# You all have to believe it now...



## JuddCT

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=23643422&ni...ure-mule-deer-for-relocation&s_cid=featured-3

I hope the link works. But now that SFW says there are 400,000 estimated mule deer in Utah I hope all you agree. 

To be serious, I hope they get good results with the study. However, historical results are against them.


----------



## Catherder

From the article.

"Utah has an estimated 400,000 mule deer, according to Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife."

:shock: And you guys have trouble believing the annual DWR counts! :?:


----------



## DallanC

Its a December deer count... trouble is they also count all those Christmas light reindeer in peoples yards.


-DallanC


----------



## swbuckmaster

It was written by ksl. So does it surprise you they miss quoted or stroked the deer numbers up?

It seems they cant get any article about deer correct. Im just glad they finally got a photo of a muledeer when their doing a muledeer article.


----------



## Loke

> Utah officials said they eliminated coyotes on the new range to better the odds of survival for the mule deer.


Did they relocate them to Ensign Peak?


----------



## goofy elk

SW is right, KSL cant get a story right to save their butt!

Here KSL, I fixed it for ya,

"Utah wants an estimated 400,000 mule deer, according to Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife."

And now, start following the comment column on KSL if you really want to know
how displeased Utahan's have been with 'general' deer management plans.........


----------



## TEX-O-BOB

Hey, if the main stream media publishes it or it's on the Internet it HAS to be true!


----------



## jasonwayne191

goofy elk said:


> SW is right, KSL cant get a story right to save their butt!
> 
> Here KSL, I fixed it for ya,
> 
> "Utah wants an estimated 400,000 mule deer, according to Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife."
> 
> And now, start following the comment column on KSL if you really want to know
> how displeased Utahan's have been with 'general' deer management plans.........


Ha! same cry babies saying same old thing.


----------



## wyogoob

It's the metric count.


----------



## c3hammer

goofy elk said:


> "Utah wants an estimated 400,000 mule deer, according to Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife."


Too true and too funny 

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## JuddCT

goofy elk said:


> And now, start following the comment column on KSL if you really want to know
> how displeased Utahan's have been with 'general' deer management plans.........


Yeah, we should base "sound management" off of those 24 crazy people. They are almost as bad as us!


----------



## elkfromabove

Here's how it went down, at least so far!

First off, DWR is not paying the bulk of the money for this transplant, though they had quite a few people there to do the technical work because they were trained and qualified to do it and because it is a study, but SFW is paying for it ($1000 per captured deer, total 100 deer = $100,000). Twenty-five of the deer (all mature does) were captured and processed today from one site and twenty-five more tomorrow from two separate sites. (This will be done again in early March to see what the survival rate differences are, if any.) Processing includes tranquilizing, weight, tooth aging, CWD test, rectal test, blood sample, body measurements, body fat test, anti-biotics shot, ultra-sound for pregnancy, collar, ear tag, and health score. 16 of the deer have already been relocated to the Pahvant and the other 9 will be taken in the morning because the last capture was too late to get them up there before dark and they don't release them at night.

Edited: I actually had to leave just as #'s 23 & 24 were coming in, but I found out the next morning they actually decided to stay 'til dark and they collected 30 on Monday.

Another concern was the coyote kill at the release site. I heard the number 25, but I couldn't verify it. In any case, the transplanted deer are very vulnerable to predators because they are confused and will try to get back "home" and will run themselves ragged doing it. Reducing the coyotes will reduce the number of deer killed.

I was told that the actual capture and release are the same as in the past, but the CWD test is new and the after-release study is new. BYU students will do the study. Each deer only got one collar, but here were two different types of collars put on, one a GPS that tracks the doe's movements for two weeks before the collar drops off, and the other is simply a locateable collar that is permanent. The BYU students will pick up the GPS collars after two weeks for the data and will periodically locate the others via airplane monitoring. If any are not moving, they'll locate it and pick it up to see if and/or what killed the deer. To make the study accurate, they collared (but didn't tag) 50 resident deer as well so they can see if there is any difference in the mortality of the "new" deer and the resident deer.

The Pahvant was chosen because it could accept more deer, the habitat is like the Parowan Front, and it was far enough away to prevent the deer from easily returning.

FWIW, there were over 100 volunteers scheduled to come, but only half of them showed, cause it was Cccccold this morning. Tomorrow? I don't know, but there are several school classes scheduled to come to observe. 

And as for the "lazy/bad/dumb/overpaid DWR employees I keep hearing about, they apparently were missing today. It's true, there was quite a bit of standing around while the chopper was out, but when the deer came in, the place was a whirlwind! And most of the standing arounders were the volunteers because we were limited in the jobs we could do.

Also, I know that UWC, some of the public and SFW don't agree on some things, but there was none of that today either. And Rusty Aiken cooks a mean breakfast burrito.

More tomorrow!


----------



## TEX-O-BOB

At least the cougars on the Pahvant will eat good this winter!


----------



## goofy elk

TEX-O-BOB said:


> At least the cougars on the Pahvant will eat good this winter!


Pre 1997, YES , Now days , NO!,, And just simply NOT true.

I've got a ton of first hand experience with lions on the Pahavant, and before
harvest objective hunting , TEX's statement may have held water, NOT NOW.

I was there in 1997 , the day HO hunting opened on the Pahavant, CATS everywhere.
The quota was 40, it was filled in just under 3 weeks, mostly by us Guides/outfitters.
During the next couple years (98-99) The lions on that range were thinned out considerably, 2000-2005 Cat numbers were suppressed to the point the unit went
back to LE, split/HO. As it remains today. With quota numbers NOT being filled
for 3-4 consecutive years now. You gotta look pretty **** hard to find a track :!:

And the coyote removal going on is AMAZING!, Not just on the Pahvant, but 
state wide, The number in November was 1000+, I suspect it has tripled now.

The deer survival studies, again , AMAZING!. The Indianola study was going on
last month. The big story there was all 10 collared does from the previous 
year survived. I'm tire of hearing all this BS about lions killing all the deer, NOT TRUE!

And EFA, Nice report


----------



## TEX-O-BOB

Ya, you're right. Lions don't kill deer. They eat Big Macks and fries...

Did you ever stop to think that may be, like the big bulls on our LE units, the lions are getting better at going undetected? (the spider bull is a perfect example) When you get a bunch of goofy houndsmen out "practice treeing" cats with dogs they will soon learn how not to be treed. There are plenty of cats, They're just getting very good at staying alive.


----------



## SkullDesigns

I have to agree with Goofyelk, there are NOT that many cats out there, there are more bears that are eating the fawns and calfs in the spring, I have gotten in 8 cougar skulls this year, last year I had 15, the year before 25, and the year before 32, this year I got in 150 bears. They are getting tougher to find and are very good at staying alive, but that is because there are not as many as before.


----------



## Iron Bear

Sure two cougar is not many. But to a herd of 100 deer it is, and they will all be gone by next fall. 

So quit trying to say because there aren't as many cats as in the 90s they are a non factor. Don't you understand the cougar population is dictated by its prey base. Less prey = less cougar. More prey = more cougar. Get it. 

1500 cats is too many for a herd of 300,000 deer if you want to let 90,000 hunters go out and harvest 25,000 or more deer. If 25,000 are getting hit by cars per yr. We have rampant poaching, winterkills drought and habitat loss due to development. Throw in some wildfires and the temporary loss of habitat. And sorry IMO I'd take from you and the rest of the houndsman. It's not as if you couldn't hunt. You would just have to wait a lifetime or go out of state to harvest a trophy cat. Like the deer in Utah. I'd rather listen to a couple hundred houndsman piss and moan about to few cat then listen to 100,000 deer hunters whine. Especially since houndsman will complain even when the have the cake and eat it too. 

Another point. So the habitat is great on the pavahnt? So why aren't the deer already at capacity there? :roll: Remember this whole deer problem has nothing to do with mismanagement and mostly to do with habitat. And we certainly don't have a predator issue. :roll: 

After reading what you do to a deer after capture and before release. Knowing the DWR doesn't want transplanting to be successful. I wonder why they don't just smack them over the head with a 2x4 before they shove them out of a moving truck.


----------



## wyogoob

Is 400,000 a lot of deer for Utah? That's kinda where your wolf count is at isn't it?

Who counts the deer?

Seems odd they come up with such an even number. If I counted 400,000 I would just say there's 398,143 or something. That would sound a little more believable. 

With 400,000 mule deer in Utah I suppose this means you'all quit deer hunting in Wyoming.

OK, OK, I'll go away.


----------



## elkfromabove

Iron Bear said:


> Another point. So the habitat is great on the pavahnt? So why aren't the deer already at capacity there? :roll: Remember this whole deer problem has nothing to do with mismanagement and mostly to do with habitat. And we certainly don't have a predator issue. :roll:
> 
> After reading what you do to a deer after capture and before release. Knowing the DWR doesn't want transplanting to be successful. I wonder why they don't just smack them over the head with a 2x4 before they shove them out of a moving truck.


I'm certainly no biologist, but I did ask a LOT of questions and learned a lot in the process. Whether the answers were/are all correct, I couldn't say, but I do know that a great deal of information went into (and will come out of) this study.

For now, I don't want to get into the lion/houndsmen frey 'cause I can't answer that issue. That's for another thread. All I know about this transplant is that the winter range on the Parowan Front is in bad shape and 150 does harvested in last month's hunts and 100 does transported is about 1/2 the number of deer the DWR recommends for removal in order for the habitat to come back. Also the DWR would to love find a way to successfully transplant mule deer and is only against transplanting them because the success rate is too low and it is not cost effective. And it's not just Utah's DWR that feels that way. Remember $1,000 per captured deer x 100 deer = $100,000? Well, at a current 5% (or less) one year survival rate, that equals $20,000 per live deer. Can you imagine the reaction of the Utah legislature and/or public to the DWR budget if they discovered we spent $20,000 to successfully transplant a deer?

As far as the poking, proding, measuring and handling of the deer, it was well coordinated and went as quickly as possible. The deer were hobbled, blindfolded and sedated (at least yesterday) and the tent was warm and quiet, and the tables and equipment were sanitized. All of the tests were necessary for study data and the CWD test was mandatory. Only one of the does had some difficulty after the processing and that was because she was injured in the capture (deep cut that had something to do with a sharp rock), and she was sewn up by the head biologist (who was not DWR). I can't imagine it being all that pleasant to the deer, but it wasn't as stressfull as I had imagined. In fact, about the only serious movement on the gourney or the table came from the ear tag punch and we had to make sure that there were no needles or probes going on at the same time. The loading was a challenge, especially today when they weren't sedated (We needed to know if it made a difference in the study) and especially when the blindfold came off just as the doe was being lifted from the back end after being unhobbled. Most of the big guys handled the back end and I handled the blindfold if I was involved in the loading and I just loaded her head into the trailer and pulled it off and got out of the way!

