# Don't Feed the Deer



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

http://wildlife.utah.gov/news/08-02/feeding_deer.php


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

While I agree the general public should NOT be feeding the deer, I am **** glad that SFW/MDF stepped up and started doing the DWR's job and started feeding the deer, forcing the DWR to get off their political behinds and take action that should have been started long before Feb 1st! The DWR dropped the ball big time on this. Lucky for the deer and deer hunters conservation groups have stepped up to the plate and slowed the bleeding. When we still have a 'huntable' deer herd to hunt this fall, thank SFW/MDF NOT the DWR! Colorado's DWR stepped up weeks ago, what was UDWR waiting for? :evil:


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

Got to dissagree with you here PRO. SFW/MDF are the public so it is the pubilc feeding them. As far as the feeding them goes well I have mixed feeling on that. As a hunter I want them feed. As a person it is my fault for making things be built in the winter range. Yet at the same time feeding them can not be a good thing for them in the long run and the DWR knows this. It is a very tough call to make. Pro's and con's to both you know this.The CO DWR fell to the public pressure way before Utah did. In truth I wish Utah could have held out longer. IMO


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

SFW/MDF have been feeding deer on private land, clearing snow for the deer. When UDWR figures out that the deer are an important resource instead of a 'burden' they will act quicker. 

How much longer should they have waited? Until 60+% were already DEAD? That would cut down on costs I suppose. :roll:


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> SFW/MDF have been feeding deer on private land, clearing snow for the deer.


Of course they have. That is nothing new. I am not going down that road with ya though. We will never agree on it.



> How much longer should they have waited? Until 60+% were already DEAD? That would cut down on costs I suppose.


Dont know. I do know that the DWR know that anwser better then me. 60% come on man I know you know better then that. Like I said I have mixed feeling on this. I have see frist hand the deer that get feed in the winter vs ones that do not. Makes on wonder if it is really that good.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> Dont know. I do know that the DWR know that anwser better then me. 60% come on man I know you know better then that. Like I said I have mixed feeling on this. I have see frist hand the deer that get feed in the winter vs ones that do not. Makes on wonder if it is really that good.


Where have you seen them fed?

Don't be surprised when the final toll is tallied on the winter kill percentages. In many areas we have lost two years worth of deer+, last years fawns and this years fawns to be. The does that survive most likely will have aborted their fawns in order to survive. That will take YEARS to recover from. Last years fawns would be bred this fall and produce fawns in the spring of 2009, now they won't since MOST/all are dead and/or dying.

I am curious on your SFW/MDF comment on feeding already. If you feel more comfortable, please enlighten me through a PM.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> Where have you seen them fed?


Cache valley.



> Don't be surprised when the final toll is tallied on the winter kill percentages. In many areas we have lost two years worth of deer+, last years fawns and this years fawns to be. The does that survive most likely will have aborted their fawns in order to survive. That will take YEARS to recover from. Last years fawns would be bred this fall and produce fawns in the spring of 2009, now they won't since MOST/all are dead and/or dying.


We shall see. I do not buy the doom and gloom though. Seen way too many heathy deer as of late to be that worried. The deer are smart and know how to survire.

PM sent


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

If I were convinced that the feeding program really did help significant numbers of deer and was worth the price being paid for it, I would certainly support it. However, I'm just not sure how many deer it really helps.

What percentage of the total population in the northern part of the state are actually fed? Five percent? 10, 20, 50 percent? Out of those how many will make it through the winter that otherwise wouldn't have survived? Does the DWR have any real studies showing that it is or isn't worth it?

How much are we paying for for each deer that survives or successfully reproduces that otherwise would have been lost? In other words, just how effective is a supplemental feeding program and under what circumstances? Just how much bang for the buck do we really get with supplemental feeding. The few real studies that I've glanced through over the years indicate that it might just not be all that effective most of the time.

If it is statistically useful, and will result in a significantly higher survival or fawn reproduction rate, I'm all for it. But I can't help but wonder whether or not much, if not most, of the effort is just a feel-good exercise brought on by public pressure, news media stories and a desire on the part of the DWR not to rock the boat with state legislators while they're in session. 

Several informal discussions that I've had with wildlife biologists lead me to believe that many of them have real mixed feelings over supplemental feeding except in truly exceptional cases facing small, concentrated and reachable populations of animals. I'm unsure what I think, but I have enough doubts to make me seriously question some of the assumptions.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Any deer herd can only grow as large as its winter range will allow. Feeding deer is a band aid for a much more serious problem. I would much rather the DWR (and SFW) not feed the deer and spend the money on improving and acquiring winter range. The scary thing is that supplemental feeding problems could actually destroy deer herds...especially if one sick animal comes to the picnic.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Any deer herd can only grow as large as its winter range will allow. Feeding deer is a band aid for a much more serious problem. I would much rather the DWR (and SFW) not feed the deer and spend the money on improving and acquiring winter range. The scary thing is that supplemental feeding problems could actually destroy deer herds...especially if one sick animal comes to the picnic.


I would rather they do *BOTH*. I also believe many of these deer are not dying due to lack of winter range habitat, but because of snow depth! How do you 'prevent' that? In truth, you can NOT! What western state is spending MORE on winter range than Utah? Answer is NONE! You can thank these conservation groups for that! _(O)_


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> also believe many of these deer are not dying due to lack of winter range habitat, but because of snow depth! How do you 'prevent' that?


Simple. The winter range is lower in the valley. The snow is not that deep there and it does not stay as long. That means the deer will find there food there. But that winter range is getting pushed higher and higher by development. Which means the deer will have to be in the deep snow and have a harder time living. If they could be winter in the place they used to have they would be ok.


----------



## lone hunter (Jan 23, 2008)

It is a @&itty situation with no perfect answers. I can watch the deer and elk through my work window through a spotting scope. Even though it may be short lived, they seem to be a little happier today in the warmer weaher a getting a chance to get at some of the browse that is exposed. Many are catching some rays and feeding this afternoon.

