# High Uintas Deer Density



## KRH (Jul 27, 2015)

I just finished an archery elk hunt in the high uintas wilderness. I make this trip almost annually unless I draw an out of state tag and skip the Utah archery hunt so I have spent a considerable amount of time up there not to mention all of the other fishing/camping/horse packing trips over the years. In all the time I’ve spent up there, it’s pretty clear to me the deer density is quite low. I know this is not news to anyone but what’s the reason? Seems like a lot of feed and obviously plenty of water so what’s the issue? 

Just curious, thanks in advance.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

Management of the Deer, Predation, low fawn numbers, stress???? It could many things. It's not just this area, it's the entire state of Utah.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

I've been hunting deer in Utah for more than a half century and throughout that time, we've been playing the same cards over and over again - eliminate predators, regulate hunters, blame the DWR, etc. If we want different results, it's time to shuffle the deck and deal a new hand.

Best example I can think of at the moment is the renewed attention being paid to migration corridors and the fact that mule deer wander. Seems to me that ongoing research has the potential to prompt some major shifts in our ideas of "management", even to the point of redrawing our arbitrary unit boundaries.


----------



## KRH (Jul 27, 2015)

taxidermist said:


> Management of the Deer, Predation, low fawn numbers, stress???? It could many things. It's not just this area, it's the entire state of Utah.


Thanks for the reply. Yes those themes unfortunately persist throughout the entire state, but that being said it seems to me the uintas have even lower densities than other general units. For example, in one week of elk hunting this year I kicked up two does. I see a lot more deer than that in other general units. Could be anecdotal, but to me the density seems much lower and I’m curious why


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> I've been hunting deer in Utah for more than a half century and throughout that time, we've been playing the same cards over and over again - eliminate predators, regulate hunters, blame the DWR, etc. If we want different results, it's time to shuffle the deck and deal a new hand.
> 
> Best example I can think of at the moment is the renewed attention being paid to migration corridors and the fact that mule deer wander. Seems to me that ongoing research has the potential to prompt some major shifts in our ideas of "management", even to the point of redrawing our arbitrary unit boundaries.





KRH said:


> I just finished an archery elk hunt in the high uintas wilderness. I make this trip almost annually unless I draw an out of state tag and skip the Utah archery hunt so I have spent a considerable amount of time up there not to mention all of the other fishing/camping/horse packing trips over the years. In all the time I’ve spent up there, it’s pretty clear to me the deer density is quite low. I know this is not news to anyone but what’s the reason? Seems like a lot of feed and obviously plenty of water so what’s the issue?
> 
> Just curious, thanks in advance.


We are no longer a game hunting state. We now hunt elusive tags. It now takes 5 years to hunt buck and cow elk in my beautiful Boulder unit. UTDWR watched as predators ran our game herds into the ground even though they were warned. They mismanaged the bull elk draw leading to a completely clogged draw system. Waiting 23 years for a 90 % kill rate for bull elk in the rut. That's a shoot not a hunt.
On another point-what idiot put the NOT A HUMAN road block on this site?


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

KRH said:


> Thanks for the reply. Yes those themes unfortunately persist throughout the entire state, but that being said it seems to me the uintas have even lower densities than other general units. For example, in one week of elk hunting this year I kicked up two does. I see a lot more deer than that in other general units. Could be anecdotal, but to me the density seems much lower and I’m curious why


You sure it’s lower than other deer units? I hunted hunt 11 days on the archery elk this year and I can count on 2 hands how many deer I saw. And this unit isn’t anywhere near where you’re talking about


----------



## KRH (Jul 27, 2015)

MooseMeat said:


> You sure it’s lower than other deer units? I hunted hunt 11 days on the archery elk this year and I can count on 2 hands how many deer I saw. And this unit isn’t anywhere near where you’re talking about


I am very sure the high uintas have lower deer densities than other general units I’ve been on based on my observations. Like I said, that could be totally anecdotal and not large enough of a sample size but the high elevation basins in the wilderness area where I hunt elk are almost completely void of deer despite it looking like pretty darn good habitat.

I know they run sheep up there (a whole other topic to bitch about), perhaps that is a factor


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Just think predators, predators, predators and you will come up with a solution. 

Back in the 50's and 60's cats, bears, and coyotes were shot on sight along with being poisoned. You felt lucky if you happened to see one out in the wild while deer hunting. Then came the folks that like to run bears and cats and the regulations to increase their numbers. As the predator numbers went up the deer populations went down, quite simple to figure out why. 

As for the sheep and cattle, they were on the mountains back in the 50's and 60's also and in greater numbers so you really can't point the finger at them. The one thing that you didn't see at that time was elk. The first elk that I ever saw outside of a national park in Utah was just off of Skyline Dr way back in 67 or 68. Now you find them all over.

As for taking years to draw tags, most of it is supply and demand. You have a lot more hunters putting in for these tags with the same amount of tags being offered.


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

Critter said:


> Just think predators, predators, predators and you will come up with a solution.
> 
> Back in the 50's and 60's cats, bears, and coyotes were shot on sight along with being poisoned. You felt lucky if you happened to see one out in the wild while deer hunting. Then came the folks that like to run bears and cats and the regulations to increase their numbers. As the predator numbers went up the deer populations went down, quite simple to figure out why.
> 
> ...


A few years back Boulder had about 900 cow tags. Then the next year about 600 followed by the next several years of 20 cow tags. Sounds like Biden's style of planning. I have pushed strongly for antler restriction buck hunts to allow greatly increased opportunity. Get away from the 50% kill rate on yearling bucks often taken from vehicles.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

I just had a brain storm.... What if the DWR placed the bounty on Yotes from $50 to $100?? and do away with the 1099 form. That 1099 is 100% of the reason I wont turn a dog in for the bounty. State gets enough taxes as it is IMO. The Wild Fur market is an absolute joke on pricing. I can hardly cover fuel prices to set traps. Didn't even place one trap in the dirt last fall.

Whatever the issues/reason is for low herd numbers, something better happen soon or it could become a thing of the past.

Surrounding States are jacking up costs for non resident tags. They know that Utah is loosing big game animals in numbers and quality of mature animals. Worst case scenario is current Utah hunters will get fed up and disgusted with the "Ghost Hunts" we have seen lately and stop applying for a GS deer tag that can take 3 years to draw and chase ghost's. Then, the price of a tag will increase to offset the lower number of apps and to pay for another dead end management plan. 

Something has to give! I don't know what it will take, but something has to happen.


----------



## ns450f (Aug 28, 2018)

Where would the deer on the Unitas go for winter range?


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

taxidermist said:


> I just had a brain storm.... What if the DWR placed the bounty on Yotes from $50 to $100?? and do away with the 1099 form. That 1099 is 100% of the reason I wont turn a dog in for the bounty. State gets enough taxes as it is IMO. The Wild Fur market is an absolute joke on pricing. I can hardly cover fuel prices to set traps. Didn't even place one trap in the dirt last fall.
> 
> Whatever the issues/reason is for low herd numbers, something better happen soon or it could become a thing of the past.
> 
> ...


Buck hunting cure is easy-antler restrictions-works in other states. Lets a lot of dumb yearling bucks grow up. Greatly decreases kill rate thereby increasing tags. Good hunters hunt often and do well. Casual hunters rarely score. DWR does well as much more income per buck taken. Very little downside except the perception of more pressure on older bucks but that already exists.