Now, I don't know if the habitat on the Pahvant is "great", but it's apparently better than the Parowan Front. But, again, I'm no biologist so I can't address that issue. All in all, it went very well from this end, but we'll have to see how it turns out a year from now. Hopefully, we'll be able to improve the success rate, and make transporting more cost effective. But if not, y'all are gonna either have to get used to some doe hunts or come up with some more transplant and/or habitat money or convince your local state senator and representative to spend $20,000 to transplant a doe! Like a lot of things in life, we can't just keep kicking the can down the road 'cause the can is growing into 1 gallon jug, then a 5 gallon bucket, then a 10 gallon barrel, then a 55 gallon drum, then a 1,000 gallon tank. Pay some now or pay much more later, take your choice!

We'll do this again in March! We hope some of you Southerners are there!

Edited: The KSL video showed some bucks, (for increased interest, I suppose) but there will not be ANY bucks removed.


----------



## elkfromabove

An update:

So far, 3 collared does have died, 2 transplanted and 1 resident. Even though the death sites were investigated quite quickly, the scavengers got there first and it was hard to determine the cause of death. However, one of the transplanted does was a doe I had forgotten about that we had trouble with on the processing table at the capture site. She hyperventilated and heated up (106*) to the point that we had to scramble to get enough snow to try to cool her down. Apparently, it wasn't enough. In any case, the others seem to be doing well even through the recent cold spell, even the injured doe. However, it's still too early to tell how successful this will be. I'll try to update about every other week.

Lee Tracy, So. Region Chair
United Wildlife Cooperative


----------



## JuddCT

Thanks for the update


----------



## martymcfly73

++2


----------



## HunterGeek

elkfromabove said:


> ...y'all are gonna either have to get used to some doe hunts or come up with some more transplant and/or habitat money or convince your local state senator and representative to spend $20,000 to transplant a doe!


This is why, when I first heard about it, I thought this whole deer transplant study was an expensive SFW stunt of some kind.

Transplants are usually used to transport small numbers of animals to new locations to establish seed populations in areas where they don't already exist. It's completely uneconomical to think that there's any future in relocating significant deer populations from one area to another.

There are already studies indicating high mortality rates on transplanted deer. They're creatures of habit who learn survival patterns during their first year of life from following the other deer. Move them to a new location and they're basically lost - they don't know where to go when it snows, they don't know where the food is, they don't know where to find water, they don't know where not to go and they basically take off in most every direction with half of them dying.

So now we've got a study that might shed a little more light on this phenomenon and provide further data on why it's a bad idea, but in the end, everybody already knows it's not going to work. And at thousands of dollars per moved deer it's just not feasible even if it did work. So what exactly is the point?


----------



## goofy elk

IMO, This is the point:
Right now , with deer herds struggling as badly as they are, every doe hunt is
screwtinized to the point it's a huge hassle for the DWR.....

This will provide the 'justification' to hold antlerless deer hunts in certain ares, no matter
the results......

If unsuccessful, they can say 'told ya so' already knew it..Continue doe hunts in those areas.

And if the unlikely happens, and somehow proves successful, it will be twisted into
a money issue. So many thousands per deer its 'money wise' not logical.........
And, of course, there would be an even larger shadow of doubt cast on Utah's DWR's
(and other states) studies involving deer transplants.....

Either way, I'd say there will probably be antler-less deer hunts in 2015, per this study.


----------



## Stunnerphil

They say there is 400,000 mule deer in utah chances are 399,000 of those are does plus they probably count all the dead ones on the side of the road


----------



## wyoming2utah

goofy elk said:


> IMO, This is the point:
> Right now , with deer herds struggling as badly as they are, every doe hunt is
> screwtinized to the point it's a huge hassle for the DWR.....
> 
> This will provide the 'justification' to hold antlerless deer hunts in certain ares, no matter
> the results......
> 
> If unsuccessful, they can say 'told ya so' already knew it..Continue doe hunts in those areas.
> 
> And if the unlikely happens, and somehow proves successful, it will be twisted into
> a money issue. So many thousands per deer its 'money wise' not logical.........
> And, of course, there would be an even larger shadow of doubt cast on Utah's DWR's
> (and other states) studies involving deer transplants.....
> 
> Either way, I'd say there will probably be antler-less deer hunts in 2015, per this study.


Hmmm...so now the conspiracy has the DWR in bed with and ballooned to include both BYU and SFW--who are running and funding this study? Wait a second, I thought SFW wanted deer transplants and an end to doe hunts? Your conspiracy theories are confusing... :roll:

Or, this study will do exactly what Huntergeek already stated--prove what we already know and be a big waste.

Actually, though, I think it will just prove that we need predator control first... :roll:


----------



## goofy elk

No conspirasy, just my opion on how it will play out.

And WyoU,
the preditor issue is/was adressed,,,,Quote:
"Utah officials said they eliminated coyotes on the new range to better the odds of survival for the mule deer. "

They fly shot every liv'in dog dang near!.!,!.
And cat numbers there are very low.


----------



## elkfromabove

goofy elk said:


> No conspirasy, just my opion on how it will play out.
> 
> And WyoU,
> the preditor issue is/was adressed,,,,Quote:
> "Utah officials said they eliminated coyotes on the new range to better the odds of survival for the mule deer. "
> 
> They fly shot every liv'in dog dang near!.!,!.
> And cat numbers there are very low.


Actually, they shot 25, 11 one day and 14 the next (or visa versa). In any case, I doubt that's "every liv'in dog dang near". Plus, coyotes were at least part of the scavenger crowd (if not the killers) at the death sites which were decimated so quickly they couldn't tell how they died, so there's still some around! The cats? I have no clue 'cause they're protected and can't be shot from the air.

Edited: If you're saying no matter how this turns out, there will still be antlerless hunts, you're probably correct. There is no way that transplants can remove all the deer that need to be removed from these troubled areas per the costs, the terrain, land ownership, vegetation, government red tape, timing, manpower, unknown natural phenomenon, etc.
In two days, we moved 51 does at about $1,000 per deer not counting the donated labor, the donated food and materials, the ongoing monitoring, and the after-project paperwork. Even if all the does lived, that's spending $1,000 to remove each deer when, on the other hand, we could remove those same deer by hunting and make $35+ each. Yes, I know they would increase the herds at the release sites, but that $1,000 per deer would go a long way to improve the habitat at either site which would allow a more viable increase in the herds. No matter which way we end up going, there's gonna be trade-off's and some people are going to complain. Such is life in the fast lane! -O,-


----------



## elkfromabove

Update on the transplant! From David Smedley, BYU grad student,

"Lab results from the chronic wasting disease (CWD) tests came back from Colorado State University. CWD was not detected in any of the translocated deer. Thanks Leslie!

Our Tuesday flight was canceled due to snow and we are waiting to reschedule.

We had one translocated deer mortality this week. This deer was found 1.20 miles northeast of its release site (4th release). Cause of death appeared to be predation as there was blood on the fur near the throat and one hindquarter had been fed on. The Utah Vetrinary Diagnostics lab in Lehi confirmed these suspicions as they identified puncture wounds on the throat and noted that all the organs appeared healthy. Although tracking conditions were not ideal (hard, crusty snow), we did observe what appeared to be small felid tracks (perhaps from a bobcat).

We've listened for radio signals 3 times since the last update and identified the general location of 48 of 49 resident deer and 47 of 48 (_remaining_) translocated deer. We have noticed a little more movement within the last week, but deer are still near release areas. From a small hill one mile south of the second and third release sites, we can hear more than 50 resident and translocated deer each time we listen for them. From this point, most of the deer are spread north, northeast, and east. There are also a bunch of deer between the 1st and 4th release sites.

We are still missing one translocated deer (likely moved) and one resident deer (suspect radio failure). Both of these deer were also missing last week and despite listening for each of these deer far to the south and north, we have been unable to hear them. They will be the focus of our efforts on the next flight.

We've now carefully (without disturbing them) observed 8 different translocated deer. Each has been associated with groups of resident. From our observations they appear to be foraging and moving with resident deer. In the coming weeks, we will focus our efforts on carefully observing the remaining translocated deer (very time consuming) to determine the percentage that are integrated into groups of resident deer.

In summary, translocated have remained near release areas and appear to be integrating into the resident population. We've had four total mortalities (1 of 50 resident deer, 3 of 51 translocated deer). One of the translocated deer died of obvious capture myopathy (temperature of 106 degrees Fahrenheit at time of capture) within a day of release. We are missing one translocated deer (likely moved) and one resident deer (suspect radio failure). Forty eight resident deer and 47 transplanted deer are alive and accounted for this week.

Please forward to any that are interested.

David Smedley"

So far, so good, but it's still early,

Lee Tracy
UWC Southern Region Chair.

Edited: All the release sites were east of Holden.
#1; GPS 39* 06.631' N 112* 13.606' W - intersection of 6800 N & 3600 E
#2 & #3; GPS 39* 04.743' N 112* 15.574 W - intersection of Maple Hollow Rd & 2400 E
#4; GPS 39* 05.344' N 112* 13.343' W - Wide Canyon Rd


----------



## proutdoors

HunterGeek said:


> Transplants are usually used to transport small numbers of animals to new locations to establish seed populations in areas where they don't already exist. It's completely uneconomical to think that there's any future in relocating significant deer populations from one area to another.
> 
> There are already studies indicating high mortality rates on transplanted deer. They're creatures of habit who learn survival patterns during their first year of life from following the other deer. Move them to a new location and they're basically lost - they don't know where to go when it snows, they don't know where the food is, they don't know where to find water, they don't know where not to go and they basically take off in most every direction with half of them dying.
> 
> So now we've got a study that might shed a little more light on this phenomenon and provide further data on why it's a bad idea, but in the end, everybody already knows it's not going to work. And at thousands of dollars per moved deer it's just not feasible even if it did work. So what exactly is the point?


My thoughts as well. I am confused/troubled that UWC is involved in this waste of resources. :? It seems contrary to the mission you all started out with......if I am wrong, please explain how?


----------



## proutdoors

And, if you guys are going to keep transplanting deer, how about taking the 200+ that are eating me out of house and home............?