(spotted a 6X bull an a 28" buck this morning)


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

The deer out in my neck of the woods look very healthy to me. Farmers out of town have had problems with Elk feeding off there hey though. I do see deer that live by me year round feeding off the my neighbors hey the same time of day every day as well. But, I was just up by flaming Gorge and the deer looked just fine, I hope they stay that way.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Maybe the dwr can do what they did after the winter of 92 - 93 Incrase the number of antlerless tags in the northern units. afrter a 80 per cent winter kill . And then, after the hunting public pi--ed and moaned they refunded peoples monies.. WHY? because they haden't done there home work.... So if feed cost 400.00 a ton. What makes ya think ther going to jump in and help joe public feed these animals... Just give out a bunch of doe permits after winter kills go above 80 per cent in the north,, OR, raise the cost of are tags ,, again!! to pay for the winter feeding programs in the future.. HOLD ON !!


----------



## soules2007 (Oct 29, 2007)

Talked tothe UDWR eariler today said they were in session talking about wether or not they had funds for feeding, or wether or not donations would be excepted, we will see, however pro is right the deer are hungry now and there are biologist talking about a 100% mortallity rate among fawns and impregnated does. dring the 80s the situation was never this dire, i have asked directly where to send funds, and have been promised a call back. They know the situation is as bad as it can get, but are entirley to late to salvage the situation, live and learn  I always try to find a neutral ground, but the deer hunt in utah for 2008 is toast unless you draw a way south tag, in a single year the mulie herds are back to the early 1900s. The no feed rule FAILED!!! Hats off to the SFW for at least doing everything they can to ease the suffering, yeah thats right suffering, we talk about ethical shot placment, yet we can sit by and let the game we swear to love, suffer one of the worst deaths you could wish on your worst enemmy. :evil:


----------



## wasatchmtnbike (Oct 16, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Any deer herd can only grow as large as its winter range will allow. Feeding deer is a band aid for a much more serious problem. *I would much rather the DWR (and SFW) not feed the deer and spend the money on improving and acquiring winter range.* The scary thing is that supplemental feeding problems could actually destroy deer herds...especially if one sick animal comes to the picnic.


I agree.

I wish the DWR could have had the forsight 50 years ago to put some kind of restrictions in place so that absolutely no building or development could take place within 1 mile of the foothills. As it is, greedy humans keeps pushing higher up on the mountain so they can have "A View" and then they cry and moan about the naughty deer eating their precious shrubbery. Maybe the DWR could somehow encourage residents along the foothills to plant native browse. But then that opens up a whole new can of worms, deer would come down into developments more readily and suffer the consequences.

What to do? :?


----------



## soules2007 (Oct 29, 2007)

Wasachtbiker, yeah your right the wintering ground is devestated by urban sprawl, and the landscaping that comes along with the cliff side manisons of the peta ceos. this is where you really see the effects it has on the mule deer herds.


----------



## fishbate (Jan 18, 2008)

So when I draw my CWMU in East Canyon (which I should), any guesses on how this years hunt would be for mature bucks? 

I remember how bad the winter kill was in the early 80's seeing hundreds of bones on the winter range around Price, where the snow was not as deep as it was in the North. And the last time I drew Vernon, it was after 93, and it was a tough hunt that year.

Does anyone know if they will reduce the northern CWMU tags, since the limits were published in the guidebook?


----------



## soules2007 (Oct 29, 2007)

Fishbate it wont matter, why reduce the tag number? the succsess rate will be defined by the winter kill. Leave the tag number at the same rate and watch hunter kill ratio sink through the floor. This way the UDWR has no liability, LIKE LIKE after katrina when they refused to take care of nr in effected areas. If their is a way to just get a point instead of a tag i would jump on that opportunity, the mule deer in utah need the sportsmans support and i dont mean hunting. I will not buy a mule deer tag this year in any western state that has been as radiaclly desimated as the utah herd.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> agree.
> 
> I wish the DWR could have had the forsight 50 years ago to put some kind of restrictions in place so that absolutely no building or development could take place within 1 mile of the foothills. As it is, greedy humans keeps pushing higher up on the mountain so they can have "A View" and then they cry and moan about the naughty deer eating their precious shrubbery. Maybe the DWR could somehow encourage residents along the foothills to plant native browse. But then that opens up a whole new can of worms, deer would come down into developments more readily and suffer the consequences.
> 
> What to do?


Unless you or someone you know plans on building a time machine anytime soon then this statement really doesn't matter. We need to deal with the present time. It doesnt matter how much you improve habitat it wont help the deer survive a bad winter. The deer arent hungry because we dont have habitat suitable for them. The deer are hungry because in many places the snow is to deep. Deer get worn out and use up a lot of energy in deep snow. Coyotes can very easily run down a deer in deep snow because coyotes dont sink in as far. The Spring Bear hunt will be great with all the rotten deer carcasses.

Improving habitat will only help the deer that survive rebound faster. I hope the DWR cuts the Northern Region antlerless tags down to nothing this year.

I think its great that SFW has stepped up to the plate and want to help our deer herds. Its better than watching them die because we had the resources to make a differences, but we were to stupid to help resolve the problem.

DWR have been against feeding elk also and elk do very well on hay. The reason they are against feeding elk is their afraid of the spread of disease. They can medicate the elk or deer and add it in the feed. Plus what stops the spread of disease if they are already grouped together on the winter range?

If you are against the feeding of deer then you dont have a heart. You are a lowlife at best and your ignorance kills me.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> So when I draw my CWMU in East Canyon (which I should), any guesses on how this years hunt would be for mature bucks?
> 
> I remember how bad the winter kill was in the early 80's seeing hundreds of bones on the winter range around Price, where the snow was not as deep as it was in the North. And the last time I drew Vernon, it was after 93, and it was a tough hunt that year.


I wouldn't plan on having a specular hunt.


----------



## soules2007 (Oct 29, 2007)

CS is right, the argument against urban sprawl is not going to help the deer this year but in the future it may. for right now we to support the sfw in any way we can. Money,labor,media if you have ever spent a few nights poor, cold and hungry, you know how it feels, Nice post CS


----------



## COOPERD (Sep 16, 2007)

I have been working alot in the Upper Valley, Eden to Huntsville mostly, these poor animals up here have it rough, will die, if they are not fed!!! I was near Middle Fork wich is winter range, 4 deer were standing in the road enjoying not swimming in the snow, they didnt want to leave the road. As I tried to plow past they finally jumped in the snow, they disappeared, the snow was probably 2 ft taller then them, they were literally swimming in the snow. I was sick to my stomach. So I say thanks to all who stepped up and helped with the feeding process, GOOD ON YA!!! It is great, the animals need it.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> If you are against the feeding of deer then you dont have a heart. You are a lowlife at best and your ignorance kills me.