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

Hunter Tom said:


> Buck hunting cure is easy-antler restrictions-works in other states. Lets a lot of dumb yearling bucks grow up. Greatly decreases kill rate thereby increasing tags. Good hunters hunt often and do well. Casual hunters rarely score. DWR does well as much more income per buck taken. Very little downside except the perception of more pressure on older bucks but that already exists.


Something is about to happen. General bull going to a draw followed by a spike bull draw. Going to put a lot of pressure on jack rabbits.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Hunter Tom said:


> Buck hunting cure is easy-antler restrictions-works in other states. Lets a lot of dumb yearling bucks grow up. Greatly decreases kill rate thereby increasing tags. Good hunters hunt often and do well. Casual hunters rarely score. DWR does well as much more income per buck taken. Very little downside except the perception of more pressure on older bucks but that already exists.


We've done it here, it was a disaster.

I'll NEVER understand the mentality that to grow more mature bucks, you force ALL the pressure on to mature bucks... yikes.

-DallanC


----------



## Isuckathunting (Sep 15, 2019)

Whenever I hear about deer number issues the number one big thing I look at is us. Houses, I-15, increased population, more outdoor recreation and less space for animals. Sure there's other factors like increased bear and lion numbers but a lot of that comes back to habitat too. Poor body condition and less space is a predators dream. Look at the Cache those deer used to winter way out west in box elder county. No way they get there now, they're stuck in neighborhoods above North Logan and Smithfield.
As for the bounty idea I would rather use the money on something else. The thing with coyotes is they just increase the more you get after them. When pressured they have bigger litters and spread out more. It's their defense mechanism. I think killing them is great but I mean in the long run that program hasn't had much impact at all on statewide numbers. 
I'm all for doing away with the 1099 but I wouldn't want to raise the bounty. I do think they could probably find some other ways to use that money though. They've never met the objective of coyotes killed right? I think there's extra money in that program that would be awesome to use for more habitat projects. P/J removal, reseed, fencing, things like that.
Antler restrictions don't work. It's well published that there's like a year or two bump in overall population then it goes back down. Besides that's going to restrict tag numbers even more then guys will gripe more.

Looking at at realistically, I don't think there is really one problem or one solution. It's a number of things like habitat, disease, people and predators. We better enjoy what we have while we have it because there's no guarantee it'll be here forever.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Isuckathunting said:


> Whenever I hear about deer number issues the number one big thing I look at is us. Houses, I-15, increased population, more outdoor recreation and less space for animals. Sure there's other factors like increased bear and lion numbers but a lot of that comes back to habitat too. Poor body condition and less space is a predators dream. Look at the Cache those deer used to winter way out west in box elder county. No way they get there now, they're stuck in neighborhoods above North Logan and Smithfield.
> As for the bounty idea I would rather use the money on something else. The thing with coyotes is they just increase the more you get after them. When pressured they have bigger litters and spread out more. It's their defense mechanism. I think killing them is great but I mean in the long run that program hasn't had much impact at all on statewide numbers.
> I'm all for doing away with the 1099 but I wouldn't want to raise the bounty. I do think they could probably find some other ways to use that money though. They've never met the objective of coyotes killed right? I think there's extra money in that program that would be awesome to use for more habitat projects. P/J removal, reseed, fencing, things like that.
> Antler restrictions don't work. It's well published that there's like a year or two bump in overall population then it goes back down. Besides that's going to restrict tag numbers even more then guys will gripe more.
> ...


That's perhaps what is wrong with the north areas. What about the south central part of the state? Granted there are more homes but they are spread out and the deer population is still in decline. 

As for coyotes, what's wrong with just going out and shooting them and not worrying about the bounty? As for the 1099 forum the state has to comply with federal tax guidelines. So just go shoot a coyote and don't worry about the bounty.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

First off let's not forget the DWR stands for Div. of WILDLIFE Resources. It doesn't stand for Div. of Deer and Elk Hunting Resources. The needs and the wants of hunters is only part of their job. And, in fact, the undue pressure brought by hunters to make the DWR manage for the betterment of the hunting community actual may lead to the DWR making non-biological decisions in their managing. What is even worse is the pressure brought by selfish groups of specialized hunters willing to ignore good management practises just to enhance their little niche in the hunting world. I guess I don't need to drop names cause I think most of us already belong to one of those groups and would only respond with anger... gee, one guy even managed to bring Biden into this discussion.

It really makes me laugh when I hear guys espousing management ideas that I guess they think are novel and the trained biologist in the DWR have never thought about...you know, great new ideas like, "antler restrictions", "less tags", "more tags", more of this, and more of that.

Now, that said, I do believe many good ideas come from the public, so keep after the DWR to look into any "NEW" ideas, but don't expect them to just bow down to any old theory you may have based upon your 10 or 20 days out there in the field.

So hunters, step up and take some of the blame for the mess that hunting is in AND the resulting decline of animal numbers do to mismanagement because of your self-interest pressure.


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

DallanC said:


> We've done it here, it was a disaster.
> 
> I'll NEVER understand the mentality that to grow more mature bucks, you force ALL the pressure on to mature bucks... yikes.
> 
> -DallanC


We have antler restrictions every year with spike only hunts. Antler restrictions are not a disaster where practiced. Check Pennsylvania deer and Colorado with 4 point or better elk. Didn't Wyoming or some other mule deer state successfully employ AR? Mature bucks are not needed as 2 year olds and yearlings can handle the breeding. I would rather hunt bigger bucks every year than wait 4 or 5 years to hunt any buck. At some point as tags get tougher hunters will decide that hunting is more important than waiting.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Critter said:


> As for the sheep and cattle, they were on the mountains back in the 50's and 60's also and in greater numbers so you really can't point the finger at them.


You can point fingers at them all you want. In the 50s and 60s, what was the population of people in utah? How much winter range was available? How much summer range was available? Far more than there is today. The state and feds over graze our public lands by a disgusting amount. Grazing is an issue. Just like predators is an issue. Just like winter range is an issue. And so is grown ass men shooting 2 points every year to make some chitty deer jerky that they won’t ever eat


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

MooseMeat said:


> You can point fingers at them all you want. In the 50s and 60s, what was the population of people in utah? How much winter range was available? How much summer range was available? Far more than there is today. The state and feds over graze our public lands by a disgusting amount. Grazing is an issue. Just like predators is an issue. Just like winter range is an issue. And so is grown ass men shooting 2 points every year to make some chitty deer jerky that they won’t ever eat


While we're pointing fingers at management of livestock overgraze, I'll throw in the wild horses that repopulate at a rate faster than probably the deer and elk on the west desert. Nothing will be done about that! If any action to reduce numbers were taken it would be blown up on the news nation wide!! If folks in the south and Midwest want them, I'll volunteer to load them up and drive them out and kick them out of the trailer.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Hunter Tom said:


> Mature bucks are not needed as 2 year olds and yearlings can handle the breeding.


Huh?!?!? 🤯


----------



## OriginalOscar (Sep 5, 2016)

Hunting elk east end Uinta's deer stay lower in the aspens, P&G, or transitional areas. Up top very few deer which I think is based on their browsing diet.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

CPAjeff said:


> Huh?!?!? 🤯


He’s been listening to too many meat eater podcasts


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

I dont think any of you guys are getting it!

Deer need to be looked at like a biomass. You can only support so much biomass in any given environment. 

Lets compare utah lakes biomass as an example. Carp compromise probably 90% of all fish in the lake. If you killed all the carp the lake could hold way more other desirable game fish. Now compare it to deer. Deer are competing with cattle, sheep, elk ect. What species "cattle, sheep or elk" do you want to eliminate to grow more deer?