----------



## elkfromabove

proutdoors said:


> HunterGeek said:
> 
> 
> 
> Transplants are usually used to transport small numbers of animals to new locations to establish seed populations in areas where they don't already exist. It's completely uneconomical to think that there's any future in relocating significant deer populations from one area to another.
> 
> There are already studies indicating high mortality rates on transplanted deer. They're creatures of habit who learn survival patterns during their first year of life from following the other deer. Move them to a new location and they're basically lost - they don't know where to go when it snows, they don't know where the food is, they don't know where to find water, they don't know where not to go and they basically take off in most every direction with half of them dying.
> 
> So now we've got a study that might shed a little more light on this phenomenon and provide further data on why it's a bad idea, but in the end, everybody already knows it's not going to work. And at thousands of dollars per moved deer it's just not feasible even if it did work. So what exactly is the point?
> 
> 
> 
> My thoughts as well. I am confused/troubled that UWC is involved in this waste of resources. :? It seems contrary to the mission you all started out with......if I am wrong, please explain how?
Click to expand...

UWC is involved because on the original range ride, we were informed by the DWR reps that biologically we need to remove 500 to 600 does from this winter range area per their studies, but they thought they could only get a doe hunt of 150 per the public outcry. UWC proposed a youth hunt of 500, but SFW wouldn't go along with it and were willing to fight it in the RACS and Wildlife Board meetings. They then proposed that the DWR translocate those deer, but the DWR wasn't willing to spend the money to do it per the low success rate and the probable outcry from the Utah legislature. When they made that known, SFW said they would be willing to finance a 100 doe transplant if DWR limited the hunt to 150 does. Once that offer was made, we (UWC) were unable to get either party to raise the numbers, so we wanted to stay in the loop to make sure that the results were real in order to verify any needed future doe hunts. And we wanted to make sure that DWR wouldn't be footing the bill. We also needed to know what steps were being taken to try to improve the success rate per the BYU study. If the results turn out well and SFW is willing to pay for further translocations, then so be it, but UWC will still propose doe hunts on this winter range and any other to get to the removal numbers needed. All of this information was made known at the Wildlife Board meeting and they agreed to the 150 doe hunt and the 100 doe SFW financed transplant. FWIW, I personally proposed a 300 doe hunt at that meeting in addition to the translocation, and offered that we weren't just kicking the can down the road, but that the can was growing from a soup can to a #10 can to a 5 gallon bucket to a 20 gallon barrel to a 55 gallon drum, but that got nowhere. UWC is involved because we are willing to provide some of the manpower to see this thing through to its bitter or better end! That way, everyone will know where they stand and why, and doe hunts won't be such a social issue! And finally, UWC is involved because we wanted to keep the public aware and updated on the results of this project so that they would understand if/when DWR needed to continue using doe hunts to control deer populations.

As far as transplanting the 200 eating you out of house and home, if you can get SFW to finance it because DWR won't and UWC can't ( and wouldn't if they could), then maybe we can work something out!


----------



## proutdoors

Excellent explanation, thank you!


----------



## elkfromabove

Another update from David Smedley, BYU grad student, via Ryan Foutz, SFW and Lee Tracy, UWC:

All,

Mule deer translocation update for February 2nd-February 8th

We had a flight on Friday and located the missing translocated deer and the missing resident deer. The missing translocated deer has moved approximately 4.5 miles northeast of it's release site (second release site). The missing resident deer (we suspect a weak collar) was near the same location we recorded on the last flight. This is approximately .3 miles north of a main road, but we have been unable to hear her from the ground. We will attempt to walk into this area next week and get a location on the ground.

We had one translocated deer mortality this week. This deer died between Wednesday February 6th and Friday February 8th. Mountain lion tracks suggest cougar predation.

We've listened for radio signals 3 times since the last update and identified the general location for 49 of 49 resident deer and 47 of 47 translocated deer. The farthest south we have recorded deer is approximately 4 miles south of the 2nd and 3rd release sites. The farthest north we have recorded deer is approximately 1.5 miles north of the 1st release site. Most translocated (deer) can still be heard from the release sites.

We have continued to carefully (without disturbing them) observe translocated deer. We have now observed 14 different translocated deer. All but one of them has been associated with groups of resident deer. The deer that was observed alone had a noticeable limp, though it is unknown if the injury is related to the capture or occured following release. (Note from Lee; This deer could have been the one with a deep leg cut from a sharp rock during the capture and that was then stitched up on the table, but we'll have to wait and see.)

We obtained a UHF receiver this week which will allow us to download data from the GPS collars beginning next week.

In summary, translocated deer have remained near release areas and appear to be integrating into the resident population. We've had five total mortalities (1 of 50 resident deer, 4 of 51 translocated deer). At least one translocated deer died of capture myopathy. Forty nine resident deer and 47 translocated deer were alive and accounted for this week.

Please forward to any that are interested.

David Smedley


----------



## elkfromabove

From another thread Catherder wrote: "I don't think I have an axe to grind in the transplant debate, and I hope that these transplanted deer do OK, but I do have one question. Even if the survival is fair to good, is the cost of transplant justifiable and reasonable? Reading through the process of this project, I have concerns. Just wondering."

The answer to that vital question depends on who you're talking to and who is paying for it! The DWR, at least at this point, isn't willing to pay for it, based on the low success rates of past transplants, not only in Utah, but in other western states. The cost is too high and isn't justifiable per their dependence on their portion of legislative regulated general state funds and the anticipated public outcry from sportsmen who would have to pay for them in license and permit fee increases if those funds aren't forthcoming. It's true that they may be mandated per the Wildlife Board to pay for them, but it will come at a very costly public relations loss as well as financial losses.

If, on the other hand, SFW/MDF/RMEF/SCI, etc. is willing to pay for it from their own uncommitted funds just as SFW is doing for this one, then I'd say we're good to go. There are some DWR expenses involved in the form of salaries, equipment, record keeping, paperwork, etc., but those types of things are normally spent anyway, whatever the project being done. This is where, we as sportsmen, can help out by volunteering.

Having said all of that, there isn't likely any way to remove all of the deer necessary to help all the overbrowsed winter habitat through transplanting. On this simple 1 mile wide, 25 mile long range (25 square miles), we need to remove 500 deer which would take 20 days and cost $500,000. And there's probably 2,500 square miles of overbrowsed winter habitat in Utah we need to look at. Like it or not, I think doe hunts are here to stay.


----------



## USMARINEhuntinfool

Out of curiosity elkfromabove were the deer preg checked? not sure if they would even be showing as I don't know how long or advanced their gestation period is just wondering how that will play into it all. When is the next transplant supposed to take place, I read it somewhere I thought? 

Goofy a cougar got one this week, just sayin 

Personally, I hope it is successful. It is expensive now, but if they can prove that it can be successful then improvements can be made and it will get less expensive. Not that it solves all the problems but its another tool/resource. Doe hunts will and should continue. It would be nice to know that there are things we can do to increase/help herds in certain areas though. I think the collaboration that has occurred on this project is pretty darn cool as well. Although each group doesn't always see eye to eye, its nice to know that they can work to gather to acheive projects.


----------



## JuddCT

I thought I read that a high percentage were carrying, but don't quote me.


----------



## wyoming2utah

From what I understand most of the does were not only pregnant, but carrying at least twins....yes, they were checked.

I hope it works too...I think we are, though, far from knowing whether it is a success or not. It will/would be interesting to know how many of the fawns survive that will be born from transplanted does...


----------



## goofy elk

USMARINEhuntinfool said:


> Goofy a cougar got one this week, just sayin
> .


MARINE,
For only one deer to be 'taken' by a cougar at this point is extreamly telling...
Very, Very , low at this point...

I was in this EXACT same area , range, in 1997 when harvest ojective lion
hunting was first opened...It was unreal how many lions were right there :!:

We killed 40 lions right there around Fillmore in 22 days :shock:
Can you only imagine if even 1/4 that number of cats were there now :?: 
I garauntee, a heck of a lot more than one would be cat lunch by now.. :O•-:

Looks like now, theres ONE cat left 

Well, at least there not all dead


----------



## elkfromabove

USMARINEhuntinfool said:


> Out of curiosity elkfromabove were the deer preg checked? not sure if they would even be showing as I don't know how long or advanced their gestation period is just wondering how that will play into it all. When is the next transplant supposed to take place, I read it somewhere I thought?
> 
> Goofy a cougar got one this week, just sayin
> 
> Personally, I hope it is successful. It is expensive now, but if they can prove that it can be successful then improvements can be made and it will get less expensive. Not that it solves all the problems but its another tool/resource. Doe hunts will and should continue. It would be nice to know that there are things we can do to increase/help herds in certain areas though. I think the collaboration that has occurred on this project is pretty darn cool as well. Although each group doesn't always see eye to eye, its nice to know that they can work to gather to acheive projects.


Yes, they were all checked and it was determined that all of them were pregnant via an ultra-sound and vaginal sample, but some of them weren't showing as much because they were bred in the second estrus. The first day, they (30) were captured further away from town and only one appeared to have been bred later, while *most* of those (21) which were captured on the second day near the Parowan Airport were bred later. The bucks apparently breed the ones closer to people only after they breed the ones easier to get to. I guess they don't like airplanes, cars and people so much! And most, if not all, of them had twins. What the transplant did or will do to self/natural abortion has yet to be determined.

The second transplant is currently scheduled for March 4th & 5th, but that may change depending on the weather and DragonFly's (helicopter) schedule. We'll update as needed.

No comment on the cougars/coyotes. It is what it is!

Yes, doe hunts will likely continue because of the numbers, but we can use them as youth and/or geezer hunts to keep some folks in the game.

And as far the cooperation goes, there have been a few snags, but the actual project was awesome. (Rusty Aiken, SFW & Southern RAC, makes a great breakfast burrito!) Our differences were non-existent. And FWIW, one of our UWC members is also a MDF leader who has shown a strong interest in the project and we look forward to having some MDF volunteers join us in the March session. Also it was my experience that this cooperation will actually make our differences easier to deal with, at least down south!


----------



## USMARINEhuntinfool

Outstanding reports. Thanks for keeping us in the loop. 

Goofy- I was just giving you a hard time  

It will be very interesting to watch the whole thing play out. I think it will be 3-5 years before we know if this has been successful. I sure hope it is. 

Thats great that things went well. In something like this there will probably always be snags but I'm glad everyone got through it. I'd be curious to come and watch, not much good for anything else, when they do the next one, if you guys wouldn't mind. I think it would be cool.


----------



## elkfromabove

USMARINEhuntinfool said:


> Outstanding reports. Thanks for keeping us in the loop.
> 
> Goofy- I was just giving you a hard time
> 
> It will be very interesting to watch the whole thing play out. I think it will be 3-5 years before we know if this has been successful. I sure hope it is.
> 
> Thats great that things went well. In something like this there will probably always be snags but I'm glad everyone got through it. I'd be curious to come and watch, not much good for anything else, when they do the next one, if you guys wouldn't mind. I think it would be cool.


