# Whats wrong with Monroe.



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

After poring over the 2008 Big Game Report last night I noticed some figures on Monroe that explain to me the current problem with Monroe's deer herd.

First I will start by saying I don't believe the DWR #s on deer are spot on but I cant prove otherwise and its the only figures we have so for the sake of getting my point across I will use them.

2008 Monroe deer estimated pop 6300 deer. And a total buck harvest of 679 bucks and 195 doe. 874 deer harvested.

The first red flag to me is the buck doe ratio on Monroe is at 10/100 or 11/100. According to the DWR that is 630 to 690 bucks easily within the most recent buck harvest total recently. Here is the best part 25% 3pt or better. That is 175 3pt or betters at best. Keep in mind an average 2500 hunters show up on Monroe each yr.

So you have 5700 doe to overwinter with a few bucks. Is this why there are only 45 fawn per 100 doe on Monroe? 2560 New fawns at best. 1280 bucks. How many survive at least 1yr to be hunted?

What ever figure you want to apply to predation. 1000, 2000 or even an unlikely 500. Add road kill, old age, And even ATV stress and it is no wonder the herd never rebounds if anything only gets worse.

So I would say just by these figures its been or is currently a mismanagement issue.

1. With a herd under objective why would you issue doe tags? 2008 the DWR let 199 doe be harvested with like 300 permits issued. :shock: Highest tag allocation of any sub unit. :? 
2. If Monroe's deer herd ever made any small increases virtually unlimited hunting has compensated for any increases. In the last 10 yrs harvest as high as 1000 pr yr.
3. A lack of predator control (very practical) as the herds have declined. No matter how you hash it up with the #s I have posted from the DWR. Predation at the current levels is unacceptable if you want to increase the herd and hunt it at the same time.
4. In 02 the herd went from 7000 to 4200 in 03. And this wasn't grounds for any kind of special closure? I guess a 7500 deer objective wasn't priority. Interestingly the elk herd crashed in 04 and 05. Predators? Is this when lions tasted elk? 

As the deer herd gets smaller it looses resiliency. Making any factor such as hunter harvest, predation, winter loss, road kill, ATV disturbance competition with elk. You name it. Have a larger overall impact. I would say Utah's deer herd has really hit threat level red. And its either special measures to rehab it or it will fall into obscurity somewhat like antelope. Where sure you see them here and there when camping. But its not like tens of 1000s are out hunting them.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Your figures are off. If there are 6300 deer with a buck:doe ratio of 10:100 and a fawn:doe ratio of 45:100 there would be 406 bucks, 1829 fawns, and 4065 does after hunts are over and before the new year of fawns are born. Approx. half the fawns are bucks, meaning 914 yearling bucks will be recruited into the herd, with 406 bucks that are 2+ years of age. Even if every buck killed the following year was a yearling and it was 680 bucks again, 234 yearling bucks would survive to see the next year, plus the 406 older bucks. So, I am not sure why you would advocate taking out MORE of the older class bucks instead of some of the yearling bucks. This is just using the data you provided.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

Monroe is gonna suck for deer hunting because it's been chalked up as an elk unit by the state. You've gotta have a lot of habitat and a crap load less ATVs in order to have good deer hunting and good elk hunting on any given unit in this state.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> 1. With a herd under objective why would you issue doe tags? 2008 the DWR let 199 doe be harvested with like 300 permits issued. :shock: Highest tag allocation of any sub unit. :?
> 2. If Monroe's deer herd ever made any small increases virtually unlimited hunting has compensated for any increases. In the last 10 yrs harvest as high as 1000 pr yr.
> 3. A lack of predator control (very practical) as the herds have declined. No matter how you hash it up with the #s I have posted from the DWR. Predation at the current levels is unacceptable if you want to increase the herd and hunt it at the same time.
> 4. In 02 the herd went from 7000 to 4200 in 03. And this wasn't grounds for any kind of special closure? I guess a 7500 deer objective wasn't priority. Interestingly the elk herd crashed in 04 and 05. Predators? Is this when lions tasted elk?


1) Why issue doe tags for the Monroe unit? Because deer are rampant across sevier valley where they continue--year in and year out--to do damage on private property. The DWR MUST issue doe tags to keep deer populations low in the valley along the sevier river and on private property. These doe tags are valley tags...
2) Buck hunting does NOT affect population numbers only buck/doe ratios. Remember, it only takes 5 bucks to breed 100 does. The problem hasn't been that the does are not getting bred, the problem is with fawns surviving and being recruited into the herd. Buck harvest is NOT affecting the deer population.
3) Intense lion harvest and and control of mountain lions already has shown to be NO help to the deer population. Remember, when the lion study on Monroe was first began, lion numbers were way down and the deer population did not rebound. And, when lion numbers began to increase, deer numbers began to rise.
4) Closing a unit to buck harvest will NOT increase the deer herd's population. Your own numbers bear this out...you said that the population decreased from 2002 to 2003. Yet, in that same time frame the number of fawns per doe increased from 48/100 to 57/100 and the number of fawns per 100 adults increased from 28/100 to 40/100. In truth, closing the unit down to buck harvest this year could have dramatically hurt the herd...bucks could have outcompeted does during the winter and replaced does and fawns.