If the lake level or surface area of the lake goes down so does the biomass it can support! Our forage in our mountains are in server drought. Some say this famine/drought is as bad or worse then the great depressions drought! This means the environment can't sustain the same biomass of elk, deer, sheep and cows! Sure killing the natural predators might allow a few more deer to survive to be killed by you and I for the hunt but the current drought environment will only sustain a certain number of deer through the winter. If you killed all the predators and cut all the tags the deer would die in the winter just like the fish die in a low water reservoir! Nature always finds a balance!

In a high water year its easy for DWR to issue tags because the herds are growing. In multi decade droughts its almost impossible to manage them!

One more thing. Do you think it helps the deer and elk to have to deal with the vehicle traffic on dirt roads kicking up dirt and making it rain like snow getting on every plant withing 3 miles of a dirt road? No I don't think it helps one bit! I think it dirties the water/environment so to speak. 

You want to see more wild game close the roads! Eliminate competition from cattle and sheep! Protect their migration routs from vehicle collisions and pray for rain!
It has nothing really to do with natural predators or antler restrictions!


Now as far as the Uintas. All my 50 years of life that area has been devoid of deer compared to other areas. I honestly think its a forage issue. Seems better suited to grow elk. It only gets worse in drought years

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> I dont think any of you guys are getting it!
> 
> Deer need to be looked at like a biomass. You can only support so much biomass in any given environment.
> 
> ...


We can't grow more deer in the south because of predation. The doe herd is struggling and we don't even hunt does. Coyotes and bears are tough on fawns but lions feast all year. DWR woke up and took a ton of lions off the Boulder and we are seeing more deer. Don't know how it could happen that fast! I am promoting a proven logical way to increase buck hunting opportunity. How can you defend hunting when you can't go out.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Hunter Tom said:


> How can you defend hunting when you can't go out.


So if you don’t have a deer tag in your pocket every year, phuk em huh? 🙄 some of us care even if we don’t get to kill one every year. Apparently you only care when you can kill. Sounds pretty selfish


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

MooseMeat said:


> So if you don’t have a deer tag in your pocket every year, phuk em huh? 🙄 some of us care even if we don’t get to kill one every year. Apparently you only care when you can kill. Sounds pretty selfish


Never said kill said hunt. Sound pretty stupid.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Hunter Tom said:


> We can't grow more deer in the south because of predation. The doe herd is struggling and we don't even hunt does. Coyotes and bears are tough on fawns but lions feast all year. DWR woke up and took a ton of lions off the Boulder and we are seeing more deer. Don't know how it could happen that fast! I am promoting a proven logical way to increase buck hunting opportunity. How can you defend hunting when you can't go out.


Deer are not struggling because of predation! Every study where a gps tracker are placed on the fawn before birth is showing the faws are not surviving a few days after birth "they don't know why" they do know the fawns are not being killed by predation! 
Predators follow the same natural cycle as deer. Deer numbers go up predator numbers go up. Deer numbers go down Predator numbers go down! Lion and coyotes don't eat bushes and trees!

DWR issues lion tags not because they think the lion numbers are high or killing too many deer they issue the tags because of pressure from back woods idiots from southern Utah moaning that lions are the problem. 

You could kill every predator on the mountain and the deer would continue to decline if the drought keeps going like it is!! 
The habitate can't support the deer just like an empty lake cant support fish! Blaming coyotes, bears and lions for declining deer numbers is like blaming eagles, ravins and skunks for eating dead fish in a dried up lake bed! 

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk


----------



## clean pass through (Nov 26, 2007)

Hunter Tom said:


> We have antler restrictions every year with spike only hunts. Antler restrictions are not a disaster where practiced. Check Pennsylvania deer and Colorado with 4 point or better elk. Didn't Wyoming or some other mule deer state successfully employ AR? Mature bucks are not needed as 2 year olds and yearlings can handle the breeding. I would rather hunt bigger bucks every year than wait 4 or 5 years to hunt any buck. At some point as tags get tougher hunters will decide that hunting is more important than waiting.


As a Boulder hunter as well for over 30 years. 

The deer herd is in trouble. I hunted down there for elk for 11 days this year and saw a couple dozen bucks in over 100 miles of hiking! The problem however, in my opinion, is fawn retention. There is enough bucks to breed the does that are on the land scape, but the fawns are not surviving. I saw very few does with a fawn and only two with two fawns. You are spot on about the bears and coyotes, but I would add bobcats as well contributing to killing the fawns. Cougars just feast all year long. 

A lot of bucks, does not mean a healthy herd! After talking to many biologists, X bucks/100 does is political verbiage and makes the public feel better. Buck to Doe ratio is a way for the public to see progress or declines, hence that is what is used. 

If a unit (Like Boulder) has 200 total deer on it and 40 bucks within those 200 deer (20/100) does it mean it is a good healthy deer herd. NO, IT DOESN'T!

Take care of the does dropping fawns and keeping those fawns alive. Buck numbers for hunters to harvest will increase! If you listened to the Wildlife board meeting earlier this year stated, DWR has found the deer coming off the summer range are not in good enough shape to sustain themselves appropriately through the winter. 

The Boulder Unit is in the worst shape I have ever seen! In fact because I want my kids to be able to draw a tag every year, I will be applying for another unit for them. My daughter did draw a muzzy tag and I hope she can still shoot a buck, however she will not draw a youth tag next year. 

Does and Fawns are the answer to the management question not Buck's. Other than killing more predators to "stop the bleeding" I don't know the answer to the rest of it.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Hunter Tom said:


> Never said kill said hunt. Sound pretty stupid.


Not as stupid as saying you don’t care if you can’t “hunt” 🙄


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

swbuckmaster, didn’t a recent Book Cliffs study just show that something like 80% of fawns are being killed by a predator? I will readily admit I’m pulling all that from the memory bank and could be misremembering, but something in my mind says we have a study out there in the last couple years that showed a pretty dire fawn situation due to predation.

And Tom, antler point restrictions do jack squat for long term herd health improvement. That’s been established pretty conclusively. You might see a short term increase in buck numbers, but the available information is it does nothing to improve overall health, especially over time.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> swbuckmaster, didn’t a recent Book Cliffs study just show that something like 80% of fawns are being killed by a predator? I will readily admit I’m pulling all that from the memory bank and could be misremembering, but something in my mind says we have a study out there in the last couple years that showed a pretty dire fawn situation due to predation.
> 
> And Tom, antler point restrictions do jack squat for long term herd health improvement. That’s been established pretty conclusively. You might see a short term increase in buck numbers, but the available information is it does nothing to improve overall health, especially over time.


I've never seen a study showing 80% of fawns are being killed by predation! 

If that were the case that would be a silver bullet to this problem and the DWR would fix the situation and end the downward trend of declining deer numbers! The DWR knows there is a problem with fawn recruitment but they also know ot isn't caused by predation. The predation is happening after the fawn dies. 



Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Super interesting video about the declining deer herds in the Book Cliffs!!


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

CPAjeff said:


> Super interesting video about the declining deer herds in the Book Cliffs!!


You beat me to it.  

Actually, the study this year is showing a high neonate mortality, but the majority of deaths are *NOT* from predation. Poor nutrition/range conditions and excessive heat seem to be implicated.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Catherder said:


> You beat me to it.
> 
> Actually, the study this year is showing a high neonate mortality, but the majority of deaths are *NOT* from predation. Poor nutrition/range conditions and excessive heat seem to be implicated.


Such a cool study and very interesting results. I’m always fascinated about the studies being done with the advancements in technology!


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

CPAjeff said:


> Super interesting video about the declining deer herds in the Book Cliffs!!