You're welcome, but I'm only doing what we (UWC) agreed to do and that's keep the public informed. And no, we don't mind! In fact, we welcome you! We had several school groups (classes and FFA) show up last time and they were great!

BTW, you (all of you) need to know that the dates have already been changed to Tuesday March 5th and Wednesday March 6th because the helicopter company will take 3 days (not 2) to handle the second phase of the Monroe doe/fawn study which involves doe vaginal implants and collars.

And FWIW, I don't think it will take 3-5 years to know whether or not these transplants are feasible/successful. I talked to Teresa, biologist at the Southern DWR Office, today and she told me that most "winter kill" deaths don't actually happen until April. There are several reasons for this including the poor body condition of getting through the winter, the change from a winter diet to a spring diet, the toll that the growth of near term fawn fetuses have had, and the extra weight of the fetuses that are being carried by the doe which makes it harder to get around quickly. The results look really good at this point, but it's still early. In any case, those dedicated BYU students are really working hard to get the data we need to determine the success of this project including a LOT of ground work! We have a lot to thank them for!


----------



## osageorange

Everyone I've heard from has pretty much said the same things:

1. I hope this works, so more transplants can be done successfully in the future.

2. I hope we learn more effective methods to successfully transplant deer from one location to another.

3. I'm happy that the DWR are trying or re-trying to transplant deer, even if it isn't completely successful or cost effective it demonstrates a desire by them to be actively engaged in some effort to grow more deer in areas that they determine can support more.

4. I'm glad that the DWR is doing much more than just releasing these deer and watching what happens but employing tactics that might help the relocation effort work.

5. I'm glad some university scientists are collecting data and sharing their data as the project continues.

6. I'm glad to hear that many if not all DWR personel that are working on the project are objectively engaged in the project and hopeful for a positive outcome in this experiment.

Finally, my personal observation, all sportsmen's groups are working together, cooperatively, for a common desire to learn how to successfully relocate deer. Whether these deer live or die, anything that give sportsmen an opportunity to unite behind a worthwhile study is a good thing and gives me hope that we can find a lot more reasons to work together, while we may always have some differences on how we divide the fruits of our labors. More deer must be better for all deer hunters.


----------



## PBH

elkfromabove said:


> And FWIW, I don't think it will take 3-5 years to know whether or not these transplants are feasible/successful. I talked to Teresa, biologist at the Southern DWR Office, today and she told me that most "winter kill" deaths don't actually happen until April.


Certainly it will take 3-5 years to know whether or not the transplants are successful. Just making it through this initial winter won't tell us the whole story. As mentioned by others, we need to know where those deer go come spring/summer. Will they migrate right back to their "traditional" summer range? Further, where will they go next winter? Will they go back to the "traditional" winter range, where they were originally transplanted from? Or will they figure out that they need to go back to the "introduced" winter range they were transplanted to? We may find out (again) that there's more to it than just "following the lead doe". How does your cat find it's way back after you drop it off 20 miles from home?

I also hope this works. I appreciate the work that so many have put into this. Please keep us informed.


----------



## elkfromabove

PBH said:


> elkfromabove said:
> 
> 
> 
> And FWIW, I don't think it will take 3-5 years to know whether or not these transplants are feasible/successful. I talked to Teresa, biologist at the Southern DWR Office, today and she told me that most "winter kill" deaths don't actually happen until April.
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly it will take 3-5 years to know whether or not the transplants are successful. Just making it through this initial winter won't tell us the whole story. As mentioned by others, we need to know where those deer go come spring/summer. Will they migrate right back to their "traditional" summer range? Further, where will they go next winter? Will they go back to the "traditional" winter range, where they were originally transplanted from? Or will they figure out that they need to go back to the "introduced" winter range they were transplanted to? We may find out (again) that there's more to it than just "following the lead doe". How does your cat find it's way back after you drop it off 20 miles from home?
> 
> I also hope this works. I appreciate the work that so many have put into this. Please keep us informed.
Click to expand...

You make a valid point, and that's why this is actually a 3 year study. I guess it depends on a person's definition of "successful". I'm looking at it from the viewpoint of the known high 1st year mortality rates of past deer transplants (about 95%). Anything substantially lower than that would be a welcome improvement to be sure! And if it does work, maybe we Utahns (DWR in particular) will be driven to re-evaluate the economic feasibility of future deer transplants. I guess it will depend on their value. (After all, as you obviously know, moving Utah prairie dogs in Iron County from one place to another is now not only "economically feasible" at about $750 each, as I recall, but is federally mandated. )


----------



## klbzdad

elkfromabove said:


> After all, as you obviously know, moving Utah prairie dogs in Iron County from one place to another is now not only "economically feasible" at about $750 each, as I recall, but is federally mandated. )


So THAT'S how much those fuzzy speed bumps cost!

Thanks for the updates, young man!


----------



## elkfromabove

An update on the March transplant! It's been moved (so far) to Tuesday March 5th and Wednesday March 6th because DragonFly Aviation (helicopter) will take 3 days instead of 2 to do the Monroe doe/fawn study with collars and vaginal implants. Will keep you posted of any other changes.


----------



## elkfromabove

Another update! I'm sorry it's late but I had to find another source which will probably make it late every week. I'll try to speed it up, but please be patient. Thanks!

All,

Mule deer translocation update for February 9th-February 15th

Additional lab results associated with translocated deer came back showing general agreement between the ultrasound assessment of pregnancy and a hormone test using blood. Because the initial capture (early January) was early term (conception in November or December associated with the rut(s), there was potential to miss pregnancies with the ultrasound. In summary, hormone tests suggest all but 5 of the 51 translocated deer were pregnant when captured. All but one of these was supected as open based on ultrasound. Thanks, Leslie! (Note from Lee; I understood they were all pregnant and have said so on this forum and others. I apologize for the error.)

We were unable to hear 1 resident deer with a suspect collar (weak signal) from the ground this week. We hiked into the area near the location we marked on the flight last week, but were unable to detect the signal. We also listened from different locations surrounding the area where she was located on the flight without success. As we move forward, we may only have sporadic contact with this deer on flights.

We had one translocated deer mortality this week. The deer died between Mon Feb 11th and Wed Feb 13th. Mountain lion tracks and caching of the carcass suggest cougar predation. This deer was found approximately .50 (1/2) miles east of the deer killed last week by a cougar and we suspect the same animal is responsible for both events. Both these deer were in dense junipers at higher levels than the majority of resident and other translocated deer which may have put them at increased risk of predation.

We've listened for radio signals 3 times since the last update and identified the general location of 48 of 49 resident deer (missing the resident deer with a weak signal) and 46 of 46 translocated deer. 

We have continued to carefully (without disturbing them) observe translocated deer. We have now observed 15 different translocated deer. All but one of them has been associated with groups of resident deer. Although time intensive, we will continue these efforts over the next several weeks.

This week, we downloaded data from 5 GPS collars (3 translocated deer and 2 resident deer). These 5 GPS collars appear to be working well. Thanks to Kent for helping with remote downloads and initial programming of GPS collars. The attached .kmz file (Note from Lee; Not received in email) shows translocated deer are using the same general areas as resident deer, but their movements and habitat are more widespread and dispersed. Over the next couple of weeks, we will continue remote downloads (need to be within a few hundred meters between 6 am and noon) on remaining GPS collars (total GPS collars currently out = 18)

In summary, we've had six total mortalities (1 of 50 resident deer, 5 of 51 translocated deer). At least one of the translocated deer died of capture myopathy (106* temperature). forty eight resident deer (missing one with weak radio signal) and 46 translocated deer were alive and accounted for this week.

We urge caution when interpreting these results as they are only preliminary.

Thanks to all for continued interest and support. 

Please forward to any that are interested.

David Smedley (BYU)

Well folks, I'll talk to you next week. In the meanwhile, keep in mind we're gonna do another transplant of 50 does on March 5th and 6th. You're more than welcome to join us to help or observe, but call DWR first. 435-865-6100
Lee Tracy, UWC Southern Region Chair


----------



## goofy elk

TEX-O-BOB said:


> At least the cougars on the Pahvant will eat good this winter!


So far, 
ONE deer taken by a lion.....Hmmm.

So FAR,
70 coyotes have been killed by from the air. I think it was 39 before the translocation and another 25+ or so since..................AGAIN,,,Hmmm.

I've personaly witnessed this to be the case for a few years now, on most units...
Coyotes ARE the major issue facing our deer herds! 
THAT's were the fawns are going :!:

Hope this study contiues to show the true light


----------



## klbzdad

Me too Goofy....me too.


----------



## Longfeather

I think it is a total of two deer taken by kitty cat's... 2 of the 6 that have died. So two have died from cat's, one from Myopathy and three unknown.

Is that correct?

I do agree that coyotes are a problem. As are bear, cougar, bobcat etc.... and anything else killing does.


----------



## goofy elk

Ya, two cats, BUT one was believed to be a bobcat, and one a lion...
correct?

For them to have aerial shot THAT MANY coyotes within 5 or so miles
of the release sites pretty much tells the story for me.........

I've talk with the gunners, theres places they have shot some UNBELIEVABLE numbers


----------



## Iron Bear

That's 2 deer known to be taken by what they believe do be the same cougar in 2 weeks. Within 1/2 mile of each other up higher. Sounds about right. One cougar will kill one deer per week.

But we wont hear about an uncollared doe being killed by that cougar.


----------



## elkfromabove

Longfeather said:


> I think it is a total of two deer taken by kitty cat's... 2 of the 6 that have died. So two have died from cat's, one from Myopathy and three unknown.
> 
> Is that correct?
> 
> I do agree that coyotes are a problem. As are bear, cougar, bobcat etc.... and anything else killing does.


There have been two transplanted deer that were definately taken by cougars. (Actually, they think it's the same cougar.) A third transplanted deer was taken by an undetermined predator per puncture wounds on the neck. It may not have been a cougar however because there were only visible bobcat tracks around and only a rear quarter was fed upon and it wasn't gutted. The volunteers may or may not have determined what it was by the size and pattern of the bite marks on the neck, but they didn't say. Two other deer (one transplanted and one resident) were too decimated by scavengers to determine the cause of death, so predators may or may not have been responsible. And then there's the myopathy death after release (106 degree temperature while on the table in the tent at the capture site). That's six!

Let's remember that Smedley just cautioned us about interpreting the results so early. There's not nearly enough data and they are having a challenge interpreting the data they do have. Hang on a while longer, folks! This is gonna be a long-running thread!