Ultimately, the biggest problem with the Monroe deer herd is the recruitment of fawns into the herd. The reason for this lack of recruitment is probably linked to various factors. We won't know, however, how large of an impact habitat is until the habitat work on Monroe starts to reap benefits...this will take time.


----------



## ramrod (Apr 15, 2008)

Couldn’t deer fences be built in areas where the deer are struggling? Is the number of doe tags 195 include depredation tags given to farmers?

In areas where deer are doing damage I think in many cases the problem could be solved with a deer fence. The problem I have seen is the farmers expect the DWR to build the fences and the DWR hands out depredation tags as a quick fix. This a problem throughout the state.

Does anyone know the amount of depredation tags handed out last year? It would be interesting to know how many of these tags are given out in a typical year.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

ramrod said:


> Couldn't deer fences be built in areas where the deer are struggling? Is the number of doe tags 195 include depredation tags given to farmers?
> 
> In areas where deer are doing damage I think in many cases the problem could be solved with a deer fence. The problem I have seen is the farmers expect the DWR to build the fences and the DWR hands out depredation tags as a quick fix. This a problem throughout the state.
> 
> Does anyone know the amount of depredation tags handed out last year? It would be interesting to know how many of these tags are given out in a typical year.


The doe tags issued for Monroe are NOT all depredation tags...they are Valley doe tags that are designed to keep the valley deer numbers in check. But, many hunters see the numbers posted on Monroe and associate these doe tags with the Monroe Mountain deer herd because they are listed under the Monroe subunit. The doe tags issued are for year round resident deer in the valley. The does killed in the valley will have NO effect on the mountain's population.

Also, some depredation tags are given for Monroe Mountain deer. "Crop depredation problems occur each year in the fields near Greenwich and Monroe. Revegetation of adjacent pinyon-juniper areas is an ongoing task to provide an alternate forage source for these problem animals. In addition, a 2 mile stretch of experimental high-tension electric fence was built across the top of a field south of Monroe. This fence has helped eliminate depredation problems on that particular field when it is maintained properly."

Building fences to help stop depredation problems is a good idea; however, the cost for building and maintaining the fence seems to always be an issue. The other thing to consider is that the whole reason the deer are using these areas for forage is because they have the best feed. So, completely fencing them off could have consequences when it comes to winter survival...depredation is a tough issue!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> 4. In 02 the herd went from 7000 to 4200 in 03. And this wasn't grounds for any kind of special closure? I guess a 7500 deer objective wasn't priority. Interestingly the elk herd crashed in 04 and 05.


Interestingly, BLM data tells a different story from the one you are assuming took place...
"Precipitation data from weather stations surrounding the unit (Richfield, Marysvale, and Koosharem) show a dry period prior to the 2003 reading. Annual precipitation was below normal in 2001 and 2002. Spring periods were also very dry from 2000 to 2003, averaging only 44% of normal in 2002 and 43% in 2003 (Utah climate summaries 2004). These dry conditions are the primary factor for the downward browse and herbaceous trends seen on the unit." It seems shocking I know that downward trends in deer and elk populations occurred at the same time downward trends in precipitation and habitat also occurred... :roll:


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

wyo2ut your quote:
3) Intense lion harvest and and control of mountain lions already has shown to be NO help to the deer population. Remember, when the lion study on Monroe was first began, lion numbers were way down and the deer population did not rebound. And, when lion numbers began to increase, deer numbers began to rise. 

does not support your conclusions. First counting deer and lions is far from exact. The real conclusion from this study is that some combination of factors favored an increased deer population and the population increase would have been even bigger with out lions. It does not require a study to prove that mountain lion control has to increase deer numbers. Mountain lions do eat deer.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Hunter tom...it is obvious you don't understand additive and compensatory predation. Educate yourself and start learning how predation affects ungulate populations....just because lions eat deer does not mean that they limit a deer's population.; often predation is compensatory and not additive.

Here is what we do know: Utah State University started monitoring the lion population on Monroe Mountain in 1996. At that time, USU estimated--granted such estimates are difficult and definitely not exact--around 40-45 lions living on the unit. In 1997, the DWR increased the number of lion tags on the unit for several consecutive years. During this time frame, the lion population--as estimated by USU--declined to an estimated low of about 15 adults in 2002. After this, the DWR reduced the number of lion permits from a high of 40 to 5 permits. After this decrease in lion permits starting in 2002, the cougar population increased back up to the original levels of about 40 adults. Then, in 2008, permits were doubled from 5 to 10 in the hopes of managing cougars at some kind of intermediate level.

Interestingly, at the same time lion numbers decreased--2002--and the same time the lion population was its lowest in 10 years, the deer population dropped dramatically! And, as the lion population increased, so did the mule deer...blaming deer population numbers on lions just doesn't make sense!