Thanks for that video! It echoes what I've been saying.

I've been in the bookcliffs every year with friends, family or having tags for myself for the last 10 years. The DWR thinks there is a 50% decline in deer and antelope numbers from as little as 2 years ago. My own data says its way worse then that. It wager 2/3s or more have died. 

One thing that is clearly evident to me is the amount of springs or water sources that have either dried out completely or dwindled to a trickle in alot of areas in the bookcliffs. Those areas despite the monsoon rains that filled the guzzlers a few weeks ago are the areas that have the lowest deer numbers! In those areas the forage has also been severly affected! Get further south towards the roadless and it hasn't been hit as hard but its still in bad bad shape! 

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk


----------



## APD (Nov 16, 2008)

Catherder said:


> You beat me to it.
> 
> Actually, the study this year is showing a high neonate mortality, but the majority of deaths are *NOT* from predation. Poor nutrition/range conditions and excessive heat seem to be implicated.


i watched that last month as well. when they stated the results i kept thinking it made sense that deer were dying because they aren't in great shape to begin with and then they are being stressed by some college students capturing and collaring them. couple that with heat, dry conditions and poor feed...sure seems like a recipe for low survival rates. 

the elk on the other hand seem to be holding up well. they seem to out compete deer and manage to survive cattle taking down their winter range every spring.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

swbuckmaster said:


> The predation is happening after the fawn dies.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk


That is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

MooseMeat said:


> That is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard


That's because your either looking to critize the words I used "predation instead of scavenged or your simply an idiot. 

Watch that video posted above it clearly shows the fawns are dying and not being preyed on/eaten/scavenged until after death. 

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

swbuckmaster said:


> That's because your either looking to critize the words I used "predation instead of scavenged or your simply an idiot.
> 
> Watch that video posted above it clearly shows the fawns are dying and not being preyed on/eaten/scavenged until after death.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk


Well the words you use have different meanings. Predation and scavenged are 2 different things. If you don’t know that, guess who’s the idiot.

I have no doubt that happens. But lions, coyotes and bears can and do absolutely hammer fawns and calves in a predation scenario as much or more than a scavenge scenario.

but I’m not shocked you don’t know/believe that


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

KSL Outdoors a few episodes back, were out with the Biologists following them around as the studies were being performed. Very interesting to see the technology they had come up with to find fawns just born in real time. They (Bio's) are dumbfounded at to why the fawns and calf elk are dying at birth. They suspect it is from the heat.


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> swbuckmaster, didn’t a recent Book Cliffs study just show that something like 80% of fawns are being killed by a predator? I will readily admit I’m pulling all that from the memory bank and could be misremembering, but something in my mind says we have a study out there in the last couple years that showed a pretty dire fawn situation due to predation.
> 
> And Tom, antler point restrictions do jack squat for long term herd health improvement. That’s been established pretty conclusively. You might see a short term increase in buck numbers, but the available information is it does nothing to improve overall health, especially over time.


Antler restrictions do not improve long term herd health. In fact it slightly increases the deer herd allowing more bucks to survive. AR reduces the buck kill rate allowing more tags to be issued. The deer herd was on a severe long term decline before this severe drought started. I live in the Boulder unit and spend a lot of time out there and with cameras. I observed a 15 year increase in coyotes, bears and lions concurrent with the deer decline. Since the lion removal, I observe more deer and more fawns even under this extreme drought. This recovery seems too fast but I heard 40 to 50 lions were removed from the Boulder. At a deer per week not taken that's a lot of deer surviving.


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

CPAjeff said:


> Super interesting video about the declining deer herds in the Book Cliffs!!





CPAjeff said:


> Super interesting video about the declining deer herds in the Book Cliffs!!


This study is admittedly inconclusive and is probably skewed by high heat and extreme drought. I wonder if all the disruptive human activity and the implant itself can interfere with vital post birth functions? Fawn survival is only part and maybe a small part of deer herd decline particularly with respect to year round lion predation that continues after fawning season.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Hunter Tom said:


> Fawn survival is only part and maybe a small part of deer herd decline…


Huh?!?!?


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Hunter Tom said:


> This study is admittedly inconclusive and is probably skewed by high heat and extreme drought. I wonder if all the disruptive human activity and the implant itself can interfere with vital post birth functions? Fawn survival is only part and maybe a small part of deer herd decline particularly with respect to year round lion predation that continues after fawning season.


High heat and extreme drought may be outliners in the equation of why the mule deer herds are struggling, but I don't think they should be thrown out. Colorado did an interesting study on the human disruption that is occurring from the continuous hikers/bikers in elk calving areas, which shows that human activity does play a huge role in post birth functions and survival.

Fawn/calf survival is a HUGE, repeat HUGE, part of the herd decline. Hard to keep a population sustainable and/or growing without new additions every year.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Yeah, there was a study not too long ago that showed human traffic disturbed ungulates more than motorized travel. They believe it had more to do with the length of disturbance as motorized traffic tends to move through an area faster. That being said, it really upset traditional wisdom (assumptions), including my own.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Then there is the fact that most hikers anymore have a couple of dogs along with them that are unleashed to bother the animals.


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

CPAjeff said:


> High heat and extreme drought may be outliners in the equation of why the mule deer herds are struggling, but I don't think they would be should out. Colorado did an interesting study on the human disruption that is occurring from the continuous hikers/bikers in elk calving areas, which shows that human activity does play a huge role in post birth functions and survival.
> 
> Fawn/calf survival is a HUGE, repeat HUGE, part of the herd decline. Hard to keep a population sustainable and/or growing without new additions every year.


Hikers and bikers are not as intrusive as 4 students chasing off mom and leaving a huge amount of human scent on and around the baby. Human scent is a powerful flight signal for deer and elk that may hinder the mothers treatment of the baby. Can she act normally around all that human scent? We were taught not to handle or disturb new born fawns for a reason. The study does not need to examine the live babies to ascertain survival. They should not disturb some of the births to see if survival is altered by their intervention which I suspect it is.


----------



## Ray (May 10, 2018)

Sometimes, the act of trying to observe and study impacts and changes what you’re trying to observe


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Some more reading material:









Hiking trails are a path to destruction for Colorado elk


Recreationalists in Vail are having a devastating impact on the local herd.




www.hcn.org





Quoting from the article, "To measure the impact on calves, he deliberately sent eight people hiking into calving areas until radio-collared elk showed signs of disturbance, such as standing up or walking away. The consequences were startling. About 30% of the elk calves died when their mothers were disturbed an average of seven times during calving. Models showed that if each cow elk was bothered 10 times during calving, all their calves would die."

Surely with being disturbed and human scent all around the fawn/calf would deter a mother, but we keep hitting the "kill all the predators" button as the save-all for our herds. It hasn't seemed to be working.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Ray said:


> Sometimes, the act of trying to observe and study impacts and changes what you’re trying to observe



Perhaps, but the researchers are able to also track the fawns/calves after the collar placement and see if the mother went right back to the baby and subsequently traveled with it. If post intervention mother rejection were a big problem, the researchers would be able to tell. I'm not saying there is zero effect but considering the importance of identifying why fawn mortality is so high, I don't see viable alternatives to getting the information needed. I suspect a lot of criticism to the study is because it disagrees with many folks preferred narrative for "saving the deer herd". 

2 more parting shots.