----------



## stillhunterman

Thanks for keeping things real for folks Lee, great job on reporting. Hmmm, 33%+ transplanted deer deaths associated with cougs....interesting. ;-)


----------



## elkfromabove

stillhunterman said:


> Thanks for keeping things real for folks Lee, great job on reporting. Hmmm, 33%+ transplanted deer deaths associated with cougs....interesting. ;-)


I'm sorry, but I haven't received an update on the 1st session of the deer transplant for several weeks, but I can tell you what happened with the 2nd session which took place Tuesday and yesterday.

Remember, this transplant is a 100 doe event and in early January we moved 51 deer (one more than scheduled), so this 2nd session we were scheduled to move the other 50.

Tuesday was clear, calm and relatively warm and DragonFly Aviation (helicopter) was able to locate and capture the deer quite quickly. We were at the Parowan Airport because BLM didn't want us to tear up their muddy roads further north where we were scheduled to start, but it made it more interesting because we were able to watch them capture a few on airport property. Those guys are amazing (crazy!). After netting a deer, one of the crew would leap out of the chopper and manhandle the doe in the net in order to hobble, blindfold and bag her, and meanwhile, the chopper would look for another one. Once they had 2 (or 3 or 4) of them down, they would land and pick each of them up like fisn on a stringer. As rough as they were capturing them, they were as delicate as can be dropping them off.

Tuesday we captured and processed 31. We processed these deer the same as session #1 deer, but tagged them with red tags instead of yellow tags so we know the difference. All but one of them were pregnant. There were a few scrapes and bruises in the capture but nothing serious and only one on the table had to be sewn up due to the bleeding from the snipet of tissue they took to test for CWD. However, because it was warmer this time around we had to ice down about 1/2 of them while processing, so let's hope we did enough and we don't lose any from capture myopathy (high temp, stress, shock).

Unfortunately, Wednesday's weather turned out quite different from Tuesday's, in that it was cold, cloudy and WINDY! And because of the wind, the deer weren't out in the open as much and the chopper wasn't as steady for the net gun, plus since the bucks have lost their antlers, the unsteady chopper made it harder to see what the crew was chasing. Anyway, even though we started at 7:00 am, an hour earlier, we only had 4 does by 10:30 and it was just too risky and unproductive to continue, so we shut down after brunch. That meant we were 15 short of our quota, so we'll have to finish up later this month per DragonFly's schedule. Pencil in next Monday the 11th. We'll let you know!

I asked Dave Smedley, the BYU grad student doing the study, to email me directly so we should be getting updates first-hand. And FWIW, I was under the impression that Dave had a crew doing the legwork (hiking to kill sites, watching the does, taking the pictures, etc.), but he told me it was just him and another student. We have a lot to thank him for!

We'll update as we get info, but again we caution you to let this 3 year study play out before drawing any conclusion regarding it's success or failure.

Lee Tracy
UWC


----------



## Iron Bear

Anymore info on this study? 

I'm wondering how many more doe's died from predators. Primarily curious about cougar kills. 

Or did they get rid of that cat? Maybe it will morph into a bobcat.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

Here's a related study:

USU deer study 2001-2007 101 mule deer does collared.

Mortality cause/results

34 - Motor vehicle mortality
33 - Malnourishment/Winter kill. 
5 - Age related
4 - Predators
19 - Unknown.
2 - Poaching


----------



## Iron Bear

That's laughable.

4 predator kills. :lol:


----------



## wyoming2utah

In December 2009 study was implemented to improve our estimates of both adult female deer and fawn survival (6 months of age to 1.5 years old). Information gathered from this study not only applies to the Monroe unit but may be applied to nearby units as well.

•	In December 2009 the DWR captured and placed VHF radio collars on 30 adult does and 30 female fawns across the unit.
•	In December 2010 DWR captured placed collars on an additional 30 female fawns.
•	In November of 2011 DWR captured placed collars on an additional 30 female fawns.

We currently have 83 deer (53 adults and 30 fawns) with radio collars on the unit.

The DWR monitors these deer using aircraft to locate the collar signals. When a deer dies, the collar transmits a mortality signal. DWR personnel then locate the collar/carcass. They then try and determine the cause of death.



2010 results (December 2009 – December 2010)

Adult doe survival 86%
Fawn survival 28%
Cause of Death Breakdown:
Does - 4 out of 29 died
2-predation (1 cougar, 1 other)
1-malnutrition (winter kill)
1-road killed

Fawns – 21 out of 29 died
6- predation (2 cougar, 4 other)
10-malnutrition
4-unknown
1-road killed

2011 results (December 2010-December 2011)

Adult doe survival 88%
Fawn survival 68%
Cause of Death Breakdown:
Does – 4 out of 32 died
3- predation (2 cougar, 1 other)
1-unknown

Fawns – 8 of 25 died
4-predation (1 cougar, 3 other)
1-malnutrition
1-road killed
2-unknown


----------



## Longfeather

"Fawns – 21 out of 29 died
6- predation (2 cougar, 4 other)
10-malnutrition
4-unknown
1-road killed"

And we wonder why the deer population isn't growing....


----------



## Fishrmn

Let's protect the little bucks, and focus all of our hunting pressure on the bucks that have survived their first winter.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Longfeather said:


> "Fawns - 21 out of 29 died
> 6- predation (2 cougar, 4 other)
> 10-malnutrition
> 4-unknown
> 1-road killed"
> 
> And we wonder why the deer population isn't growing....


Exactly! And, if you dig a bit deeper, the story is even more compelling...

The 2009 winter came early, stayed cold, and left late. Most of the fawns entered the winter in less than optimum condition. As the collar study showed, only 28% of the fawns that entered the winter survived it.

Furthermore, the harsh winter of 2009-10 had a significant effect on the number of fawns born the following spring. Stressed and malnourished does only produced 38 fawns/100 does when they were surveyed in the fall of 2010.

So, the 2009 winter not only affected the number of fawns that survived that winter, but it also affected the number of fawns born that spring. The same can be said about an extremely dry summer....if a doe, for example, doesn't get enough fat stored during the summer, even if she does get impregnated by a buck in the first estrous cycle, she may naturally abort the fawn to save herself.

Also, any bets that the number of deer preyed upon during the winter of 2009 was higher than in 2010 at least partially because deer during that winter of 2009 were weaker and more vulnerable?

Who says habitat and weather patterns are NOT the driving force behind deer numbers?


----------



## Iron Bear

Bet those deer would have wintered better and had better body weight and increased birth rates if they didn't have to run scared from predators all winter 24 hrs a day. You worry about harassing deer while antler hunting or even just riding an ATV down a road. Because you think it places stress on deer in a critical time of year. -O\__- 

I'm guessing nothing gets a deer's heart a beating then when it see's or smells a cougar or coyotes. Nevermind when it is being chased by one. 

Very dynamic and complicated this wildlife stuff. o-|| No simple answers I am however thrilled my beloved deer are getting so much attention.


----------



## klbzdad

Iron Bear, did you harvest a cougar this year? 

I'm sure Lee will post something when he gets an update. I'm anxious for the snow to melt and for us to head into the spring to see where those collared deer go and if integration continues or falls apart. THEN there's always the return to winter grounds and if they will have that imprinted and return to where they were released.


----------



## Iron Bear

No goofy wont take me out.  


I swear to god if goofy takes me out every yr and let me fill my HO tag on Monroe I will never post another word about them. :lol: I'll even pay him market price.


----------



## Iron Bear

The houndsman assoc should really consider this proposal don't you think? :lol: 

Any cat will do?


----------



## klbzdad

Iron Bear said:


> No goofy wont take me out.
> 
> I swear to god if goofy takes me out every yr and let me fill my HO tag on Monroe I will never post another word about them. :lol: I'll even pay him market price.


We don't always agree, but you're a good egg. I know you mean well.

So, here's the update (sorry Lee for jumping the gun on you but I just got it):

*Mule deer translocation update for March 9th - March 15th*

�Thank you to all of those who helped finish with the last part of the second translocation (Tuesday March 12th). All 16 deer captured near Parowan and released near Holden were pregnant. Two of the 51 deer captured for the second translocation were not pregnant.

We had two translocated deer mortalities this week and one resident deer mortality. One translocated deer released on Tuesday appears to have died of capture-related causes. The other translocated deer was found shot in the chest by a small caliber firearm near a dirt road. We also suspect the resident deer mortality identified this week was shot though no obvious bullet wounds were evident. This deer was found near the same road where the translocated deer was shot and killed. We've contacted the local conservation officer with this information and an investigation is currently underway. The resident deer we suspect as being poached has been taken to the Utah Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory in Nephi for confirmation and if shot, hopefully retrieval of the bullet. In addition, we've increased surveillance of radio-marked deer and deployed remote cameras to assist with monitoring.

We've listened for radio signals 2 times since the last update and identified the general location for 48 of 48 resident deer and 92 of 94 translocated deer.

We are currently missing two translocated deer. One of these deer we have not heard since it was released in March. The other deer has been located off and on each week since it was released in January. We have a flight scheduled this week (pending weather conditions) and will focus on locating these two missing deer.

This week, we downloaded data from 3 GPS collars. We have now downloaded data from a total of 15 GPS collars, all of which appear to be working well (Thanks Kent!). This information from these GPS collars will be valuable as we continue to evaluate habitat selection and movement patterns of translocated deer.

We have continued to carefully (without disturbing them) observe translocated deer. We have now observed 20 different translocated deer. All but one of them has been associated with groups of resident deer. Although time intensive, we will continue these efforts.

We worked on production of an article for "The Sportsmen's Voice" detailing the first few months of this project.

In summary, we've had 9 total mortalities (2 of 50 resident deer, 8 of 102 translocated deer). At least three of the translocated deer mortalities were related to the capture. Forty eight resident deer and 92 translocated deer were alive and accounted for this week.

We continue to urge caution when interpreting these results as we are only a couple months into this project. We suspect to learn much more in the coming months--particularly as we move into the periods of spring migration and parturition (birth).

Thanks to all for continued interest and support.

Please forward to any that are interested.

David Smedley and Randy Larsen


----------



## Iron Bear

Thanks 8) 

I worried that when the snow melts it will make it more difficult to determine cause of death.

I'm not sure where this transplanting is going? It's not economically feasible to use as a tool to improve deer herds. Maybe for reintroduction's? But I cant think of an area that needs that not in Utah anyway. I would be happy to see that is possible and mule deer are just like every other species. And not natures most unadaptable and stupid critter. And it might also might help answer my first question about this study and that is. Why is there capacity on the Pavahnt and why is it not already at capacity?