Your ignorance kills me. Yote I know you are smarter then that.Maybe just maybe you need to understand what feeding does to the deer before you make statements like that. Stop thining about this fall hunt and think about the deer that the feeding is hurting. The feed is only going to help a very very very few deer. Sometimes you have to step back and look at the bigger picture. Sometimes doing the right thing is not doing anything no matter how bad it may look.


----------



## soules2007 (Oct 29, 2007)

In a hard winter with above average snow fall and winter kill, yes you have to step back look at the whole picture, no question. But this winter even if a few deer get fed, and we can save just a few it is well worth feeding. this winter is worse than the one 13 yrs ago, and in that time alot of wintering habitat has been lost, to home and buissness expansion. You have to take the risk of feeding, i hear the arguments, dependency,sickness, four stomachs all that. If the weather trends keep up and they should (northern utah is expecting more snow) the deer could have two more months if not more , with no food. with as sick as the northern herd already, the 60% mortality rate is low. CS you are not ignorant(stinky dude in a wheelchair, maybe?) ignorant no.  :wink:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

The winter feeding of deer is nothing more than public relations work by the DWR...it doesn't help anything. It kills me that the DWR caved into public pressure on something that is so universally agreed upon...feeding deer in the winter is nothing more than a band aid attempting to heal a gaping wound.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Your ignorance kills me. Yote I know you are smarter then that.Maybe just maybe you need to understand what feeding does to the deer before you make statements like that. Stop thining about this fall hunt and think about the deer that the feeding is hurting. The feed is only going to help a very very very few deer. Sometimes you have to step back and look at the bigger picture. Sometimes doing the right thing is not doing anything no matter how bad it may look.


So you are basically saying that nothing should be done because it's hopeless so let the deer die. Give me a break. That is a very lame solution.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Like I said Weatherby your ignorances kills me. Things can be and should be done. We have 10,000 DH hunters and many of them need service hours. They can feed in more places. I know what deer eat dipstick. Are you saying that SFW isnt that smart either or the Colorado DWR. You can feed deer enough that they will survive.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

I think it is naive at best to say that feeding will DO NOTHING! Come on, we have way to many armchair biologist's here. I understand deer stomachs are complicated and alfalfa will do more harm than good, but what about all of the other options. Even if 100 deer can be saved that is worth it in my opinion. I want to praise those that are jumping up to the plate and doing something about it. Even if you don't like the groups out there (for example SFW) at least they are doing something. 

When I lived in Logan they would feed the deer everyday in the mouth of Green Canyon and in Blacksmith Fork Canyon. Sometimes there would be up to a hundred deer coming out of everywhere to feed. Is that a good or bad thing? I think it is a good thing, trust me those deer were no where to be found during the hunt, and I never seen any dead ones lying around the food. If there were hundreds of stations like those I think it wouldn't be unrealistic to save thousands of deer, maybe I am a little to optimistic, but that is just the way I feel about it.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> So you are basically saying that nothing should be done because it's hopeless so let the deer die. Give me a break. That is a very lame solution.


Yes and yes. IT SUCKS but it is life. The feeding program is going to hurt as many as it helps. But it makes you feel better because the deer are being feed. It is all about making sure you hunt does not get screwed up.



> You can feed deer enough that they will survive.


It will only help a very few. It will hurt as many as it helps. That is a fact that you know. Your a smart guy so I know you know it but your consinse keeps you from thinking clearly.



> Are you saying that SFW isnt that smart either or the Colorado DWR


Not saying that. They have to play the game just like the Utah DWR has to. People see the deer in the roads and deep snow and think oh they are suffering They have to be feed. WRONG that is one of the worst things we can do for the deer. The feeding while it seams to be humane it going to hurt the deer as much if not more then not feeding them. Look at the bigger picture dipstick and think. Your stubborn headed ignorance is mind blowing.

I used to think like you also. Until I saw first hand what happens to the deer when being feed. I saw how many died from being feed. Keep in mind they died with full belly's. Once you see it you would not ever want it. SFW MDF the CO DWR or the Utah DWR needs to not put bandaid on things. Fix the bigger problem.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

If you dont believe that deer can't eat alfalfa then what the heck do you think deer are eating in a alfalfa field.?? Sage brush???


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

jahan



> When I lived in Logan they would feed the deer everyday in the mouth of Green Canyon and in Blacksmith Fork Canyon. Sometimes there would be up to a hundred deer coming out of everywhere to feed.


That was the problem. You knew as did every one else where they where feeding them. I am sure you also noticed how many people would show up to watch the deer. How many people would get close to them to get pictures. How many dogs would chase the deer around. How many would be getting hit by cars. It is not the food that is the issuse with feeding them it is what happens to make it happen. You say you did not see the dead deer. There was reason for that. They where there but the city picked them up way before the public saw them. Could you image if you 9 year old girl was out there watching her deer every day then find it dead the next day. Yes the feeding station do save deer. They also hurt just as many that may have been ok ether way. Th strong will survie. Life finds a way.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Not saying that. They have to play the game just like the Utah DWR has to. People see the deer in the roads and deep snow and think oh they are suffering They have to be feed. WRONG that is one of the worst things we can do for the deer. The feeding while it seams to be humane it going to hurt the deer as much if not more then not feeding them. Look at the bigger picture dipstick and think. Your stubborn headed ignorance is mind blowing.
> 
> I used to think like you also. Until I saw first hand what happens to the deer when being feed. I saw how many died from being feed. Keep in mind they died with full belly's. Once you see it you would not ever want it. SFW MDF the CO DWR or the Utah DWR needs to not put bandaid on things. Fix the bigger problem.


Weatherby, it might hurt some deer, but those deer that it hurt would have died anyways because they were feeded to late. You are talking about a MYTH and nothing more. Deer CAN get enough food value to survive if you start feeding them before they get really weak and then its to late.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> The winter feeding of deer is nothing more than public relations work by the DWR...it doesn't help anything. It kills me that the DWR caved into public pressure on something that is so universally agreed upon...feeding deer in the winter is nothing more than a band aid attempting to heal a gaping wound.