1. In my little corner of the Boulder, the deer herd is doing great next to alfalfa fields (no nutrition problems there) but is dismal "up on the mountain" and everywhere else. IMO, the Boulder at large still has a long ways to go to even get to baseline. (and yes, I've hunted there 40 years, so I have some experience there)

2. It never ceases to amaze me how gullible many of us are in believing that one magic solution will "save the deer herd". Option 2 was supposed to save the herd. Killing all the yotes with the bounty program was supposed to save the herd. Giving away all our tags for expo and conservation drawings or purchase was supposed to do it. Kill all the predators will do it. And then we are surprised when it doesn't work.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Catherder said:


> Kill all the predators will do it. And then we are surprised when it doesn't work.


Have we ever really put a dent in the predator population recently? I feel like this is a gross misstatement of the facts and what is really in play here. They are starting to increase the killing of lions and bears, but only starting that process. 

I found the statement I was referring to above. January 2020 wildlife board meeting the representation was that 71% of deer fawns were killed by a bear or a lion on the Book Cliffs. I am still trying to find the supporting data. Standby...


----------



## Ray (May 10, 2018)

I’m sure the researchers are doing what they can but there’s no way it has zero impact. Look up the term “observer effect” it’s a well documented phenomenon in science that occurs even on a subatomic level, where the act of observing influences what is being observed.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> Have we ever really put a dent in the predator population recently? I feel like this is a gross misstatement of the facts and what is really in play here. They are starting to increase the killing of lions and bears, but only starting that process.
> 
> I found the statement I was referring to above. January 2020 wildlife board meeting the representation was that 71% of deer fawns were killed by a bear or a lion on the Book Cliffs. I am still trying to find the supporting data. Standby...



Did you watch the Adam Eakle episode we posted? Covy Jones himself gave the statistics for this years study results that showed that predator mortality was nowhere close to what you said. Now maybe a previous year was but this years results were definitely not. 

Tags for cats went up. If HunterTom is correct, a large number of cats were removed from the Boulder. (Waiting for confirmation on that too) We have had the bounty program on yotes for what, 7 years? I'm not saying there is no place for predator control, but it, like so many things, is just a small part of the puzzle. The video talked about that too. The belief that if we kill all the yotes, or cats, or whatever, it will fix all our problems is what I'm arguing is naive.


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

Ray said:


> I’m sure the researchers are doing what they can but there’s no way it has zero impact. Look up the term “observer effect” it’s a well documented phenomenon in science that occurs even on a subatomic level, where the act of observing influences what is being observed.


The Hiezenberg principal


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Catherder said:


> Did you watch the Adam Eakle episode we posted? Covy Jones himself gave the statistics for this years study results that showed that predator mortality was nowhere close to what you said. Now maybe a previous year was but this years results were definitely not.
> 
> Tags for cats went up. If HunterTom is correct, a large number of cats were removed from the Boulder. (Waiting for confirmation on that too) We have had the bounty program on yotes for what, 7 years? I'm not saying there is no place for predator control, but it, like so many things, is just a small part of the puzzle. The video talked about that too. The belief that if we kill all the yotes, or cats, or whatever, it will fix all our problems is what I'm arguing is naive.


I did watch it. I had to laugh at the "14 deaths with 8 unknown," and then think about the the comments above about stressing the animals and having it be human caused deaths. 

My comment to you was simply that we have never killed all the predators. So it's not naïve, but simply factually inaccurate to make the assertion that you did above that I quoted. A very strawman type statement, actually. We have not killed all the predators, so we don't know if that will work. This isn't really an opinion, that is a pretty objective fact that we still have a crap ton of bears and lions running around. What the exact number is can be debated, but nobody can say those populations are super low with a straight face. 

I don't think many people argue that all predators need to be killed. I think lots of people, including me, argue that predator control is a piece of the puzzle, and one we can control more easily than many of the other pieces in play. I don't know why this year's study in the video linked is showing no predation when the one Covey and the division also talks about in January 2020 at the wildlife board meeting says 71% of the fawns died not just from a predator, but specifically from a lion or bear kill. Sounds like we ought to be questioning the researchers if they are finding such vastly different results on the same unit in a 2 year period. The recent video mentioned the team was from BYU, right? Highly suspect, for sure....


----------



## Ray (May 10, 2018)

Precisely


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

Catherder said:


> Perhaps, but the researchers are able to also track the fawns/calves after the collar placement and see if the mother went right back to the baby and subsequently traveled with it. If post intervention mother rejection were a big problem, the researchers would be able to tell. I'm not saying there is zero effect but considering the importance of identifying why fawn mortality is so high, I don't see viable alternatives to getting the information needed. I suspect a lot of criticism to the study is because it disagrees with many folks preferred narrative for "saving the deer herd".
> 
> 2 more parting shots.
> 
> ...


My Bicknell neighbors trap and shoot many yotes around the fields and the state flys this area to kill yotes. One guy got 79 in one year. Another got nearly that many. Coyotes are rough on fawns but not hard on older deer. Different story with lion who kill deer all year- some sources say ONE PER WEEK. Lions aren't a big factor around the fields they work higher up. The Boulder lion reduction appears to be working. Easy math- 50 lions gone times 52 weeks per year equals 2600 deer saved on the Boulder per year plus the removed female lions are not producing deer eating kittens. It is not gullible to think that too many lions can kill off a deer herd. No different than holding open season for hunters to kill does. Dead either way.
Also, deer are browsers and do not heavily compete with cattle like elk do. I think deer carrying capacity may be way higher than the current herd size. Predators do not effect elk calves as much as deer fawns. Check out the earlier post of the elk cow attacking the dog trainer. She was not attacking the human -she was attacking the wolf impersonator-his dog. Elk calve loss is not as high as the cow elk are good protectors-they will fight deer wont-does will try to lure you away from their fawns. The deer decline issue is complex but excessive lion kill tends to over ride other factors.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Hunter Tom said:


> The Hiezenberg principal



It's Heisenberg. 

And FWIW, I have more books in my personal library about it than most folks could imagine to read on the subject. 

Vanilla, the lawyer in you gravitated to my "all" statement. Fair enough, I should have known not to use hyperbole when debating you.  However, that type of hyperbole is exactly what we hear in these debates. The point am making is that an all out war on predators like we hear advocated here is not going to save the herds. The coyote bounty program was instituted *before* the recent population decline. Did it save the herds and prevent the recent decline? Nope. Have we gotten our moneys worth? I have to wonder. I have no problem increasing cat and bear harvest. That has been done too. But what good will it do if the fawns/calves are starving? 

As for the differences in the study, yes, that is a viable question to ask. Maybe both are accurate. Maybe the 71% predation one was too high. Maybe this years study is more rigorous and is more accurate. As for your "14 dead, 8 unknown" notation, that is important too. It is pretty easy to see if something has been gnawing on a carcass. The "unknown" ones will be clearly non predation deaths. And hey, don't bash the (BYU) cougars. They do a few things right, like on last Saturday night.


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> I did watch it. I had to laugh at the "14 deaths with 8 unknown," and then think about the the comments above about stressing the animals and having it be human caused deaths.
> 
> My comment to you was simply that we have never killed all the predators. So it's not naïve, but simply factually inaccurate to make the assertion that you did above that I quoted. A very strawman type statement, actually. We have not killed all the predators, so we don't know if that will work. This isn't really an opinion, that is a pretty objective fact that we still have a crap ton of bears and lions running around. What the exact number is can be debated, but nobody can say those populations are super low with a straight face.
> 
> I don't think many people argue that all predators need to be killed. I think lots of people, including me, argue that predator control is a piece of the puzzle, and one we can control more easily than many of the other pieces in play. I don't know why this year's study in the video linked is showing no predation when the one Covey and the division also talks about in January 2020 at the wildlife board meeting says 71% of the fawns died not just from a predator, but specifically from a lion or bear kill. Sounds like we ought to be questioning the researchers if they are finding such vastly different results on the same unit in a 2 year period. The recent video mentioned the team was from BYU, right? Highly suspect, for sure....