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Quantify it how ever you want. It still sucks. And over complicating the issue with science seems to only lull one to the conclusion that humans just cant effect the herd. 

Wy2 I think we have left game management up to folks that think like you for 30+ yrs and on that time line the deer herd has done nothing but decline and that camp has shot down any and all suggestions on how to creatively manage game. 

Predators don't have and effect on deer.
Droughts and heavy winters.
Hunters don't have have any effect on overall #s.
AL doesn't increase horn size. Causes to much un wanted death.
Elk have no issues other than ho to allocate tags.

I take comfort in the in person conversations I have had recently with down to earth folks some with 60 yrs on Monroe. These are the same guys who brought mule deer back from the 30s to what it was in the 60s. With little science and a lot of common sense.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> With little science and a lot of common sense.


Common sense says to follow the science...not the coffee shop know-it-alls! :roll:


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> Iron Bear said:
> 
> 
> > 4. In 02 the herd went from 7000 to 4200 in 03. And this wasn't grounds for any kind of special closure? I guess a 7500 deer objective wasn't priority. Interestingly the elk herd crashed in 04 and 05.
> ...


So these deer and elk starved. W/out any attempt to be right in Greenwich and Marysvale. Ive seen starving animals in the 80s and 03-05 has no comparison.

All the deer in Marysvale and Greenwich have either always been there or are there for the same reason elk are in the city of Banff in Canada. Predators.


----------



## ramrod (Apr 15, 2008)

Some of the farmers I have talked with biggest complaint about deer are they get into the hay stacks and eat the bottom bails till the stack falls over and ruins hay. In these cases deer fences would help. Still the farmers want the DWR to build fences because they don’t feel it's there responsibility. I do not agree with I believe the farmers should take responsibility for there hay instead of saying it's the DWR's problem not theirs.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> Here is what we do know: Utah State University started monitoring the lion population on Monroe Mountain in 1996. At that time, USU estimated--granted such estimates are difficult and definitely not exact--around 40-45 lions living on the unit. In 1997, the DWR increased the number of lion tags on the unit for several consecutive years. During this time frame, the lion population--as estimated by USU--declined to an estimated low of about 15 adults in 2002. After this, the DWR reduced the number of lion permits from a high of 40 to 5 permits. After this decrease in lion permits starting in 2002, the cougar population increased back up to the original levels of about 40 adults. Then, in 2008, permits were doubled from 5 to 10 in the hopes of managing cougars at some kind of intermediate level.
> 
> :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:
> I missed this part. You have got to be F'n kidding me. 40 cats *40 CATS*
> ...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I missed that Iron, 40 cats seems like an awfully high number to have on a unit as small as the Monroe. Even if they eat 'only' one deer every other week that is over 1000 deer a year. How a deer herd call even maintain population levels under such conditions would be nothing short of stunning, let alone increase. Add in coyotes, bears, road kill, depredation tags, winter kill, sickness related deaths, and how can the herd thrive? :shock:


----------



## 10yearquest (Oct 15, 2009)

Here is a question for everyone. When deer are damaging hay stacks and such why arent they captured and relocated to areas that need more deer? They capture and relocate every other animal in this state, why not deer?

I also am starting to think that summertime recreation and all of the activity around the hunts is having a negative impact on all deer not just bucks.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Because deer don't do very well when they are relocated. In other words mule deer don't handle stress every well. Plus it's an expensive project.


----------



## 10yearquest (Oct 15, 2009)

out of all the animals, deer are the only ones who dont relocate well? I find that a little hard to believe. Elk are just as skitish or more so than deer but they have been transplanted. 

When deer become a priority the expence will be justified right?

If deer cant handle stress then that just makes me lean more to my theory on the stress of summer recreation and 12 weeks of hunting having a neg. impact on ALL deer.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Deer relocation's/transplants have proven to be ineffective. I have read a few studies on this topic, I will try and dig a few up and post the links for you. 8)


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

http://wildlife.utah.gov/wr/0712capture/0712capture.pdf



> Mule deer is the one big game species in Utah that does not do well when it's transplanted. We can capture and transport deer into new habitats, but once they're released, deer scatter rapidly and travel long distances from their release site. This results in low survival rates, and the desired objective-a new, thriving population near the area where the deer were released-is never reached. Page 12


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I think the farmer loss card is over played a bit. I happen to know a good number of the farmers in Koosherem, Greenwich, My sister owns a nice spread in Marysvale. She herself get a few depredation tags each yr. Some yrs as many as 8. Sure deer cause some problems on a small scale to certain farmers. But in my sisters case it wouldn't warrant killing the deer. I happen to know the people of those small communities would welcome a large deer herd like the old days. When they didn't have to cater to old farts from Calif in UTV's and ATV's. And catered to deer hunters a couple times a yr to provided the extra boost that those small communities need. 