Watch it will be proven that mule deer transplant just fine. And then the DWR will trade Montana 100 Henry's buck for 200 wolf. :shock: :mrgreen: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## klbzdad

I supported the project because of the attrition and welfare of the winter range they are taking the deer from needed to have more than 252 mouths taken from it and the SFW local committee would only support 150 doe tags (trying to be preemptive to public backlash of which there was little). The total including the animals transplanted are just extra mouths not utilizing that winter range....which, by the way, is close to the home of three or for great big cats I'd like to see gone. Two were taken from there last year but there are always others roaming around, waiting to fill the void. I'm happy to point you at them! I can't answer your question on capacity on the Pavahnt but the Panguitch Lake unit have PAAALENTY of deer including good sized bucks. You just have to earn them.


----------



## proutdoors

wyoming2utah said:


> The 2009 winter came early, stayed cold, and left late. Most of the fawns entered the winter in less than optimum condition. As the collar study showed, only 28% of the fawns that entered the winter survived it.
> 
> Furthermore, the harsh winter of 2009-10 had a significant effect on the number of fawns born the following spring. Stressed and malnourished does only produced 38 fawns/100 does when they were surveyed in the fall of 2010.
> 
> So, the 2009 winter not only affected the number of fawns that survived that winter, but it also affected the number of fawns born that spring. The same can be said about an extremely dry summer....if a doe, for example, doesn't get enough fat stored during the summer, even if she does get impregnated by a buck in the first estrous cycle, she may naturally abort the fawn to save herself.
> 
> Also, any bets that the number of deer preyed upon during the winter of 2009 was higher than in 2010 at least partially because deer during that winter of 2009 were weaker and more vulnerable?
> 
> *Who says habitat and weather patterns are NOT the driving force behind deer numbers?*


Well stated!


----------



## elkfromabove

klbzdad said:


> Iron Bear said:
> 
> 
> 
> No goofy wont take me out.
> 
> I swear to god if goofy takes me out every yr and let me fill my HO tag on Monroe I will never post another word about them. :lol: I'll even pay him market price.
> 
> 
> 
> We don't always agree, but you're a good egg. I know you mean well.
> 
> So, here's the update (sorry Lee for jumping the gun on you but I just got it):
> 
> *Mule deer translocation update for March 9th - March 15th*
> 
> �Thank you to all of those who helped finish with the last part of the second translocation (Tuesday March 12th). All 16 deer captured near Parowan and released near Holden were pregnant. Two of the 51 deer captured for the second translocation were not pregnant.
> 
> We had two translocated deer mortalities this week and one resident deer mortality. One translocated deer released on Tuesday appears to have died of capture-related causes. The other translocated deer was found shot in the chest by a small caliber firearm near a dirt road. We also suspect the resident deer mortality identified this week was shot though no obvious bullet wounds were evident. This deer was found near the same road where the translocated deer was shot and killed. We've contacted the local conservation officer with this information and an investigation is currently underway. The resident deer we suspect as being poached has been taken to the Utah Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory in Nephi for confirmation and if shot, hopefully retrieval of the bullet. In addition, we've increased surveillance of radio-marked deer and deployed remote cameras to assist with monitoring.
> 
> We've listened for radio signals 2 times since the last update and identified the general location for 48 of 48 resident deer and 92 of 94 translocated deer.
> 
> We are currently missing two translocated deer. One of these deer we have not heard since it was released in March. The other deer has been located off and on each week since it was released in January. We have a flight scheduled this week (pending weather conditions) and will focus on locating these two missing deer.
> 
> This week, we downloaded data from 3 GPS collars. We have now downloaded data from a total of 15 GPS collars, all of which appear to be working well (Thanks Kent!). This information from these GPS collars will be valuable as we continue to evaluate habitat selection and movement patterns of translocated deer.
> 
> We have continued to carefully (without disturbing them) observe translocated deer. We have now observed 20 different translocated deer. All but one of them has been associated with groups of resident deer. Although time intensive, we will continue these efforts.
> 
> We worked on production of an article for "The Sportsmen's Voice" detailing the first few months of this project.
> 
> In summary, we've had 9 total mortalities (2 of 50 resident deer, 8 of 102 translocated deer). At least three of the translocated deer mortalities were related to the capture. Forty eight resident deer and 92 translocated deer were alive and accounted for this week.
> 
> We continue to urge caution when interpreting these results as we are only a couple months into this project. We suspect to learn much more in the coming months--particularly as we move into the periods of spring migration and parturition (birth).
> 
> Thanks to all for continued interest and support.
> 
> Please forward to any that are interested.
> 
> David Smedley and Randy Larsen
Click to expand...

Thanks for jumping the gun, Shawn! I just got my computer back from Staples. It crashed TWICE this month and I had to get it overhauled both times, once because of 3 viruses which kept shutting down my MiFi, including one in my firewall (Norton 360) which recorded massive use of the internet that included 57.4 GB in 10 days and $640.00 in overage fees before they called me on the phone to inform me. Of course, they (Verizon) claimed they notified me before the overages, but only on my email which I couldn't access. The second time was Windows 7 which sent an automatic update to prevent further problems. The update shut my computer down but couldn't reboot Windows. Turns out that during the first overhaul, the little battery that keeps the date and time went back to the original date and time Windows 7 was first installed and wouldn't let the computer install anything developed after that original date.

Besides, I just spent 3 great days on the Colorado River camping and fishing around Horseshoe Bend and wasn't about to bog my mind down with some silly deer issue!

In fact, I'd appreciate it if you'd take over for the time being, because I can no longer fully print the updates in order to post them on this forum or the other one. You know, the one you hate! (This old out-of-touch geezer hates all this electronic mumbo jumbo ABOUT as much as I hate politics!)

I'm sorry I missed the final portion of the transplant (Tuesday 12th), but I was never notified, even when I went to the DWR office on Monday. I was told they were still working with the bears (sows and cubs) in the den counts.

In any case, it's still early on the deer transplant but personally surprising so far! Everything I've ever read about past deer transplants indicates that the success rate could be much higher on this one. Let's hope so.


----------



## DallanC

> massive use of the internet that included 57.4 GB in 10 days and $640.00 in overage fees


WOW thats nothing... you GOTTA get a new ISP! I average around 20gb a month on my android smart PHONE, and I average many times that on the home ISP. I cant fathom getting charged for a mere 57gb.

Edit: just checked todays phone data usage, I'm at +6gb today alone.

-DallanC


----------



## elkfromabove

DallanC said:


> massive use of the internet that included 57.4 GB in 10 days and $640.00 in overage fees
> 
> 
> 
> WOW thats nothing... you GOTTA get a new ISP! I average around 20gb a month on my android smart PHONE, and I average many times that on the home ISP. I cant fathom getting charged for a mere 57gb.
> 
> Edit: just checked todays phone data usage, I'm at +6gb today alone.
> 
> -DallanC
Click to expand...

Like I said, I'm an old out-of-touch geezer! I don't twitter, tweet, watch movies, skype, do facebook, take or send photos or videos, do any banking, and seldom text on my simple cell phone (or my computer, for that matter). In fact I seldom even talk on it. I'd rather spend my time and money on other things. And I bought the cell phone so that if I have an issue with my arrhythmia while alone on the mountain, I'd have a chance of getting down alive. And this laptop computer and this forum (and the other one) and my insatiable search for knowledge and statistics, and FreeCell Solitaire keep me occupied when I have insomnia. And I'm comforted knowing that when all these electronic devices finally take over every aspect of our lives and then come crashing down with the ultimate virus, I won't feel the pain as much as some of you. 

Now, back to the subject! It's still too early to draw any long term conclusions, but I have to admit, it's looking much better than we've seen in the past.


----------



## Gweedo

Thank you for posting all of this and please keep the updates coming. All too often you get forum stalkers (like myself) who will view this info and learn from it without ever posting. So from the shadows...Thanks.


----------



## elkfromabove

Gweedo said:


> Thank you for posting all of this and please keep the updates coming. All too often you get forum stalkers (like myself) who will view this info and learn from it without ever posting. So from the shadows...Thanks.


I/we (klbzdad and I) really appreciate your response!!! In fact, that's why I keep posting on this forum. It isn't so much to try to inform or pursuade or convince the regulars, as it is to reach out to you folks in the shadows. Hopefully, you can get past the hype that goes on here and will do some research on your own to get to the biology, data, laws, regulations, etc. in order to form your own opinions, not only regarding this deer study, but all the other stuff you see. Keep watchin' friend! You make a difference whether you realize it or not!

Edited: Shawn, I pulled your update post off this forum and posted it on the other forum so you don't have to. You're welcome! You've got enough grief a'ready! Get well! Lee


----------



## elkfromabove

Gweedo said:


> Thank you for posting all of this and please keep the updates coming. All too often you get forum stalkers (like myself) who will view this info and learn from it without ever posting. So from the shadows...Thanks.


Another update dedicated to you shadowers:

All,

Mule deer translocation update for March 16th-March 22nd

We received results from the Utah Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory on the resident deer we took in last week (we suspected poaching). It appears to have died from cancer.

During the flight on Tuesday, we were able to locate one of the missing translocated deer, but were unable to locate 2 other translocated deer. Both of these deer are from the 2nd translocation. We have not heard one of these deer since it was released. the other signal was heard faintly during the first wee but was not heard this week.

We had two translocated deer mortalities this week and one resident deer mortality. One translocated deer collar was retrieved Monday the 18th and appears to be a cougar predation. It was found near the same area as the other 2 cougar kills, in dense junipers. The other translocated deer mortality cannot be confirmed with a carcass as the collar was found hanging on a fence (3/22/2013). It appears that the collar was cut with a knife and we suspect this deer was poached. We suspect the resident deer mortality was due to coyote predation. The carcass was completely consumed, including some of the legs, and the collar was chewed through.

We listened for radio signals 2 times since the last update and identified the general location of 47 of 47 resident deer and 90 of 92 translocated deer. We will continue to search for the two missing translocated deer.

This week, we downloaded data from 2 GPS collars. We have now downloaded data from a total of 17 GPS collars, all of which appear to be working well.

We have continued to carefully (without disturbing them) observe translocated deer. We were able to observe 2 of the deer from the second translocation this week. Both of these deer were feeding with a group of resident deer. We have now observed 22 different translocated deer. All but one of them has been associated with groups of resident deer. Although time intensive, we will continue these efforts.

In summary, we've had 13 total mortalities (3 of 50 resident deer, 10 of 102 translocated deer). At least three of the translocated deer mortalities were related to the capture. We suspect poaching as the cause of death of two of the translocated deer. Forty seven resident deer and 90 translocated deer were alive and accounted for this week.

Thanks to all for continued interest and support.

Please forward to any that are interested.

