy, and micronutrients, ie. Vitamins and minerals. Everyone agrees that mild winters, and wet summers benefit mule deer, but the role of wet and dry springs has been ignored. So, 2011-2012 had a very dry winter, and a very dry spring, coupled with a good, and early, July-August monsoon. This made for healthy deer, all the way into the 2012 rut, and the 2012-2013 winter and gestational period. This makes for ideal conditions for prenatal, and neonatal fawns.

Additionally, a good rut and the taking of twin embryos, has nothing to do with coyotes. Nothing at all, they are two separate things. If you have good healthy bucks, and good healthy does, then you are going to have good healthy breeding, with good fawn to doe ratios, and good recruitment.

Predation is a secondary symptom, of a bigger problem, and the fact that the predation is compensatory, proves this. Deer that are not up to their full potential health wise, do not breed as successfully, and the offspring they do have, do not deal with disease and predatory stress as well. You can kill all the coyotes and lions, it will not bring deer numbers up, if they are not optimally healthy. And if they are optimally healthy, they can deal with predatory stress better anyway. So higher numbers, and better health, keep the predation compensatory on the flip side as well.

I am not saying that we don't utilize predator control, but it is no way a silver bullet, nor has it ever been. If you have really good mule deer winter range, and you kill all the coyotes off of it, what keeps the rodents in check? Think it does not matter? Think again. If you have excessive rodent loads on an ecosystem, you cant grow, or spread, many browse species, including bitterbrush. Excess seed that usually go into the seed bank are consumed, and reduced, rather than being cached. This in turn, reduces new browse generation, and promotes over browsing and decadence, which has the affect of reducing mule deer growth potential. That is what 1080 will get you.

In 1935 in Yellowstone, they stopped killing coyotes. Their deer numbers were at very low levels, and deer habitat was not in good shape. Yet with declining browse, heavy elk competition, and rising predator numbers, the deer numbers doubled, at a minimum, from 1935-1939. So tell me again how killing coyotes will bring back the deer.

If you found a dollar under your pillow, all it means is that there was a dollar under your pillow.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Plain and simple, a lack of understanding, curiosity, and education about the natural world. Coupled with a tendency to blindly repeat past mistakes, is the single biggest threat to the future of hunting. Making such mindsets, and those that harbor them, by proxy, anti-hunting.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

“Popquiz? How come more resident deer are not being killed? Also, the 3 deer that died “related to capture”, do you know what they died from, and what causes it?”


The three deer that died “related to capture”, died from capture myopathy. One of the top predisposing conditions for capture myopathy, is.........selenium and vitamin E deficiency.


The higher rate of mortality among translocated deer, is most likely a result of the latent affects of capture myopathy, that was not fatal at the time of capture. Capture brings on stress conditions, and higher demands from these deer, that present over a period of time. This predisposes them to predation, and weakness. This is borne out in the higher mortality numbers of the translocated deer.


I don't see the practicality in translocating deer, for a number of reasons. But if I was hell bent on pursuing the endeavor, I would want to look at ways to mitigate this affect. $500 per deer, just to translocate is expensive. If you couple that with 20% losses from “capture”, that really lowers your ROI. A double blind study with different groups of deer to be translocated, where some are treated with Se, E, B12, and some are not, would be good start for this. 


When I had packgoats, B12 was your friend when putting goats through stressful situations.


----------