On the other hand I like the idea of paying farmers to plant a winter crop for deer in those crucial winter range areas. I have spoken recently to a land owner in Koosherem that thinks it could work for him. And believes if conditions were right many others would go for it too. One $285,000 tag would pay for that program for 5 yrs. On a unit like Monroe.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Guess I'll start on this note:



> Predators don't have and effect on deer.
> Droughts and heavy winters.
> Hunters don't have have any effect on overall #s.
> AL doesn't increase horn size. Causes to much un wanted death.
> Elk have no issues other than ho to allocate tags.


To those saying predators don't effect deer populations and hunters taking "bucks" doesn't have an effect on the deer herd you really do need a dose of common sense, because nothing some "scientist" or "biologist" types on a document can change the fact that one deer killed by a predator or person isn't one less deer in the population. I mean think about what your saying..... deer getting killed doesn't effect the population? :roll: :roll:

Example: So your telling me the reason we don't have any pheasants left in Utah is because of harsh winters and dry years right? And your saying the raccoons, skunks, foxes, etc. and hunting them hasn't effected the pheasant population in any way?..... No! There is a reason there are few pheasants left in the state. Their predator populations are booming, and the few that are left are being stretched even thinner when the hunt opens up every year. Then everyone wants to use the excuse of habitat. We'll let me tell you there's plenty of pheasant habitat around me and I sure don't see as many as I used to. So YES PREDATORS DO EFFECT PREYS POPULATION whether you want to admit it or not. With fewer foxes, skunks, raccoons, etc, you really don't think there could be more pheasants around the state? Better chick and egg survival? So yes fewer coyotes and mountain lions would make for better fawn and deer survival.

Sorry to get off topic but thought I would use an example. The Monroe deer herd is struggling, numbers won't change my mind on that, both bucks and does are lower than I've ever seen before. And yes the deer are on private property but I wouldn't really say they cause as much damage as some have eluded to. Depredation tags IMO have gotten way out of hand in the Sevier valley if you ask me. I know of one family who got 6 depredation tags this year for a 50 acre peace of property, and their reason behind getting them wasn't the deer were raising hell on their property they just wanted deer tags to shoot deer. I've never had a problem with deer in my hay.

As for another topic on Monroe is the elk. I don't believe the elk are hurting the deer herd, but are a lot better managed (by the two letter LE). Other factors are habitat, the DWR IMO just continues to let cheat grass have its way in Sevier county, I've never seen any push to try and fight it in any way on Monroe, and whenever their is a brush fire rather than replanting it the DWR/Forest Service/BLM never replant anything, and all that comes back is cheat grass.

My thoughts are that if the Monroe unit had less motor vehicle trails (On BLM and forest service land, especially BLM), an attempt to fight cheat grass, less doe tags, less mountain lions, and the deer herd was LE like the elk, it would be doing just fine, but until some of these steps are taken it will steadily go down.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Surprise surprise, I agree with you #1Deer on every point. I never believed that elk were directly effecting the deer herd. I too have observed elk and deer cohabitation with out any apparent conflict. But Indirectly in the sense that the limited resources of the DWR. Went to focusing on elk and not deer. And deer being the bread and butter of big game hunting in Utah deserved better than that. And I believe they have a difficult and thankless job. But I still demand better of them in regards to deer. 

#1Deer, I know you spend a lot of time on Monroe. And most of your observations and post echo the same sentiments as the 100s of lifetime Residents, Ranchers and Hunters I know in the area. :O||:


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

....And just to add one more thing into the mix of "hunters taking bucks doesn't affect the overall population" Well then why have a deer season at all? If killing bucks has no effect on the population why not just let everyone shoot as many "bucks" as they want at any time of the year and then lets see if shooting "bucks" doesn't affect the population.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> ....And just to add one more thing into the mix of "hunters taking bucks doesn't affect the overall population" Well then why have a deer season at all? If killing bucks has no effect on the population why not just let everyone shoot as many "bucks" as they want at any time of the year and then lets see if shooting "bucks" doesn't affect the population.


Of course you have to manage the deer. That is why we have buck to doe ratio objectives. There needs to be at least 7 bucks for every 100 does. The does will get bred and give birth to more bucks and round and round the cycle goes. It's pretty simple really. The General Season units aren't managed to have 4x4 bucks around every corner. That is for places like the Bookcliffs. BUT if you put in the time and effort then you can find bucks on GS public land.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

1IDeer, I don't mean to make you upset, but didn't you shoot a small 2 point or 3 point on the Monroe last year? If you're concerned that the buck numbers are low then don't add to the problem. Maybe hunt somewhere else.

Again, I'm not slamming you, but maybe let a few bucks walk or scout a new place.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

My head is still spinning around 40 cats. Add coyotes alone. And I don't know really how you can have a relevant discussion on the Monroe deer herd. 6500 deer at best. I don't care what the buck/doe or fawn of habitat or anything else. Until that is addressed. That leaves the only other viable control. Hunters.

I have a tendency to be a bit of a conspiracy theorist. And man does this stink like the trappings of like of Don and elitist like himself.