Fawn loss is only part of the predator problem. A bigger problem is lions killing deer all year.


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

Catherder said:


> It's Heisenberg.
> 
> And FWIW, I have more books in my personal library about it than most folks could imagine to read on the subject.
> 
> ...


Thanks my bad spelling The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal


----------



## jewbacca (Jan 27, 2020)

I've been scouting elk all summer on the North Slope and have seen a ton of deer in the 9000'-10500' range. Usually 4-5 per trip with several 3-4 point bucks mixed in there.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Compensatory vs. additive predation...where are we? The idea that if we kill so many lions we are saving so many deer is simplistic at best. Often times, mortality rates stay the same even if predation goes way down. Many studies have shown this...


----------



## T-dubs-42 (Sep 8, 2015)

Back to the original topic. The Uinta's (North Slope) are my preferred deer unit. I spend as much time up there as possible because I love the scenery and the type of habitat. It is a very challenging deer hunt and I have a few ideas why this is. 
One thing to remember is that the preferred habitat of mule deer is sage brush and transitional areas. Apart from recent burns, the Uinta's are full of fairly old growth forests up to the alpine. The last time these forests were disturbed on a large scale was the logging done in the early 1900's, with some beetle kill being removed since then. There is a lot of plant diversity and healthy habitat in the alpine/wilderness areas, but these areas are truly only open to the deer from late July to early October during normal years. Couple that with competition from elk who are better suited to this type of habitat and you're going to have low densities. The sheep grazing up top is also horrendous for the deer and I have seen alpine habitats that have yet to recover from large herds that were on them all summer over five years ago. The other thing to remember is that just across the border into Wyoming there is some pretty fantastic mule deer habitat and a lot of private land. This creates a sort of sandwich, great habitat just across the border in Wyoming, mediocre to poor habitat in the mid elevations, good habitat in the alpine, but little time to access it. 

On the note of predators, I highly doubt predator densities are very high in the Uinta's, due to low prey densities. There are a fair number of coyotes, but they spend more time harassing sheep than the deer. In fact I watched a coyote two seasons ago make a beeline for a herd of sheep and jog right past a doe and a fawn that were bedded in a meadow. If there are predators having an effect on the north slope herds they are likely targeting them in winter in Wyoming.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

jewbacca said:


> I've been scouting elk all summer on the North Slope and have seen a ton of deer in the 9000'-10500' range. Usually 4-5 per trip with several 3-4 point bucks mixed in there.


So a ton of deer now is seeing 4 to 5 deer

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk


----------



## jewbacca (Jan 27, 2020)

swbuckmaster said:


> So a ton of deer now is seeing 4 to 5 deer
> 
> Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk


Seems ok for a few hours in the woods. You have guys here saying they're seeing 2 in a week. I hike into my trail camera and spook a handful everytime.

I dunno, maybe I'm scouting elk in the wrong place


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

This thread went south in a hurry. Last time I looked at a map, the Uintah's aren't that close to the Book Cliffs. I think I'll go fishing.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

T-dubs-42 said:


> Back to the original topic. The Uinta's (North Slope) are my preferred deer unit. I spend as much time up there as possible because I love the scenery and the type of habitat. It is a very challenging deer hunt and I have a few ideas why this is.
> One thing to remember is that the preferred habitat of mule deer is sage brush and transitional areas. Apart from recent burns, the Uinta's are full of fairly old growth forests up to the alpine. The last time these forests were disturbed on a large scale was the logging done in the early 1900's, with some beetle kill being removed since then. There is a lot of plant diversity and healthy habitat in the alpine/wilderness areas, but these areas are truly only open to the deer from late July to early October during normal years. Couple that with competition from elk who are better suited to this type of habitat and you're going to have low densities. The sheep grazing up top is also horrendous for the deer and I have seen alpine habitats that have yet to recover from large herds that were on them all summer over five years ago. The other thing to remember is that just across the border into Wyoming there is some pretty fantastic mule deer habitat and a lot of private land. This creates a sort of sandwich, great habitat just across the border in Wyoming, mediocre to poor habitat in the mid elevations, good habitat in the alpine, but little time to access it.
> 
> On the note of predators, I highly doubt predator densities are very high in the Uinta's, due to low prey densities. There are a fair number of coyotes, but they spend more time harassing sheep than the deer. In fact I watched a coyote two seasons ago make a beeline for a herd of sheep and jog right past a doe and a fawn that were bedded in a meadow. If there are predators having an effect on the north slope herds they are likely targeting them in winter in Wyoming.


I also believe cows and sheep are a bigger problem with deer carrying capacities then lions and bears are at reducing the deer numbers. Some of these sheep and cow grazing areas look more like a strip mining operation. 
If the forage is gone the deer starve! If deer starve the predators starve!

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

swbuckmaster said:


> I also believe cows and sheep are a bigger problem with deer carrying capacities then lions and bears are at reducing the deer numbers. Some of these sheep and cow grazing areas look more like a strip mining operation.
> If the forage is gone the deer starve! If deer starve the predators starve!
> 
> Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk


You know what else is a problem? Shooting little bucks. Year after year. Let’s talk about that, shall we?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

MooseMeat said:


> You know what else is a problem? Shooting little bucks. Year after year. Let’s talk about that, shall we?


Horn size doesn't do jack chiz in the grand scheme of things when it comes to growing a deer herd! If that were the case the henry mountains would have the largest growing deer population in the west and it doesn't 

Its all about carrying capacity of the land! 

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk


----------



## jewbacca (Jan 27, 2020)

MooseMeat said:


> You know what else is a problem? Shooting little bucks. Year after year. Let’s talk about that, shall we?


But they're so tender and juicy!


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Compensatory vs. additive predation...where are we? The idea that if we kill so many lions we are saving so many deer is simplistic at best. Often times, mortality rates stay the same even if predation goes way down. Many studies have shown this...


That is intuitively wrong. Take out half the lions and the deer numbers stay the same???? Show me the pertinent study.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Start here:


https://www.esf.edu/EFB/faculty/documents/Ballardetal2001predationmuledeerreview.pdf











TWS Journals


Manipulating predator populations is often posed as a solution to depressed ungulate populations. However, predator–prey dynamics are complex and the effect on prey populations is often an interactio...




wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com







https://texnat.tamu.edu/files/2010/09/009.pdf


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Start here:
> 
> 
> https://www.esf.edu/EFB/faculty/documents/Ballardetal2001predationmuledeerreview.pdf
> ...


Here is a summary from your first reference: When deer populations appeared limited by predation and such populations were well below forage carrying capacity, deer mortality was reduced significantly when predator populations were reduced.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

__





Understanding Predation | New Mexico State University - BE BOLD. Shape the Future.