David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)

Let's hope we catch the poachers!
Lee Tracy
UWC Southern Region Chair


----------



## elkfromabove

The latest update.

All,

Mule deer translocation update for March 23rd-March 29th

We have no additional mortalities to report this week for either resident or translocated deer.

Last week we recovered a collar from a translocated deer and found it hanging on a fence. This week, we returned to the area and found deer hair on the fence as well as the ground where the collar was hanging. We were unable to find a carcass and it is unkown what happened to this deer, but we believe the collar was cut.

We've listened for radio signals 3 times since the last update and identified the general location for 47 of 47 resident deer and 88 of 92 translocated deer. We have been unable to locate 4 translocated deer this week. One of these deer is from the first translocation (January) and the other 3 are from the second translocation (March). We listened for 2 of the 4 on the last flight, but could not locate them. 

We are starting to see more movement as spring arrives. We located one translocated deer (1st translocation) near Kanosh this week (approximately 20 miles south of its release site) and 3 translocated deer (second translocation) in Fillmore, which is approximately 10 miles south of their release siites. The majority of translocated deer, however, can still be heard from their release sites, though there appears to be more movements north and south than we have previously observed.

This week, we downloaded data from 3 GPS collars. We have now downloaded data from a total of 20 GPS collars, all of which appear to be working well.

We have continued to carefully (withour disturbing them) observe translocated deer. We have now observed 27 different translocated deer. All but one of them has been associated with groups of resident deer. Although time intensive, we will continue these efforts as time permits.

In summary, we've had 13 total mortalities (3 of 50 resident deer, 10 of 102 translocated deer). At least three of the translocated deer mortalities were related to capture. We suspect poaching as the cause of death for two of the translocated deer. Forty seven resident deer and 88 translocated deer were alive and accounted for this week.

Thanks to all for continued interest and support.

Please forward to any that are interested.

David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)


No known deaths this week, but they're moving!

Lee (UWC)


----------



## Iron Bear

Thanks for the update.


----------



## swbuckmaster

Thanks


----------



## elkfromabove

I hope this isn't getting too boring, but it's important to see how this transplant works out. I plan on continuing printing it word for word (Edited: except for my misspelled words and some punctuation which I have to correct later with edits, though I "sic" their errors  ), but if you would prefer a shortened version with just the basic data, I'll accommodate your wishes. Just remember that this is a scientific study which needs to be documented with the scientific jargon necessary to print in a thesis, report or article. And also remember that David and Randy and others will continue doing the legwork and hands-on quality procedures and paperwork neccesary to keep this study honest, so I'll continue to remind you of that. In any case, here's the latest:

All,

Mule deer translocation update for March 30th - April 5th 

We had one translocated deer mortality this week. This deer was part of the 2nd translocation and was found 8.75 miles north of its release site, on the west side of the freeway (I-15). The carcass was mostly consumed. It looks to have been fed on by coyotes but the cause of death is unknown.

We are currently missing 3 translocated deer (1 from the January translocation and 2 from the March translocation). Two of these deer were not located on the last flight. The other deer has been located off and on since January.

We've listened for radio signals 3 times since the last update and identified the general location of 47 of 47 resident deer and 89 (sic-88) of 92 (sic-91) translocated deer.

This week, we downloaded data from 2 GPS collars. We now have downloaded data from a total of 22 GPS collars, all of which appear to be working well.

We have continued to carefully (without disturbing them) observe translocated deer. We have now observed 29 different translocated deer. All but one of them has been associated with groups of resident deer. Although time intensive, we will continue these efforts as time permits.

In summary, we've had 14 total mortalities (3 of 50 resident deer, 11 of 102 translocated deer). At least three of the translocated deer mortalities were related to the capture. We suspect poaching as the cause of death for two of the translocated deer. Forty seven resident deer and 89 (sic-88) translocated deer were alive and accounted for this week.

Thanks to all for continued interest and support.

Please forward to any that are interested.

David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)


Thanks again, guys!
Lee Tracy (UWC)


----------



## Iron Bear

I for one really do appreciate the updates. 

And I understand this is an ongoing study and have refrained from making premature assumptions and conclusions. 

Keep them coming there not boring in the least to me.


----------



## Huntoholic

I appreciate the updates and the detail being provided.

Thank you to all for the effort.


----------



## JuddCT

Huntoholic said:


> I appreciate the updates and the detail being provided.
> 
> Thank you to all for the effort.


+1


----------



## martymcfly73

+2


----------



## swbuckmaster

+3


----------



## Iron Bear

+4 :mrgreen: :roll:


----------



## elkfromabove

Another one! 

All,

Mule deer translocation update for April 6th - April 12th.

We had two resident deer mortalities this week. We found one deer near Fillmore that appeared to be a yearling and was mostly consumed. The second mortality was near Holden. This deer was mostly consumed as well, with the carcass being in multiple pieces. The collar was no longer attached to the deer but was found next to part of the carcass.

We are currently missing 3 translocated deer (1 from the January translocation and 2 from the March translocation). These are the same three deer we have been missing for the past couple of weeks.

We've listened for radio signals 2 times since the last update and identified the general location for 45 of 45 resident deer and 88 of 91 translocated deer.

This week, we downloaded data from 2 GPS collars. We have now downloaded data from a total of 24 GPS collars, all of which appear to be working well.

We have continued to carefully (without disturbing them) observe translocated deer. We have now observed 31 different translocated deer. All but one of them has been associated with groups of resident deer. Although time intensive, we will continue these efforts as time permits.

In summary, we've had 16 mortalities (5 of 50 resident deer, 11 of 102 translocated deer). At least three of the translocated deer mortalities were related to the capture. We suspect poaching as the cause of death of two of the translocated deer. Forty five resident deer and 88 translocated deer were alive and accounted for this week.

Thanks to all for continued interest and support.

Please forward to any that are interested.

David Smedley and Randy Larsen


It's unfortunate that the scavengers are so good at dining, but we can probably determine the percentages of predation or accident or poaching or illness at the end of the study based on what we do know. Additionally, there will be more autopsies. In any case, we can get real close.

Lee Tracy (UWC)


----------



## Iron Bear

Have these deer started to move up the Mtn? 

On the snowtel site the Tushars show more snow then Monroe. You can get up to 8000ft on Monroe right now and only 16" at 10,000 ft. 

Personally I'm concerned about scavengers making it harder to determine cause of death. For obvious reasons. And no snow makes it harder still. 

Thanks for the updates.  :O||:


----------



## elkfromabove

Iron Bear said:


> Have these deer started to move up the Mtn?
> 
> On the snowtel site the Tushars show more snow then Monroe. You can get up to 8000ft on Monroe right now and only 16" at 10,000 ft.
> 
> Personally I'm concerned about scavengers making it harder to determine cause of death. For obvious reasons. And no snow makes it harder still.
> 
> Thanks for the updates. :O||:


I'm not sure about them moving up the mountains yet. I do have David's email, so I'll send him a request to let us know more about movements on his next update.

And FWIW, SFW is offering a $5,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the poacher(s). Just call the TIP (Turn in Poachers) hotline at 1-800-662-3337 for ANY information you may know or hear.


----------



## elkfromabove

Iron Bear said:


> Have these deer started to move up the Mtn?
> 
> On the snowtel site the Tushars show more snow then Monroe. You can get up to 8000ft on Monroe right now and only 16" at 10,000 ft.
> 
> Personally I'm concerned about scavengers making it harder to determine cause of death. For obvious reasons. And no snow makes it harder still.
> 
> Thanks for the updates. :O||:


Per David's email reply to my request (see my previous post):

"Sat 4/20/13 3:55 *AM* (He must have the dreadful curse too!)

Lee,

I appreciate your feedback. I will definately include that information as it comes available.
Currently the snow is still too deep to allow any movements East farther then the foothills. I will mention this in one of the next updates.

Dave"


----------



## ridgetop

Thanks for the updates Lee. Very interesting stuff.


----------



## elkfromabove

ridgetop said:


> Thanks for the updates Lee. Very interesting stuff.


I'm trying to upload an update (reply) but the website is too busy (or my d*** computer is playing games games again). I'll try later!


----------



## elkfromabove

elkfromabove said:


> ridgetop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the updates Lee. Very interesting stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm trying to upload an update (reply) but the website is too busy (or my d*** computer is playing games games again). I'll try later!
Click to expand...

Whoopee! Insomnia has its advantages!

I'm sorry for the delay regarding this update. First of all, I must have inadvertently deleted Dave's email, so I had to get it from Giani at the Southern Region DWR Office. Second, this is the 4th attempt to post the update on this forum! Every time I try, it says the website is too busy, but it tells me only after I type the whole thing! This time I just posted the quote and am now editing it. Let's hope that works! (Geez, I hate computers and their cousins almost as much as I hate politics!) Here goes!!!

All,

Mule deer translocation update for April 13th - April 19th

We had one translocated deer mortality this week. This deer was found buried under a tree. Most of the carcass was missing and with the fresh snow, we were unable to identify the predator associated with this mortality.

(2nd edit) We are currently missing 3 translocated deer (1 from the January translocation and 2 from the March translocation). These are the same three deer we have been missing for several weeks now. We will continue to search for them (including during flights).

We've listened for radio signals 2 times since the last update and identified the general location for 45 of 45 resident deer and 87 of 90 translocated deer.

We are starting to see some movement of both resident and translocated deer. We currently have 4 translocated deer near Fillmore (approximately 9 miles south of Holden) and 3 translocated deer near Kanosh (approximately 20 miles south of Holden). We have yet to see much movement east (up the mountain) by either resident or translocated deer, perhaps due to recent heavy snows.

(3rd edit) We have continued to carefully (without disturbing them) observe translocated deer. We have now observed 32 different translocated deer. All but one of them has been associated with groups of resident deer. Although time intensive, we will continue these efforts as time permits.

In summary, we've had 17 total mortalities (5 of 50 resident deer, 12 of 102 translocated deer. At least three of the translocated deer mortalities were related to the capture. We suspect poaching as the cause of death of two of the translocated deer. Forty five resident deer and 87 translocated deer were alive and accounted for this week.

Thanks to all for continued interest and support.

David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)

That was fun! Until next week, 
Lee Tracy (UWC)


----------



## Iron Bear

Thanks for the update.

Looks like my fears may be realized. Buried under a tree? Cant determine predator associated with the kill? I wonder what critter would bury a kill under a tree? Seriously there are only 2 predators that would do that and one of them isn't common in the area where these deer are or is still hibernating. :roll: 

Very disappointing but very predictable. God forbid we get to the bottom of what is killing the most deer. :x 

How many of these deer have died from poor habitat? Or roadkill? o-||


----------



## elkfromabove

Another update! (I better post this one before I have another senior moment and mistakenly delete it!)