Well said.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> You are talking about a MYTH and nothing more.


It is not a myth. It is a FACT. The food is not the big problem. The problem is what goes along with it.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> If you dont believe that deer can't eat alfalfa then what the heck do you think deer are eating in a alfalfa field.?? Sage brush???


I am not sure if you are talking to me, but I will bite anyways. :wink: My understanding (I am by no means an expert), but if a deer has basically ate alfalfa consistently before it will not affect them as much as the deer that have never ate it before. Even as that may be I still think that a percentage of deer could survive eating alfalfa, but that is JMO.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> SFW MDF the CO DWR or the Utah DWR needs to not put bandaid on things. Fix the bigger problem.


DWR can never fix the weather. We have lost a lot of habitat, but we still have a lot of good habitat, but its covered by 3 feet of snow thus making it harder for the deer.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

SFW/MDF is feeding deer pellets that CAN be digested just fine by the deer. They are also clearing snow away from large areas to give the deer access to the 'natural' feed. To do as wyo2ut suggests and do NOTHING is absurd and is NOT what sportsmen/stewards ought to be advocating. I'm off for the big expo, stop on by and donate some money to pay for feed to keep our wildlife alive!


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> We have lost a lot of habitat, but we still have a lot of good habitat, but its covered by 3 feet of snow thus making it harder for the deer.


Agreed hard but not impossable. Utah's snow melts fast in the lower areas. Deer are tough. You keep talking about CO did you know that the one area that there are feeding the deer has been closed to the public. If Utah was to do that I would feel better about the feeding.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> but if a deer has basically ate alfalfa consistently before it will not affect them as much as the deer that have never ate it before. Even as that may be I still think that a percentage of deer could survive eating alfalfa, but that is JMO.


No I was not responding to you, but you made the point I was trying to make. If you supplement the deer soon enough and start feeding them early then MOST deer will survive, but if you start to feed them when they are starved and weak and then try to introduce the feed then you will kill them quicker.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

weatherby25 said:


> jahan
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ok, lets break this down a little bit. Yes I knew about it and so did many others, nobody was trying to keep it a secret. Both places had road block so you could only get within a couple hundred yards of them. I never once seen someone take a dog up and let it chase the deer, I believe that is more of a myth. I also never seen one get hit by a car because of the feeding. I would go every day up to Green Canyon during one winter to watch the deer, so I think I would have seen some of the dead deer if it was such a problem. I think it helps more than it hurts. You say the strong will survive, life finds a way. Well that was true before the "human factor". Like many have said the normal winter feeding grounds don't exist anymore. I don't think it is a good idea to feed them all time every year, but during rough times it is a good idea.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> SFW/MDF is feeding deer pellets that CAN be digested just fine by the deer.


It is not about the food but about the whole picture.



> I'm off for the big expo, stop on by and donate some money to pay for feed to keep our wildlife alive!


Stop by and say hi sure but give money sorry can not do that. I can not pay for things that will kill as many as it helps.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Agreed hard but not impossable. Utah's snow melts fast in the lower areas. Deer are tough. You keep talking about CO did you know that the one area that there are feeding the deer has been closed to the public. If Utah was to do that I would feel better about the feeding.


Weatherby, news flash we have been getting storm after storm so it doesnt melt as fast.

And now weatherby you are talking in circles like your good friend Wyo2ut. You said you are against feeding, but now you are in favor of feeding if it was closed to the Public. :lol: :lol: :lol: talk about talking in circles. Make up your mind.

Do you have multi-personalities also?


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> Both places had road block so you could only get within a couple hundred yards of them. I never once seen someone take a dog up and let it chase the deer, I believe that is more of a myth.


They all had road blocks and big signs they stay out deer feeding area. That did not stop people. That also did not stop them from building house at the mouth of green ether. People had the dog there all the time. Green as I am sure you know was very populer to go snowshoeing and xc sking. They would bring there dogs there all the time. My best freinds dad happens to own the house right at the mouth of the canyon and he found at least 70 dead deer in his yard or close to. So if it is myth so be it but I have seen it and have the picture to prove it. Not even going to go to talk about the millville feeding sites and what went on there. The black smith and high creek sights seamed to have been better. I did not spend much time at the smithfield sights so I can not talk about them. You do not want them feed each year yet each year they are feed in thouse sites and privite property sights up there by the great conservation groups we have. Yet the cache herd is well you know how it is.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

Yote read what I said. I never said I was in favor of it but would feel better about it. Big diffrance. There was no talking in cricles there.Newsflash even with storm after storm we have had days inbetween with out super cold temps ( snow keeps it warmer) and the snow has melted and softer enough for them to find the food. I went for a drive along the foot hills last night in bountiful and there was bare grass in spots and 4 feet in others. The food is there. Though to find and get to yes.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

The wheels on Weatherby's bus go round and round :lol: :lol:


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> The wheels on Weatherby's bus go round and round


How do you figure that? You know you are wrong so now you have to try and discredit what I say. I have never once said I support the feeding nor will I ever support the feeding. That does not mean I can not feel better about the way it is being done.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

weatherby25 said:


> > Both places had road block so you could only get within a couple hundred yards of them. I never once seen someone take a dog up and let it chase the deer, I believe that is more of a myth.
> 
> 
> They all had road blocks and big signs they stay out deer feeding area. That did not stop people. That also did not stop them from building house at the mouth of green ether. People had the dog there all the time. Green as I am sure you know was very populer to go snowshoeing and xc sking. They would bring there dogs there all the time. My best freinds dad happens to own the house right at the mouth of the canyon and he found at least 70 dead deer in his yard or close to. So if it is myth so be it but I have seen it and have the picture to prove it. Not even going to go to talk about the millville feeding sites and what went on there. The black smith and high creek sights seamed to have been better. I did not spend much time at the smithfield sights so I can not talk about them. You do not want them feed each year yet each year they are feed in thouse sites and privite property sights up there by the great conservation groups we have. Yet the cache herd is well you know how it is.