Follow me. Run a cougar study on Monroe and protect high #s of cats and keep low #s of deer. This will force cats onto the elk. And we can dispel the notion that cats are deer eating machines. Meanwhile the deer herd will be so low we will be able to sell LE deer to the masses. Go statewide LE and tell the public we are going to rehab this deer herd. That will justify issuing low #s of tags. Then basically manage the deer as they have for elk and other LE deer units and only let 200 hunters a yr on the unit. Thus cutting the supply and pumping up the demand. And getting to sell Utah off as the best Mule deer hunting in the nation because we have the most 200 plus in bucks harvested. :twisted:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

You think Don is that smart? :shock:


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Not really but I think they stumbled onto the current elk model and would love to simulate something with deer.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Some people will just never get it....it all goes back to education. I have two words for those who continue to use predators for scapegoats: 1) additive predation 2) compensatory predation. Until some of you understand those two concepts, you will NEVER understand anything to do with the effect predators have on deer or elk. It is as simple as that...

...I have already said it more than once, but I will say it again. If those lions were having such a huge impact on the deer population, why when the lion population was its lowest didn't the deer thrive? And, conversely, why didn't the deer population suddenly drop dramatically when the lion population recovered?


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

How long was the cougar population at a low? And how long was that low? When deer were at a low in the 20s and 30s the deer didn't recover in 1 or 2 yrs. It took 10 to 20 yrs. On Monroe is it possible that the cougar had a larger abundance of elk so preyed more on elk?

I'm sorry WY I really don't understand additive predation or compensatory predation either.

What ever # you want to put on predation compensatory or additive. As far as Monroe is concerned and as many hunters who want to hunt the animals there. Little to No predation should take place.

Do the cougar on Monroe have a maximum capacity? What controls that? Is 100 cats over the capacity of Monroe? Is it possible to have predators and prey to be out of balance? How does mother nature correct that imbalance? Can humans be considered predators? What roll could they play? Could 20 hunters replace one cougar in a ecosystem? Can humans practice compensatory or additive predation?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wy2ut, the study done is SW Wyoming, NE Utah said that deer populations have FORTY YEAR population cycles! Do you think that may be part of the reason a reduction in predators for 2-3 years doesn't show a huge improvement?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

http://www.westernhunter.com/Pages/Vol0 ... ators.html

First thing I noticed is Compensatory predation & additive predation are THEORIES, not scientific FACTS.


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

Wy2ut I am a highly educated natural scientist. The study you quote is worthless in linking predation to deer herd size. There are far too many unknown and uncontrolled variables at play to draw your conclusion. I could go on for pages discussing the various factors that influence the rise and fall of wildlife populations. For instance the predator population and deer numbers can both be at an all time low but the deer numbers can still drop because: 1. There are still too many cats for the fewer deer. Their relative population is important. 2. Other predators are more prevalent. 3. Poor range conditions. 3. Disease. 4. Higher hunter kill-still a lot of hunters after fewer deer. Sometimes things become common knowledge and don’t require further study. Fact: The sun rises and falls every day. Fact: Predators harass, kill and eat deer. Fact : No matter what other dynamics are in play and in a natural system many are always in play, more deer predators more deer killed.


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> http://www.westernhunter.com/Pages/Vol04Issue09/predators.html
> 
> First thing I noticed is Compensatory predation & additive predation are *THEORIES, not scientific FACTS*.


Good read.
not meaning to nitpick here but....the word theory is used incorrectly in the article (even though the author has an apparent PhD). In actuality, *all theories are base on scientific facts.* People often get hypothesis confused with theories. Or, often it is peoples misinterpretation of what a theory actually states. For example; The Theory of Evolution - people hear about it....then misinterpret it to say Humans evolved from Apes.... which isn't even close to what the theory states.
I think that is what is going on here. People hear about compensatory and additive predation and misinterpret it to be predators only take the sick, injured, or old....unfortunately some Teachers teach it that way _(O)_ ....In other words - the theory of compensatory and additive predation doesn't say that but people often interpret it to say that - so the author uses it incorrectly in his opening statement.... other than that it was interesting.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

The Naturalist said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.westernhunter.com/Pages/Vol04Issue09/predators.html
> ...


Good call garden grower guy. I was gonna say something similar to this but I didn't want Bart mad at me.... :mrgreen:


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

Hunter Tom said:


> Wy2ut I am a highly educated natural scientist. The study you quote is worthless in linking predation to deer herd size. There are far too many unknown and uncontrolled variables at play to draw your conclusion. I could go on for pages discussing the various factors that influence the rise and fall of wildlife populations. For instance the predator population and deer numbers can both be at an all time low but the deer numbers can still drop because: 1. There are still too many cats for the fewer deer. Their relative population is important. 2. Other predators are more prevalent. 3. Poor range conditions. 3. Disease. 4. Higher hunter kill-still a lot of hunters after fewer deer. Sometimes things become common knowledge and don't require further study. Fact: The sun rises and falls every day. Fact: Predators harass, kill and eat deer. Fact : No matter what other dynamics are in play and in a natural system many are always in play, more deer predators more deer killed.