Predation is a much misunderstood ecological process. Most people confuse the act of predation with the effect, believing that the killing of an individual animal invariably results in a negative impact on the population. This view is frequently wrong, and ignores the complexity of predation at...




aces.nmsu.edu





"Predation is a much misunderstood ecological process. Most people confuse the act of predation with the effect, believing that the killing of an individual animal invariably results in a negative impact on the population (Figure 1). This view is frequently wrong, and ignores the complexity of predation at the individual, population, and community levels. At the individual level, predisposition refers to characteristics (e.g., poor body condition, inadequate cover, disease, etc.) of individuals that make them more or less likely to die from predation or any other cause. Predisposition influences whether (or how likely it was that) an individual would have lived if not killed by a predator. The greater the degree of predisposition, the less likely the death of a predated individual would have any effect on the population. Predisposition is necessary for predation to be compensatory, or substitutive, at the level of the population. Compensatory mortality means that instead of adding additional mortality to the population (i.e., additive mortality), increases in predation result in compensatory declines in other causes of mortality. Hence, the overall survival rate of the population is not decreased, so predation has little effect on the population."


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Hunter Tom said:


> Here is a summary from your first reference: When deer populations appeared limited by predation and such populations were well below forage carrying capacity, deer mortality was reduced significantly when predator populations were reduced.


yes, true...but that is NOT always the case. Sometimes it is and sometimes it is not. In the above scenario, you are talking about additive predation not compensatory. Hence, my first question in the post above.
The sentence above the one you quoted: "A deer population's relationship to habitat carrying capacity was crucial to the impacts of predation. Deer populations at or near carrying capacity did not respond to predator removal experiments."


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

Hunter Tom said:


> Here is a summary from your first reference: When deer populations appeared limited by predation and such populations were well below forage carrying capacity, deer mortality was reduced significantly when predator populations were reduced.


Here is a summary from your second source: When deemed necessary, predator control can help a dwindling deer population recover.
Neither source comes close to supporting your statement. 

For analogy: If the deer herd does not decline after taking out half the lions then hunters should be able to kill all the deer they want as the herd will not decline. Completely nonsensical.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

When deer populations were below carrying capacity....that's the key. When below, they can. When not below, they won't. Again, is the predation additive or compensatory. Newsflash: it is NOT always additive.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Same document:
"Conversely, there were similarities where predator control was not effective or its effectiveness at improving mule deer populations could not be measured. These included: 1) when mule deer populations were at or near carrying capacity 2) when predation was not a key limiting factor 3) where control failed to reduce predator populations sufficiently to be effective and 4) where control efforts were on large-scale areas."


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Same document:
> "Conversely, there were similarities where predator control was not effective or its effectiveness at improving mule deer populations could not be measured. These included: 1) when mule deer populations were at or near carrying capacity 2) when predation was not a key limiting factor 3) where control failed to reduce predator populations sufficiently to be effective and 4) where control efforts were on large-scale areas."


Better read this again carefully. It does not support your position. You are trying to baffle me with BS.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Hunter Tom, they all say the same thing---killing lions only works to increase mule deer populations WHEN specific conditions exist. And, those conditions do NOT always exist. Sometimes, reducing predators will NOT increase prey--in this case mule deer. Want more?





Compensatory puma predation on adult female mule deer in New Mexico on JSTOR


Pumas (Puma concolor) are the primary predator of adult mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) throughout most of arid New Mexico, and predation by pumas is popularly ...




www.jstor.org








__





Mule Deer in New Mexico | New Mexico State University - BE BOLD. Shape the Future.


Mule deer are one of the most important game animals in New Mexico and the West. The size of the mule deer population in New Mexico is unknown, and densities of mule deer can vary greatly among areas and over time.




aces.nmsu.edu


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Hunter Tom said:


> You are trying to baffle me with BS.


 It obviously doesn't take BS to baffle you...


----------



## KRH (Jul 27, 2015)

T-dubs-42 said:


> Back to the original topic. The Uinta's (North Slope) are my preferred deer unit. I spend as much time up there as possible because I love the scenery and the type of habitat. It is a very challenging deer hunt and I have a few ideas why this is.
> One thing to remember is that the preferred habitat of mule deer is sage brush and transitional areas. Apart from recent burns, the Uinta's are full of fairly old growth forests up to the alpine. The last time these forests were disturbed on a large scale was the logging done in the early 1900's, with some beetle kill being removed since then. There is a lot of plant diversity and healthy habitat in the alpine/wilderness areas, but these areas are truly only open to the deer from late July to early October during normal years. Couple that with competition from elk who are better suited to this type of habitat and you're going to have low densities. The sheep grazing up top is also horrendous for the deer and I have seen alpine habitats that have yet to recover from large herds that were on them all summer over five years ago. The other thing to remember is that just across the border into Wyoming there is some pretty fantastic mule deer habitat and a lot of private land. This creates a sort of sandwich, great habitat just across the border in Wyoming, mediocre to poor habitat in the mid elevations, good habitat in the alpine, but little time to access it.
> 
> On the note of predators, I highly doubt predator densities are very high in the Uinta's, due to low prey densities. There are a fair number of coyotes, but they spend more time harassing sheep than the deer. In fact I watched a coyote two seasons ago make a beeline for a herd of sheep and jog right past a doe and a fawn that were bedded in a meadow. If there are predators having an effect on the north slope herds they are likely targeting them in winter in Wyoming.


Thanks for answering the question!


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

> Compensatory vs. additive predation...where are we? The idea that if we kill so many lions we are saving so many deer is simplistic at best. Often times, mortality rates stay the same even if predation goes way down. Many studies have shown this...


Actually the above is supported by the Ballard et al study as evidenced by the quotation (similarities in studies which predator control failed) he cited. 

If I'm reading correctly what wyo is saying is that before we introduce predator control programs we need to know if the predation is the limiting factor (compensatory v additive). That is also what Ballard et al is saying. It makes logical sense and has been known in ecological circles for a while. 

If I were to summarize in my own words, a one size fits all approach is unlikely to be successful or accurate to the entire state population of deer. If we are going to focus on predator control as a population measure for deer than we should have quantifiable evidence that the principle reason deer populations are below carrying capacity is additive predation and then target them in "small areas", ie less than 250 miles squared. 

Wyo's comment and links just show there is immense complexity and context in deer management.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

The funny thing is it could explain the differences in unit population, ie some experience compensatory predation while others experience additive. The Books population could be below carrying capacity because of environmental conditions while other units are largely suffering because of predators. Knowing that level of granular detail is time consuming, expensive and often has temporal limitations (ie, by the time we know and can legally act the variables can change).

Wildlife management is a complex field, and that's without the human dynamic as such a big variable. I don't envy the managers.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

swbuckmaster said:


> Horn size doesn't do jack chiz in the grand scheme of things when it comes to growing a deer herd! If that were the case the henry mountains would have the largest growing deer population in the west and it doesn't
> 
> Its all about carrying capacity of the land!
> 
> Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk


Yeah 2 point lives still matter. Guess it doesn’t matter to some when not killing 2 points would negatively impact their hunts


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

My biggest gripe with hunters shooting the smaller bucks is that they are also usually the ones doing the most complaining about there not being any bigger bucks. For some reason they have no idea of where the bigger bucks come from.

And the worst tasting buck that I have ever tried to eat was a 2 pt, that meat was just plain old rotten.


----------



## BigT (Mar 11, 2011)

MooseMeat said:


> You know what else is a problem? Shooting little bucks. Year after year. Let’s talk about that, shall we?


Not everyone has the same expectations for hunting. I don't shoot young deer, but I wouldn't deter one of my sons from shooting at one of them. I think there's also an issue with hunters shooting more than one deer. Shoot one, not recovered, so they move onto the next. Most of us know someone that has done this and it adds up over the years. 

As far as predators. Two years ago while hunting with my sons on the La Sal unit, in an area we generally see a ton of does and fawns we saw very few. Saw one buck the entire week and it was before the opener of the hunt. Bumped into a biologist and asked about it. He said they estimated that they lost 70% of that springs fawns to bear predation. Not lion, coyote, bobcat, etc. That was just bear. I have a hard time not correlating reduced numbers to predation in that area where I see multiple bears when I visit. I see more bears there than I've ever seen in Yellowstone.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

jewbacca said:


> But they're so tender and juicy!