"I" never saw dead deer the year that I spent the most time up there, that does not mean that a few didn't die. I would like to see the picture! 70 deer, that is a lot! I would be suspicious of other causes if that was the case, such as poisoning. I also wouldn't be surprised if there were some dog-deer encounters up there because a lot of people walked their dogs up there, but I don't think it is nearly as drastic as you make it out to be. I also can't talk about any of the other feeding areas besides Green Canyon and Blacksmith Fork because those were the only ones I was around much. Do you think the Cache Herd would be worse or better off if they hadn't of fed them? I think it would of been worse off. Once again JMO, nothing factual to back it. 8) I had a buddy who lived on 1600 East and 2100 North in North Logan and he had several deer, usually about 7 that would come down and sleep in the barn behind his place every night. There was quite a bit of alfalfa in there and I can only assume they would eat on it. When I lived in the Aggie Trailer Court I have a picture of three small bucks cutting across the lawn of Snow Dorms. The deer are just looking for fed so I just don't see what it hurts to try and help out.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> How do you figure that? You know you are wrong so now you have to try and discredit what I say. I have never once said I support the feeding nor will I ever support the feeding. That does not mean I can not feel better about the way it is being done.


How am I wrong? Feeding can help the deer if they start feeding them early to where they get use to digesting the pellets as they browse on sagebrush and bitter brush. You say you are against feeding because it will kill the deer, but then you say you feel better about it if they closed off the public.

So your little bus of thoughts are going around and around because you are talking in circles.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> I would like to see the picture! 70 deer, that is a lot! I would be suspicious of other causes if that was the case, such as poisoning.


I will see if Ican dig them up. And yes there was other reasons at least with the millville site. That was one of the great things about Logan you could see deer every where. Do I think the feeding is the reason for the low heard numbers no but I do not think it helps it any ether.



> How am I wrong? Feeding can help the deer if they start feeding them early to where they get use to digesting the pellets as they browse on sagebrush and bitter brush. You say you are against feeding because it will kill the deer, but then you say you feel better about it if they closed off the public.


Feeding can help but it also hurts just as much. Your still missing my point. I am against the feeding. But if they are going to feed which I do not agree with they better keep the public away from the deer also. That is not going in cricles at all. Here is some reading for you. I am sure you have allready read what Utah and CO say about it so I will not bring it up.

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/deerfeed.htm

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/pgc/ ... eeding.pdf

http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Newsroo ... 010504.htm

http://www.umext.maine.edu/piscataquis/ ... 1/deer.htm

http://www.kval.com/news/local/13551382.html


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

A couple of important side notes: 1) the colorado legislature recently set aside 1.75 million dollars to assist in the feeding of deer in the gunnison basin. 2) the colorado DOW has appropriated 600,000 dollars to help. 3) According to the Colorado DOW, "Feeding operations occurred in the Gunnison area in the winter of 1983-84; and 1996-97. Conditions this year are not as severe as in 1983-84 when snow and extremely cold temperatures arrived in November. This year there was little snow on the ground before mid December so the deer were able to continue browsing to get nutrition. The risk of severe mortality is considerably less that in 1983-84." 4) Also according to the Colorado DOW, "Some winter mortality in deer is normal; generally around 8-15 percent of the does will die in an average winter... In an extreme winter, the deer population could be dramatically reduced by up to 30 percent and not recover for several years." 5) Two of the primary reasons Colorado used to justify their winter feeding program this year are based on the economy and public pressure.

My conclusions based on the above information: 1) with all the money Colorado is expecting to need to feed the deer 6-8 weeks, a significant amount of habitat work could have been accomplished that would have helped the deer avoid winter problems 2) Conditions this year have been more favorable than the extreme years of the past when a maximum of 30% winter mortality was seen; therefore, we can expect less mortality than those years 3) the risk the DWR is taking and the chance of the deer contacting disease and suffering is ultimately higher than the risk of giving the deer some "tough love".


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Feeding can help but it also hurts just as much. Your still missing my point. I am against the feeding. But if they are going to feed which I do not agree with they better keep the public away from the deer also. That is not going in cricles at all. Here is some reading for you. I am sure you have allready read what Utah and CO say about it so I will not bring it up.


Well duh. They not going to feed the deer in peoples back yards. It will be away from people because that would cause more problems.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> Well duh. They not going to feed the deer in peoples back yards. It will be away from people because that would cause more problems.


Actully they feed them in the natrual winer range which is now in peoples back yards. Yes they try and feed them in far away places but they have to feed the deer where the deer are. Plus once people learn where the feed is they will go see the deer. 
I am done talking about this.


----------



## Firstarrow (Sep 28, 2007)

The issue here is two fold:
1) There is a need to re-coup / re-vitalize habitat - it ain't gonna happen tomorrow
2) There is a need NOW to help get deer through the year. 
-Disease is a VERY Probable issue

I thought the following items were appropriate to this discusson.

*The following are from the Idaho Fish & Game:*


> IDAHO FISH AND GAME
> UPPER SNAKE REGION NEWS RELEASE
> Idaho Falls, ID
> 
> ...


And



> Southeast Region. Chairman Gibbs reported that in mid-February Regional Supervisor Dexter Pitman announced his retirement effective mid-May. The Department is in the process of finding a replacement. The Bear River basin snowpack is about 90% on the Idaho side. The level in Bear Lake is low and is causing a problem for spawning of Bear Lake cutthroat trying to get from the lake to St. Charles Creek to spawn. There is a proposal on the agenda to address that. *Snowpack in that area has also caused problems with deer feeding, and they are now seeing fawn die off near feeding sites. The older deer are doing okay on the feed supplement, but the fawns are seeing extensive mortality*.





> Weather: Precipitation influences mule deer -
> and wildlife populations in general, more than any
> other factor. The amount and timing of
> precipitation affects plant growth, fire frequency
> ...





> [Big Game Winter Feeding
> Question: Snow covers the land and game animals look hungry as they search for food through the cold blanket. Why isn't someone feeding them?
> 
> Answer: That question arises every time an Idaho winter is severe enough to bring game animals down out of the hills into contact with humans. To the good-hearted citizen and concerned sportsman, meaning most of the people in this state, the answer may seem simple. Wanting to do the best we can for animals, domestic or wild, is basic human nature.
> ...