Hunter Tom - I think you have misunderstood what Wy2Ut is saying - I don't believe he said anywhere that predators don't eat deer. Rather, in the studies that he has seen/participated in, that predators do not appear to be the major cause in the dwindling herds of deer. Like you state there are many variables involved.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

.45 said:


> [quote="The Naturalist":1fetmp4j]
> 
> 
> proutdoors said:
> ...


Good call garden grower guy. I was gonna say something similar to this but I didn't want Bart mad at me.... :mrgreen:[/quote:1fetmp4j]Both of you need a language review.  :wink:

Based on scientific facts is different than *being* scientific fact(s).



The Naturalist said:


> Hunter Tom - I think you have misunderstood what Wy2Ut is saying - I don't believe he said anywhere that predators don't eat deer. Rather, in the studies that he has seen/participated in, that predators do not appear to be the major cause in the dwindling herds of deer. Like you state there are many variables involved.


I disagree, from reading the many posts by wy2ut on this subject, he implies that lions have *no* impacts on deer populations on the Monroe unit.


----------



## Petersen (Sep 7, 2007)

People seem to misunderstand the difference between "theory" and "fact." In science, theories don't progress to being reclassified as facts when they're proven. Theories always stay theories, whether they're subsequently shown to be correct or incorrect.

A theory is a coherent statement of principles that purport to explain a group of _facts_ in a way that can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. These predictions enable scientists to test whether the theory is correct or not. If the predictions ultimately indicate that the theory is correct, the theory is still regarded as a theory. If the predictions tend to disprove the theory, the theory is still a theory - just an incorrect one.

Theories aren't reclassified as facts when they're shown to be correct. Theories always stay theories, and facts always stay facts. In science they're two very different things.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Fine, for all you science terminology geeks, :wink: , THIS theory has NOT been proven repeatedly with the same results. Thus, this is merely a theory that has NOT been proven to be a correct theory, so it is an unproven theory. Therefore, it is my contention there are too many unknown factors that have yet to be clarified to draw a solid conclusion and to dismiss all other theories. 8)


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Fine, for all you science terminology geeks, :wink: , THIS theory has NOT been proven repeatedly with the same results. Thus, this is merely a theory that has NOT been proven to be a correct theory, so it is an unproven theory. Therefore, it is my contention there are too many unknown factors that have yet to be clarified to draw a solid conclusion and to dismiss all other theories. 8)


WHAT ?!?!?!? :?

That almost sounds like Rumsfeld....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaxqUDd4 ... re=related


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

.45 said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Fine, for all you science terminology geeks, :wink: , THIS theory has NOT been proven repeatedly with the same results. Thus, this is merely a theory that has NOT been proven to be a correct theory, so it is an unproven theory. Therefore, it is my contention there are too many unknown factors that have yet to be clarified to draw a solid conclusion and to dismiss all other theories. 8)
> ...


WY2's studies aren't gospel.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

.45 said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Fine, for all you science terminology geeks, :wink: , THIS theory has NOT been proven repeatedly with the same results. Thus, this is merely a theory that has NOT been proven to be a correct theory, so it is an unproven theory. Therefore, it is my contention there are too many unknown factors that have yet to be clarified to draw a solid conclusion and to dismiss all other theories. 8)
> ...


Hey! I was just using their jumbled jargon that makes things sound more complicated than they really need to be. *\-\*


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

Petersen said:


> People seem to misunderstand the difference between "theory" and "fact." In science, theories don't progress to being reclassified as facts when they're proven. Theories always stay theories, whether they're subsequently shown to be correct or incorrect.
> 
> A theory is a coherent statement of principles that purport to explain a group of _facts_ in a way that can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. These predictions enable scientists to test whether the theory is correct or not. If the predictions ultimately indicate that the theory is correct, the theory is still regarded as a theory. If the predictions tend to disprove the theory, the theory is still a theory - just an incorrect one.
> 
> Theories aren't reclassified as facts when they're shown to be correct. Theories always stay theories, and facts always stay facts. In science they're two very different things.


Pete you have a lot more eloquence in writing than I do - good job.



proutdoors said:


> Fine, for all you science terminology geeks, :wink: , THIS theory has NOT been proven repeatedly with the same results. Thus, this is merely a theory that has NOT been proven to be a correct theory, so it is an unproven theory. Therefore, it is my contention there are too many unknown factors that have yet to be clarified to draw a solid conclusion and to dismiss all other theories. 8)


Geek shmeek :shock: glad you didn't say I was a terminology nerd! :lol: All I'm saying PRO is that I don't think it should be categorized as a theory (predators only take old, sick, and injured animals) I believe it is a misinterpretation of a theory, and often wrongfully taught.


----------



## Petersen (Sep 7, 2007)

I don't know where the often-mentioned misconception originated about predators having a preference for old and sick animals. Predators have a preference, instead, for what is most efficiently caught and killed with the least amount of danger to themselves. Who knows, there might be some consideration too about what looks most tasty or fun to catch, but that's pure speculation.