 Ya, and you don't have to hike for them.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

BigT said:


> As far as predators. Two years ago while hunting with my sons on the La Sal unit, in an area we generally see a ton of does and fawns we saw very few. Saw one buck the entire week and it was before the opener of the hunt. Bumped into a biologist and asked about it. He said they estimated that they lost 70% of that springs fawns to bear predation. Not lion, coyote, bobcat, etc. That was just bear. I have a hard time not correlating reduced numbers to predation in that area where I see multiple bears when I visit. I see more bears there than I've ever seen in Yellowstone.


This was a common narrative for division employees two years ago, including in the wildlife board meeting I cited above. It looks like they’re moving off of it, for whatever reason. Makes one wonder…


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

One of the worst things utah ever did was turn bear and lion hunts into “trophy” hunts


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

We need to allow deer hunters to notch their deer tag on a bear or lion during deer season.
But, obviously, you forfeit your deer.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

MrShane said:


> We need to allow deer hunters to notch their deer tag on a bear or lion during deer season.
> But, obviously, you forfeit your deer.


Does Idaho do this? I've never hunted there, but I think I remember hearing people talk about that before. 

I'm all for that, but I would be woefully inadequate at finding bears and lions. I've only seen bears twice out hunting other big game, and have never seen a lion. And I've spent a day or two in the hills in my 40 years. One of the times was a sow and two cubs about a mile away while on a LE elk hunt I was helping with. The other was one I could have killed with a rifle, but was helping on a general archery deer tag.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Just follow what Colorado is doing. In most of the units you can purchase a bear tag if you already have a deer or elk tag for that unit. It doesn't matter if you shoot your deer, elk, or bear first, you just keep hunting until your other tag is filled or the end of the season comes. Most bear tags overlap a number of units so you are not restricted to just one, but you have to make sure that your deer tag does the same overlap or you can just hunt bears in the additional units.


----------



## Yerba2014 (Sep 10, 2014)

KRH said:


> I just finished an archery elk hunt in the high uintas wilderness. I make this trip almost annually unless I draw an out of state tag and skip the Utah archery hunt so I have spent a considerable amount of time up there not to mention all of the other fishing/camping/horse packing trips over the years. In all the time I’ve spent up there, it’s pretty clear to me the deer density is quite low. I know this is not news to anyone but what’s the reason? Seems like a lot of feed and obviously plenty of water so what’s the issue?
> 
> Just curious, thanks in advance.


My friends with "property - big swaths up there" noted that while our 2020 Winter was mild - 2019 was a mess on newborns. Animal factors. I won't venture an opinion on 4 wheelers or side by sides and their effect on depridation; but, I'd pay a $50 bounty on a few of those if it meant that hunting would improve...


----------



## dog4141 (May 7, 2015)

KRH said:


> I just finished an archery elk hunt in the high uintas wilderness. I make this trip almost annually unless I draw an out of state tag and skip the Utah archery hunt so I have spent a considerable amount of time up there not to mention all of the other fishing/camping/horse packing trips over the years. In all the time I’ve spent up there, it’s pretty clear to me the deer density is quite low. I know this is not news to anyone but what’s the reason? Seems like a lot of feed and obviously plenty of water so what’s the issue?
> 
> Just curious, thanks in advance.


Cougars is one of the biggest issue state wide


----------



## APD (Nov 16, 2008)

dog4141 said:


> Cougars is one of the biggest issue state wide


Agreed. This past week I watched a defensive pack of cougars tear apart 5 Utes. Didn't even need a collar study to what happened there.


----------



## Bookcliffs07 (Aug 11, 2020)

Oversimplified sketch of how a point restriction works on muley hunts in the west. It shifts age of harvest to 2.5 year old bucks. It brings the yearlings up to 2.5, but it also wipes out anything older than 2.5 because it concentrates all the pressure on the older bucks. It actually might work well if you're trying to manage CWD and remove older age class bucks that are more likely to have and spread the disease. Instead of a point restriction method CPW is just moving dates closer to the rut to try to target older bucks.

A state could probably do a point restriction like has been done with spike bulls and have general season yearling buck hunts and limited draw for any buck. It's a way to balance opportunity and quality.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Bookcliffs07 said:


> View attachment 149272
> 
> 
> Oversimplified sketch of how a point restriction works on muley hunts in the west. It shifts age of harvest to 2.5 year old bucks. It brings the yearlings up to 2.5, but it also wipes out anything older than 2.5 because it concentrates all the pressure on the older bucks. It actually might work well if you're trying to manage CWD and remove older age class bucks that are more likely to have and spread the disease. Instead of a point restriction method CPW is just moving dates closer to the rut to try to target older bucks.
> ...


It does nothing for growing a deer herd! Our deer herds are crashing! I could give a rats a$$ to be the last guy to hunt the last 4 point buck. 



Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

swbuckmaster said:


> I could give a rats a$$ to be the last guy to hunt the last 4 point buck.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk


Oh we know


----------



## Tradguy (Jul 21, 2021)

This may be irrelevant or it may introduce a different angle to the subject. But as a parallel…..
We had wild cats that were over populating an area like crazy. The first attempt at controlling the problem was trying to kill them off. It didn’t help. It just drove them to reproduce more. 
Then we started trapping them, fixing them and turning them loose. Problem solved. 
Of course there were still cats but smaller numbers and healthier animals.
Also, just as another observation….. I know that the deer numbers are down and it’s serious. You can just look at the charts on the internet to see that. But, deer are very intelligent animals and are very capable of surviving. 
In my pre-hunt scouting experience this year I had very good results and was very hopeful. But as season approached the ATV traffic and human activity in general increased further into the backcountry. By opener, the animals (elk and deer) had either moved to safer territory or they shifted to nocturnal schedules and hid out in heavy cover through the day. I recently have been reading about the same observations back in 1900.


----------



## Bookcliffs07 (Aug 11, 2020)

swbuckmaster said:


> It does nothing for growing a deer herd! Our deer herds are crashing! I could give a rats a$$ to be the last guy to hunt the last 4 point buck.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk


Yep, arguing about how we harvest bucks doesn't do anything for recovering/growing deer herds. Bucks don't have babies.

Here is another rough drawing, this one shows how buck harvest almost never affects deer population growth. Unless you're outside the red lines, nothing you do with bucks really matters with regard to population growth/decline. We don't have any herds anywhere in UT close to biological thresholds, except maybe on the top end in the Henrys and Pauns.


----------



## runallday (Sep 17, 2018)

KRH said:


> I just finished an archery elk hunt in the high uintas wilderness. I make this trip almost annually unless I draw an out of state tag and skip the Utah archery hunt so I have spent a considerable amount of time up there not to mention all of the other fishing/camping/horse packing trips over the years. In all the time I’ve spent up there, it’s pretty clear to me the deer density is quite low. I know this is not news to anyone but what’s the reason? Seems like a lot of feed and obviously plenty of water so what’s the issue?
> 
> Just curious, thanks in advance.


I disagree a bit. I spend a few weeks up there every fall see a lot of deer and quite a few mature males. IMO quality is there.


----------



## runallday (Sep 17, 2018)

runallday said:


> I disagree a bit. I spend a few weeks up there every fall see a lot of deer and quite a few mature males. IMO quality is there.


Also saw wolves the last 2 years.


----------