> The Idaho Fish and Game Commission, the body of citizens appointed to set the rules the Department administers, has adopted the following policy statement:
> 
> The test of any policy is whether it works. Those who doubt the effectiveness of a virtual "hands off" rule might consider that Idaho's huge wilderness areas, where almost no one goes in winter, sustain some of the largest and healthiest herds of elk and deer in the country. Those herds have survived winter after winter without human help.
> 
> ...





> Though nature may seem unkind sometimes, it is perfectly natural that 10 to 15 percent of deer and elk will not survive a mild winter; more die in a harsh winter. Animals ill-equipped to survive are taken from the herds by starvation, accidents, predators, exposure (freezing), diseases and parasites. Feeding may save a few from starvation but does nothing to halt losses from other causes.


[/quote:wfdn6tdb]


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

Firstarrow 

That was great. Some very good info in there.


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

I've taken a couple of hours and done some research on the scientific information available concerning the winter feeding of deer. It seems that professional biologists generally regard it somewhere between being actually counterproductive and being marginally helpful (but dangerous) in certain, specific situations. Here are some interesting, but typical, excerpts of what I dug up:

The following are excerpts from the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Wildlife Division Briefing Paper



> Emergency feeding can benefit a deer herd in two primary ways. First, feeding can reduce winter mortality of winter-stressed deer (Baker and Hobbs 1985). Deer must survive on fat reserves that they have accumulated during the previous summer and fall (Mautz 1978), and artificial feeding would slow the depletion of these reserves. Second, feeding can increase the survival of fawns born the following spring. Verme (1977) reported that fetal growth is reduced in winter-stressed, pregnant does and suggested that subsequent survival of these undersized fawns would be reduced. However, both benefits are aimed at holding deer populations around the actual carrying capacity. *In practice, however, large-scale emergency feeding efforts have not shown positive benefits mentioned above* (Bartlett 1938, Gerstell 1942, Carhart 1943, Hesselton 1964, Langenau 1996).
> 
> Feeding deer to prevent catastrophic winterkill has been tried in many states. Michigan used surplus corn during four separate winters (1961-62, 1964-65, 1968-69, and 1970-71) to help deer survive on over-browsed deer range (Langenau 1996).[/b] In these instances, feeding was found to be ineffective. The cost of large-scale, emergency feeding projects do not warrant the return of increased deer survival. However, such programs are very expensive. *It cost $82.69 per deer to supplementally feed deer throughout the year and about $36.75 per deer through winter (Langenau 1996). The ineffectiveness of reaching significant portions of the winter deer population is a major factor in reducing the effectiveness of emergency feeding* (Minnesota DNR 1991).





> Practical experience has shown that the cost of large-scale deer feeding programs far exceeds the value or advantages that might be gained. Supplemental feeding of deer may cause serious range deterioration in the areas where deer are fed, causing a drastic decline in the "natural" carrying capacity of the range.





> Based upon the review of this issue, the Wildlife Division supports the effort to eliminate the supplemental feeding of deer and elk in Michigan through the placement of agricultural products.


The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania Gamme Commission's Winter Feeding of Deer and Turkeys



> Winter feeding just does not pay. It is far better to enhance the natural range and keep the herd to a size that can be supported on natural winter range.





> Observations from a New York study of 54 deer wintering areas in the Adirondacks following a very mild winter (1963-64) noted that starvation was negligible to totally absent everywhere except in those areas where artificial programs were in effect. Deaths here were attributed to excessive concentrations of deer and not enough artificial food to nourish all the deer lured in as a result of the free handout (Hesselton 1965). A Colorado study in an area near Gunnison in 1944 showed artificial feeding accelerated the death rate from 25 percent to as high as 42 percent (Keiss and Smith 1966).





> No biological data found was supportive of a winter feeding program for deer. The only positive justifications given by any researchers were more or less political ones. For example, it may allow a "feel good" attitude by sportsmen because they feel that something beneficial (about winter starvation of deer) is being done and that they had an opportunity to participate in a conservation program. It appears that any winter feeding of deer will probably set the deer up for future trouble.


From the Journal of Wildlife Management, 2006



> During severe winters, mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) concentrated on ranges in poor condition can experience high mortality. Winter-feeding programs have been implemented to mitigate this mortality. We studied effects on body condition, mortality, fawn production, and migration of mule deer following winter-feeding in the Cache-Wasatch Mountains of northern Utah, USA. Fed deer exhibited 12% higher live body-condition indices both years (main effect feed: F1,7.32 = 5.39, P = 0.052), lower mortality (33% vs. 55%: ?21 = 4.58, P < 0.05), and produced more fawns (19 fawns:18 fed F vs. 11 fawns:12 nonfed F; t27.2 = 2.20, P < 0.036) than nonfed deer. Fed deer migrated later in spring 2004 ( = 13 Apr) than nonfed deer ( = 24 Mar; t34 = 3.25, P = 0.003). Fed deer spent more time on winter range in 2003-2004 ( = 157 d) than nonfed deer ( = 121 d; t20 = 3.63, P = 0.002), and more time on winter range for both winters combined (fed deer = 321 d, nonfed deer = 257 d; t27 = 3.29, P = 0.003). Concomitantly, wildlife managers need to recognize that any possible benefits accrued to mule deer populations in terms of increased nutritional status as a result of winter-feeding programs may be mitigated by altered timing of migration and increased duration of use of seasonal ranges by fed deer.


All things considered, I'm coming to the conclusion that the DWR's feeding program might be marginally useful, but is essentially a politically driven and expensive exercise that isn't about biology or science but is, instead, about public relations.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> All things considered, I'm coming to the conclusion that the DWR's feeding program might be marginally useful, but is essentially a politically driven and expensive exercise that isn't about biology or science but is, instead, about public relations.


+1 I dont like that the deer are hurt any more then any one else but feeding them is not going to help. The money as wyo has said would be better used to improve winter grounds and educate the public on feeding deer in the winter.

Many I said I was done with this topic.