Since the young, the old and the not-so-speedy are most easily made a meal with the least amount of danger to the predator, it seems reasonable to hypothesize (another geeky science term Pro) that the biggest, strongest, fastest, most nimble prey tend to get away more often than their younger, older or less physically able kin. Come to think of it though, I've never read any studies that really focus on this particular issue — at least involving deer or elk.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Petersen said:


> Since the young, the old and the not-so-speedy are most easily made a meal with the least amount of danger to the predator, it seems reasonable to hypothesize (another geeky science term Pro) that the biggest, strongest, fastest, most nimble prey tend to get away more often than their younger, older or less physically able kin. Come to think of it though, I've never read any studies that really focus on this particular issue - at least involving deer or elk.


Except, a couple of the studies say lions have over an 80% success rate on deer and elk kill attempts. Whatever deer/elk happens to walk under the wrong tree/ledge, regardless of it's age/health, is most likely dinner in short order.


----------



## Petersen (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Except, a couple of the studies say lions have over an 80% success rate on deer and elk kill attempts. Whatever deer/elk happens to walk under the wrong tree/ledge, regardless of it's age/health, is most likely dinner in short order.


The study that I'm familiar with was done back in the early '70s by Maurice Hornocker in Idaho. It indicated an 82 percent success rate for cougar kill attempts, but I don't recall it going into any detail on what what those kills or the selection criteria were.

The conventional wisdom is that cougars will preferentially select prey (from its preferred species) that yields the highest chance of success, with the least amount of effort and danger. I haven't, however, seen much data either supporting or refuting this conventional wisdom.

I've just not run into a whole lot of scientifically obtained evidence on how cougars actually select the animals that they choose to take - whether, when given the choice, they'll select the weakest, meatiest, slowest, smallest, youngest, etc., or whether it's purely arbitrary. It does seem logical, however, that they'll take the lowest-hanging fruit first.

There is one study I do remember (and I'm having trouble recalling where I read it) that dealt with the left-over carcasses of cougar-killed prey (deer, if I remember right). The study found that a significantly higher than expected percentage of those cougar kills were infected with chronic wasting disease than would be expected based upon the known infection rate in the local deer population.

I don't think this study suggests that cougars prefer diseased animals, but it does probably suggest that cougars tend to ambush animals that are easiest to kill - whether diseased, old, young or infirm.

Personally, my gut instincts tell me that the often-mentioned notion of cougars killing _only_ the weak and sick is just as wrong the counter notion of cougars taking mostly healthy adults. Again, I suspect that it's a judgment call made by the cougar based upon what seems the easiest to catch and kill. This would likely result in a disproportionately higher percentage of old, sick or young animals being taken. It certainly wouldn't, however, rule out a cougar jumping from a tree on a big bull elk if the cat thought it looked doable.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I do know, from talking to several biologists about bighorn sheep, that lions kill mostly mature rams. This is because rams tend to be either alone or in small bands, where the ewes/lambs are in bigger bands and have more eyes/noses/ears to sense/avert danger. I suspect this to be the case for mule deer and elk as well. A lion must ambush it's prey, therefore it is less likely to select a certain animal in the herd, and more likely to take whatever happens to wander into range.


----------



## Petersen (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> ...more likely to take whatever happens to wander into range.


Yeah, that's good reasoning and could easily be the case. There are lots of variables to consider, which might be why the hard data on it is so scarce. It would make a good study for some university or PhD candidate to take on.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Petersen said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > ...more likely to take whatever happens to wander into range.
> ...


Agreed. 8)


----------



## 10yearquest (Oct 15, 2009)

It would be interesting to know what effect herd numbers have on a cougars sucess rate. I know it effects mine!  

Whats the minimum number of deer a cougar must kill to survive? This is why I have never bought in to set kills per week numbers, too many variables .


----------



## muleymadness (Jan 23, 2008)

> Whats wrong with Monroe.


1. ELK
2. Lists could go on and on and some of you have pointed out other problems very well and stated so nicely. But see #1 for main problem.



> Monroe is gonna suck for deer hunting because it's been chalked up as an elk unit by the state.


+1 one to what stablebuck said.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

What month do most doe fawn? 

It was brought to my attention last night while visiting with some guys. We where talking about turkey hunting. And the turkey on Monroe and how none of us had ever drawn LE there. But a 4 of us intended to go OTC. In May. :shock: 

Probably us and about 400 other guys.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

A few fawns are born in late May, most are born in June.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Yes we figured similar. Mid may through mid June. 

Still to close to the fawning season. Pregnant doe's about to drop and all those hunters chasing turkey right in the fawning grounds. I would say turkey hunters will likely paramount campers and ATV's as far as intrusiveness during fawn and calf season. Right there with shed hunters. 

This doesn't strike me as prudent management. For a deer herd in recovery or in need of recovery.