----------



## soules2007 (Oct 29, 2007)

I have not been able to find a winter like this in utah since 1949!!! where a record 23 inches was recorded at the SLC airport. wyo2utah this is the worst winter utah has had in over 50 years. no one on this forum was old enough to remember that winter, and even if you were the herds were so small wether or not they were fed was irrelevant. What a alot of people are failing to realize is that hunting is no longer an option. The next few years hunts are a WASH, feeding is the only way you will get to hunt in 3 to 4 years from now! Epek hats off to you for the selfless gesture with buying a tag. The arguement not to feed is based on humans not getting involved in the natural order of the deer and let the strong survive. wow how ignorant, humans moved into the SL valley, cache valley and other areas and shoved the deer out of thier habitat, the natural order has been disrupted!! This is fact, from the benchs of smithfield, logan and providence to SLC all the way through provo and farther south, the deer need to be fed. :|


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

http://www.ut.nrcs.usda.gov/Snow/data/current.html

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,51 ... 352,00.htm

Worst winter in 50 years? :lol: You are joking, right? Right now we aren't even ahead of 2005-2006!

"The month of January sent the average statewide snowpack total skyrocketing over what had fallen throughout Utah at this point last winter. The Natural Resources Conservation Service as of Feb. 1 put the latest snowpack total at 18 percent above the average annual statewide percentage and 88 percent above last year at the same date.

NRCS hydrologist Tim Bardsley said there is no talk right now of any extended dry period and that most areas in the state where snowpack is measured are above average. Bardsley singled out Escalante as the only place showing below average snowpack - the Virgin River and South Eastern Utah areas have posted the highest snowpack totals.

But Utah will need a lot more snow to beat the 2005 and 2006 snowpack years. When the NRCS converts the snowpack to inches of water, Utah had nearly 25 inches by April, 2005. At the same time last year, however, there was less than 10 inches, well below the statewide annual average of about 16 inches. Bardsley said that even though statewide 2006 looked good, it was "quite variable," with some southern drainages actually doing poorly."


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> wyo2utah this is the worst winter utah has had in over 50 years.


Sorry I have to dissagree with you on this one. When I lived in Logan in 2005 we had strom the dumped over 3 feet in one storm. the storm was 3 days long. Growing up I used to remeber jumping off my roof into the snow. This year at that same house there is not enough snow even in the snow bank to jump off the roof. The winter to me seams like an avarge normal year that Utah is famous for. We have just been just to the weak winters and have forgoten the norm.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

Most areas are at or around the average snow fall for for this time of year. Some are a little over and some are even a little under. We've been spoiled the last few years with very light winters so now we have a normal year and it "feels" like a horrible year. 

It's supposed to warm up this weekend it will be amazing how fast this snow will dissapear once it starts going...


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

Longfeather said:


> Most areas are at or around the average snow fall for for this time of year. Some are a little over and some are even a little under. We've been spoiled the last few years with very light winters so now we have a normal year and it "feels" like a horrible year.
> 
> It's supposed to warm up this weekend it will be amazing how fast this snow will dissapear once it starts going...


I agree. I have read that almost every area is normal for this time of year. There are a few that are over but not by much. I know out here we are normal and the deer look just fine. I don't think now is the time to panic. People keep saying how bad the winter is, but the number just dont back that up.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

weatherby25 said:


> When I lived in Logan in 2005 we had strom the dumped over 3 feet in one storm. the storm was 3 days long.


I was there for that storm, it was wicked. I thought is was more of 2004, but I definitely could be wrong.  I lived in the trailer court at the time and had to get up a shovel off my roof so it wouldn't collapse like some of my neighbors did. I also remember because they canceled classes at USU for only like the second time ever. Also the day after the storm ended, the temp dipped down to somewhere around -28 degrees. That was miserable. -)O(-


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

soules2007 said:


> I have not been able to find a winter like this in utah since 1949!!! where a record 23 inches was recorded at the SLC airport. wyo2utah this is the worst winter utah has had in over 50 years.


As others have pointed out, this year we have plenty of snow, but it's not a particularly unusual year. We're only a few percentage points above average according to records, and one of the places in the state with the least snowfall is actually northern Utah, where the deer are being fed.



soules2007 said:


> no one on this forum was old enough to remember that winter, and even if you were the herds were so small wether or not they were fed was irrelevant.


The herds were small in 1949? Where are you getting that data? According to DWR records, the deer herds were in the midst of an unprecedented expansion at that time that peaked about ten years later.



soules2007 said:


> The arguement not to feed is based on humans not getting involved in the natural order of the deer and let the strong survive.


No, the argument against supplemental feeding being the standard answer is based upon exhaustive scientific studies done over several decades by many researchers that indicate that supplemental winter feeding is an expensive and only marginally effective tool that has serious drawbacks and side effects.

No one is arguing that the deer herds won't suffer this year. We all wish that weren't the case, and we all wish that there was an easy fix. Instead, the argument is that making expensive efforts to feed deer, according to professional studies, just doesn't do all that much good most of the time. This is especially relevant considering that that same money could be better spent elsewhere on long-term mitigation efforts that aren't simply band-aid, stopgap measures designed to make the public feel better under the illusion of something meaningful being done.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

> This is especially relevant considering that that same money could be better spent elsewhere on long-term mitigation efforts that aren't simply band-aid, stopgap measures designed to make the public feel better under the illusion of something meaningful being done.


Amen brother!!! You're preaching the gospel of truth and the righteousness of long term decision making.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> I was there for that storm, it was wicked. I thought is was more of 2004, but I definitely could be wrong. I lived in the trailer court at the time and had to get up a shovel off my roof so it wouldn't collapse like some of my neighbors did. I also remember because they canceled classes at USU for only like the second time ever. Also the day after the storm ended, the temp dipped down to somewhere around -28 degrees. That was miserable.


I may have my years mixed up. The mind is going fast. But man was it good times there. I remeber standing on the toolbox of my truck and to being able to reach the top of the snow backs in albertson's parking lot. it was sad to see 4x4 truck with chains on just to drive in city streets. I loved all of them -20 days we had that year.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Yeah I think they finally started hauling those snow mounds away. I don't think they would of melted until July as big as they were. Good times, I agree.


----------



## Firstarrow (Sep 28, 2007)

By everything I read there is a slight measured possitive to feeding deer. In the case of the Cache, I hope it isn't too late for the does which are carrying, as well as last yrs fawns.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

I think it is worth a try to save as many deer as possible. For Wyout and Weatherby25, why can't we do both feeding the deer and work on their winter grounds. I don't see why it has to be one or the other scenario. I am not going to argue this anymore because it is pointless, I could go on the internet and find just as many articles saying that feeding is good, but I have better things to do than arguing a point that we won't ever see eye to eye on.  I will just agree to disagree with you guys.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

jahan said:


> I think it is worth a try to save as many deer as possible. For Wyout and Weatherby25, why can't we do both feeding the deer and work on their winter grounds. I don't see why it has to be one or the other scenario. I am not going to argue this anymore because it is pointless, I could go on the internet and find just as many articles saying that feeding is good, but I have better things to do than arguing a point that we won't ever see eye to eye on.  I will just agree to disagree with you guys.


Agree to disagree...that is fine. BUT, I would challenge you to find "as many articles saying that feeding is good". Heck, I am not sure I can even find one!

Why can't we do both? We could...BUT, why waste the money on bandaids when we could be using it on prevention? There is only so much money available...

Bottom line: winter feeding results in only minimal--if any--improvements in decreasing winter mortality. And, most studies show that winter feeding has virtually no effect on saving fawns and the fawns of impregnated does.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

*Deer voluntarily reduce food consumption in winter*
Beginning in November, deer do something surprising; they voluntarily begin eating less food! Deer continue to reduce the amount of food they eat each day until around late-February, when they are eating about 50% less food per day than they did in September. During winter, deer compensate for eating less food by relying on their fat reserves for energy. In fact, an adult deer may get as much as 40% of their daily nutrition during winter from fat reserves. However, a healthy deer can only maintain this level of fat use for about three months, so it must conserve its fat. Deer conserve fat and the amount of energy they need by reducing their activity (e.g., they travel less) and by spending most of their time in softwood cover, where the snow is less deep and temperatures are warmer. These behaviors that conserve energy are especially important for fawns because they have fewer fat reserves than adult deer.

*Energy conservation is the key to deer winter survival*
Therefore, energy conservation is the key to reducing fat loss in deer during winter. Although deer can eat food to reduce the amount of fat they burn, natural foods only slow the rate of fat loss; they don't stop it. This is probably where you are saying, "That is why people need to put out grain for the deer!" Well guess what; even deer feeding on nothing but grain lose weight during the winter. Even captive deer that have access to as much high-quality food as they want, still reduce the amount of food they eat beginning in November, and they continue to lose body fat through February. The fact is, deer simply do not eat enough food to maintain their weight in winter. Why on earth do they do this? It's because deer have evolved with a survival strategy that tells them they need to eat as much food as they can in autumn, in order to put on as much fat as possible before winter. Once winter comes, instinct tells deer that they need to rely on their fat reserves for energy, and reduce the amount of energy they burn, by not traveling and by seeking the protection of winter cover.

*Deer increase energy expenditure to get supplemental food*
Why doesn't putting out grain or other foods help the deer in winter? First, consider the results from a recent research project that looked at the diets of deer visiting places where people put out grain in the winter. Specifically, the study analyzed deer fecal pellets collected at over 70 winter feeding sites. To date, the researchers found that on average, grain accounted for less than 30% of the food eaten by deer each day.
So why is this harmful to the deer? Well, consider that every deer burned some of its limited fat reserves to travel to a feeding site, but only got a small amount of food. If a deer did this only once per day it may not be so bad; however, most deer normally visit a winter feeding site a few times per day. Wild fawns radio-collared during research visited feeding sites an average of three or four times daily. Compared to deer not being fed, deer around feeding sites probably increase their daily activity in an attempt to get some grain, which often isn't there. If a deer does this every day, you don't have to be a biologist to conclude that they are probably burning far more energy (fat) then they get from the grain. These deer would have been much better off if they conserved their energy and visited a natural food source only once or twice each day.

*Healthiest deer eat most of the food*
The results from the study I mentioned above suggested that grain comprised less than 30% of the food eaten each day by the average deer. So what about the deer that got more than this? In my experience, it's a small number of deer that are responsible for eating the majority of the grain at a feeding site. If you haven't noticed it before, pay attention the next time the deer come to a feeding site. You will see that there are a few individual deer that always eat first, while the other deer watch and wait for a chance to sneak in and get food. Sometimes it's a buck, but more often it's a dominant doe and one or two of her adult offspring that push the other deer away and eat most, if not all, of the food. You will see that fawns are almost always the last deer to eat at a feed site, and they rarely get a belly full of grain. This is unfortunate, and here's why I think it is one of the greatest negative effects of winter feeding. Fawns are the portion of the herd that could benefit the most from winter feeding because they have limited fat reserves and they must eat during winter to survive. However, when fawns follow adults to a feeding site they generally have to wait on the sidelines while the adults eat all of the grain. So what happens to the fawns, and to the less dominant deer that get only a few bites of food, or get no food at all? Those deer waste energy reserves they can't spare when they travel to and from that feeding site. If this happens on a daily basis, and more than once per day, it can result in a significant amount of energy wasted over the course of the winter and can potentially decrease winter survival of these deer. Not quite what you intended when you put out food.

*Deer in poorest condition get little food*
You may be saying, "Well at least winter feeding benefits those few deer that eat all of the feed." It's possible that's true, but consider this. Those dominant deer at a winter feeding site are also dominant in other seasons; those deer get their choice of food in the autumn and are able to put on a thick layer of fat. Therefore, the majority of those big dominant deer would survive winter regardless of how severe it is. So basically, the healthiest deer in the herd get all the feed, while deer in the poorest condition waste energy they can't spare. Not much of a benefit if you are interested in a healthy deer herd.

*More grain means more deer*
So is putting out more grain the key to helping the deer? The answer is no. Although it would seem like putting out more grain would give more deer a chance to get food, this is rarely the case. Experience has shown that putting out more grain only attracts more deer. The story is the same everywhere; people who are now feeding 25 or more deer all say they were feeding only a handful of deer the first few years they put out food. Deer learn where to go in the winter from their adult relatives. Deer that are fawns this winter will eventually have fawns themselves; they will bring their offspring to the same areas their parents brought them. At many supplemental feeding sites it's not uncommon to see 40 or more deer feeding at one time. You can only imagine what that many deer do to the natural habitat around a feeding site, especially if grain makes up only a small portion of their food requirements.


----------