----------



## 10yearquest (Oct 15, 2009)

I dont know Iron bear. Maybe the deer are a lost cause! Seems like there has been a perfect storm of negatives thrown on the deer. Between winter and predaters and increases in human encroachment the just may be a screwed species.  Maybe the div has done the right thing by concentrating on elk. They are a superior species. If the deer can't be saved then we should concentrate on making elk the average joes animal :twisted:


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

10yearquest said:


> I dont know Iron bear. Maybe the deer are a lost cause! Seems like there has been a perfect storm of negatives thrown on the deer. Between winter and predaters and increases in human encroachment the just may be a screwed species.  Maybe the div has done the right thing by concentrating on elk. They are a superior species. If the deer can't be saved then we should concentrate on making elk the average joes animal :twisted:


Lemme throw out one thing along this thought.

When Lewis and Clark came across the west exploring, they took detailed notes about the terrain, wildlife etc etc. They were very specific when they mentioned a deer with "large ears", aka the Mule deer. They said these deer were extremely rare to come across. These are the earliest historical notes we have on the populations of mule deer, at a time where there was virtually no impact by man (yes there were indians, but they didnt terraform areas etc). So at a perfect period with as little impact via man as possible, mule deer were not thriving. Buffalo stretched across the horizon. Herds of elk in the hundreds of thousands roamed the plains as well... yet mule deer were "scarce", hardly found and seen.

I've always thought that mule deer are an inferior species that dont thrive as much as other deer, and due to the settling of the west, the reduction in predators, the changing of the landscape via farming etc, it caused an artificial climate for mule deer to thrive in. As we have moved past this period of history, now predators run unchecked, wildfires are stopped as quickly as possible, natural range is turned into developments and deer populations are dropping.

I dont believe its possible for populations to return to what we had in the 80's, or even early 90's ...in fact I really believe populations will continue to diminishover time.

-DallanC


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

DallanC said:


> I dont believe its possible for populations to return to what we had in the 80's, or even early 90's ...in fact I really believe populations will continue to diminishover time.


Sadly, I am afraid you are correct.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I dont think its an issue of inferiority. I will argue that Mule deer are very hardy and adaptable. They can carve out a living on a greater range of habitat than any other big game species. Even more than the hardy Whitetail. Its a political will issue.

Dallan brings up that Lewis and Clark never seen a lot of mule deer and they were rare. Even rarer than now. What happened to make them so prevalent? I know one huge factor. An attempted extermination of predators that was effective with poison.

We should strive for a ecosystem that resembles pre settlement Utah. That is such silly and ignorant notion on so many levels. If that's the case whats with all the elk in Utah. I happen to know Monroe Mtn at 10000ft is not historical elk habitat. Should we forget this whole game and hunt buffalo and sheep and goats? One every 50 yrs in LE draws.

Did you know there is an actual conspiracy that wants all but no deer in Utah and want to make elk the staple of Utah big game hunting. These guys hold positions on the RAC board as well as the Wildlife Counsel and conservation groups as well. It is almost totally a political will issue. :evil:


----------



## 10yearquest (Oct 15, 2009)

I have not given up on deer just yet!
Unfortunately we hunters gave away our political voice in the late nineties. ( what proposition was that, you know the one that took wildlife management out of the peoples hands, someone help me if I am way off here ok) So how can we change the process? Undo what has been done and there is danger from the antihunters. Somehow we need to get the power back in the hunters hands. Let real biology and the wants of the user dictate wildlife management!


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I'm open to almost any means to bring back deer. 

I am really optimistic at the amount of support I am getting out there. There are a whole lot of folks who agree having a good deer herd would be great thing. How many people do you know in family, friends, acquaintances? That would support a viable deer management plan that served them? Um almost 100% I bet. So that's the simple part. Its not like the sell is for something no one wants. So organization and political participation should be able to put us on the right path. And the benefits will be shared by average deer and elk hunters alike.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Agreed! So, when are you joining the Utah Wildlife Cooperative? 8)


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Yes I plan to join. Of coarse deer are my focus. And I understand the UWC's primary focus is on the current Elk plan threats. But I am looking forward in delivering *huge* support to them so long as and I do believe. They lobby for management that serves "Average Joes" a term I'm not in favor of but you know what I mean. I also intend to be at the meet and greet.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Yes I plan to join. Of coarse deer are my focus. And I understand the UWC's primary focus is on the current Elk plan threats. But I am looking forward in delivering *huge* support to them so long as and I do believe. They lobby for management that serves "Average Joes" a term I'm not in favor of but you know what I mean. I also intend to be at the meet and greet.


 :-|O|-:

Just to clarify, we are focusing mostly on elk right now because of the new proposed elk plan that will be the primary issue at the upcoming RAC's/WB. After that, we will be more than happy to focus more on deer. 8)


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Yep. That's my understanding.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

http://www.createstrat.com/muledeerinth ... atwas.html

Main factors that limit mule deer populations, notice how hunters aren't on the list:



> 1. Habitat changes caused by fire suppression, invasive plants and livestock management have lessened the ability of habitats to support mule deer populations.
> 
> 2. Gas, mineral and oil exploration fragment habitat and continue to threaten important traditional mule deer range.
> 
> ...


----------