All,

Mule deer translocation update for April 20th - April 26th.

We had two translocated deer mortalities this week (1 from the first translocation and 1 from the second translocation). Both deer were found within 2.5 miles of their release sites. Cause of death is unknown as both carcasses were completely consumed when the collars were recovered. Neither carcass had been cached.

We are currently missing 3 translocated deer (1 from the January translocation and 2 from the March translocation). These are the same 3 deer we have been missing for several weeks now. We will continue to search for them (including during monthly flights).

We've listened for radio signals 2 times since the last update and identified the general location for 45 of 45 resident deer and 85 of 88 translocated deer.

We currently have 10 translocated deer near Fillmore (approximately 9 miles south of Holden) and 3 translocated deer near Kanosh (approximately 20 miles south of Holden). We are starting to hear some signals to the east (up the mountain).

We have continued to carefully (without disturbing them) observe translocated deer. We have now observed 34 different translocated deer . All but one of them has been associated with groups of resident deer. Although time intensive, we will continue these efforts as time permits.

We have continued to download GPS collars each week. We have initial downloads for all but 2 of the GPS collars. We will focus on downloading these two collars during the upcoming week in preparation for some preliminary space use and movement analysis.

In summary, we've had 19 total mortalities (5 of 50 resident deer, 14 of 102 translocated deer). At least 3 of the translocated deer mortalities were related to the capture. We suspect poaching as the cause of death for 2 of the translocated deer. Forty five resident deer and 85 translocated deer were alive and accounted for this week.

Thanks to all for continued interest and support.

David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)


With the movement and the upcoming fawning, the next several weeks should be interesting! Stay tuned!
Lee Tracy (UWC)


----------



## elkfromabove

elkfromabove said:


> With the movement and the upcoming fawning, the next several weeks should be interesting! Stay tuned!
> Lee Tracy (UWC)


It is getting interesting! And tougher on Dave and crew.

All,

Mule deer translocation update for April 27th - May 4th

We had one translocated deer mortality this week (from the second translocation). This deer was found partially covered under a tree 5.1 miles northeast of its release site, higher up the mountain than most of our deer have been found previously. Tracks and caching of the carcass suggest mountain lion predation.

We are currently missing 4 translocated deer (2 from the January translocation and 2 from the March translocation). Three of these deer have been missing for several weeks, with one new deer that wasn't heard this week. These deer will be the focus of telemetry flights this month.

We've listened for radio signals 3 times since the last update and identified the general location for 45 of 45 resident deer and 83 of 87 translocated deer.

We currently have 11 translocated deer near Fillmore (approximately 9 miles south of Holden) and 2 translocated deer near Kanosh (approximately 20 miles south of Holden). We have 2 deer that can only be heard on hwy 50, about 8 miles south of Scipio (Hwy 50 runs between Scipio and Salina). The snow receded enough to allow these deer to move over the top of the mountain slightly northeast of where they were released.

We have continued to carefully (without disturbing them) observe translocated deer. We have now observed 38 different translocated deer. All but one of them has been associated with groups of resident deer. Although time intensive, we will continue these efforts as time permits.

We have continued to download GPS collars each week. We have intitial downloads for all but 1 of the GPS collars, all of which appear to be working well (thanks Kent!).

In summary, we've had 20 total mortalities (5 of 50 resident deer, 15 of 102 translocated deer). At least 3 of the translocated deer mortalities were related to the capture. We suspect poaching as the cause of death for 2 of the translocated deer. Forty five resident deer and 83 translocated deer were alive and accounted for this week.

Thanks to all for continued interest and support.

David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)

The plot thickens! 
Lee Tracy (UWC)

FWIW, I'm not sure I like this new forum format. Some of the lines and letters on this post are cropped, shrunk, half bolded, etc. as I type them. Let's hope they don't end up that way on the final.

Edited: I just found out that David will be giving an update on this project and the Monroe doe/fawn/coyote project at the Southern RAC this Tuesday in Richfield at 7:00pm. I imagine he'll be willing to answer some questions if you are interested.


----------



## elkfromabove

elkfromabove said:


> It is getting interesting! And tougher on Dave and crew.
> 
> The plot thickens!
> Lee Tracy (UWC)
> 
> Edited: I just found out that David will be giving an update on this project and the Monroe doe/fawn/coyote project at the Southern RAC this Tuesday in Richfield at 7:00pm. I imagine he'll be willing to answer some questions if you are interested.


Here's the latest.

All,

Mule deer translocation update for May 5th - May 11th.

We have no additional mortalities to report this week.

We were able to locate one of the deer (alive) that has been missing for the last few weeks. With the location of this deer, we are now missing 3 translocated deer. We will focus on locating these deer on our upcoming flight.

We've listened for radio signals 3 times since the last update and identified the general location for 45 of 45 resident deer and 84 of 87 translocated deer.

We have a flight scheduled for the beginning of next week. During the flight we will focus on locating missing deer, downloading locations from GPS collars and getting GPS cooordinates for deer that have moved the furthest from their release sites.

In summary, we've had 20 total mortalities (5 of 50 resident deer, 15 of 102 translocated deer). At least 3 of the translocated deer mortalities were related to the capture. We suspect poaching as the cause of death for 2 of the translocated deer. Forty five resident deer and 84 translocated deer were alive and accounted for this week.

Thanks to all for continued interest and support.

David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)

It is getting interesting and the plot is thickening alright, but not in the way I/we expected. It's still way too early to draw any conclusions, but the pattern is definately not what we have been lead to believe about past studies. I'm not sure if past studies were much more casual or less scientific or if there just weren't enough of them done to reach a proper conclusion or if this study is so different/advanced that we are now finding ways to reduce the deer mortaltities, but I'm liking the results so far! (The cost may be another issue, but if we do a future transplant without the study, the cost is cut in half, at least!)

On another note (sorta), the two presentations at the Southern RAC were excellent! These guys know what they're doing! Dr. Randy, not David, did the translocation presentation and not only brought us up to date, but gave us further insight into the planning that went before it. For instance, the Pahvant was chosen because it not only could use the additional deer, but it has the same basic vegetation as the Parowan Front (Wyoming sagebrush, bitterbrush, agriculture, etc.), the same geographic orientation (mountains to the east, freeway to the west, towns in the valley, etc.) and similar elevation (500 foot difference).

The other presentation on the Monroe doe/fawn/coyote study was made by Dr. Brock McMillan (BYU). We were given details about how the vaginal implants work, why the crew waits 4 to 6 hours before they start their search/collaring.(It gives the doe and fawns time to fully bond/nurse/smell, so the doe doesn't abandon the fawns after they've been handled by humans.), why they capture at 4 different locations (pre-study coyote removal vs. non-removal switching every other year, different migration patterns, etc.), the testing/weighing/collaring of the fawns, the collaring of the coyotes, etc. It was very interesting to watch. And we (the TWO public members of the audience) did get to ask questions, which we did. In fact, it was so interesting that the RAC decided to make these kinds of presentations at nearly every RAC meeting, especially when the agenda is light and less controversial. They're going to try to schedule someone from the USU coyote study next. I hope this catches on!

In any case, it's now time for you/us to help out! No, they don't need your money this time, they need your body! From June 5th to June 20th, they need people to locate and handle all the fawns that hit the ground on the Monroe study. The median fawning date is June 13th, but the window is a week on either side and those fawns drop quickly when it's time! Call the Southern Region DWR office for details (435-865-6100).

Until next time,
Lee Tracy (UWC)

PS, Good luck in the draws!


----------



## elkfromabove

elkfromabove said:


> The other presentation on the Monroe doe/fawn/coyote study was made by Dr. Brock McMillan (BYU). We were given details about how the vaginal implants work, why the crew waits 4 to 6 hours before they start their search/collaring.(It gives the doe and fawns time to fully bond/nurse/smell, so the doe doesn't abandon the fawns after they've been handled by humans.), why they capture at 4 different locations (pre-study coyote removal vs. non-removal switching every other year, different migration patterns, etc.), the testing/weighing/collaring of the fawns, the collaring of the coyotes, etc. It was very interesting to watch. And we (the TWO public members of the audience) did get to ask questions, which we did. In fact, it was so interesting that the RAC decided to make these kinds of presentations at nearly every RAC meeting, especially when the agenda is light and less controversial. They're going to try to schedule someone from the USU coyote study next. I hope this catches on!
> 
> In any case, it's now time for you/us to help out! No, they don't need your money this time, they need your body! From June 5th to June 20th, they need people to locate and handle all the fawns that hit the ground on the Monroe study. The median fawning date is June 13th, but the window is a week on either side and those fawns drop quickly when it's time! Call the Southern Region DWR office for details (435-865-6100).
> 
> Until next time,
> Lee Tracy (UWC)
> 
> PS, Good luck in the draws!


The latest!

All,

Mule deer translocation update for May 12th - May18th.

We had 4 translocated deer mortalities this week (2 from the 1st translocation, 2 from the 2nd translocation). One deer appears to have been hit by a vehicle as it was found in the median along I-15 near Holden. We also found another translocated deer near Highway 50 that is currently at the Utah Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory in Nephi for a necropsy. This deer did not show obvious signs of a vehicle collision, but was found near the highway. The third deer was killed by a cougar. The fourth deer died from unknown causes. This deer was found with a large open wound on her right front shoulder. We also discovered that she was carrying triplets, although one of the fetuses was not well developed and likely would not have been viable.

In addition, we found 1 translocated deer collar that appeared to have malfunctioned and fallen off.

During a flight on Tuesday, we located one of the deer (alive) that has been missing for the last few weeks. This deer was found near Manderfield (approximately 50 miles south of where it was released). We are currently missing 3 (sic, 4) translocated deer that we will continue to search for from the ground and during upcoming flights.

We've listened for radio signals 3 times since the last update and identified the general location of 45 of 45 resident deer and 80 of 83 (sic, 84) translocated deer.

We have noticed a lot of movement by both resident deer and translocated deer this week. We have deer on the west and east sides of the Pahvant as well as on top.

In summary, we've had 23 total mortalities (5 of 50 resident deer, 18 of 102 translocated deer) and 1 slipped collar. At least 3 of the translocated deer mortalities were related to the capture. We suspect poaching as the cause of death for 2 of the translocated deer. Forty five resident deer and 80 translocated deer were alive and accounted for this week

Thanks to all for continued interest and support.

David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)

I'll let the update speak for itself!

Don't forget the request for help on the other study!

Lee Tracy (UWC)


----------



## elkfromabove

elkfromabove said:


> I'll let the update speak for itself!
> 
> Don't forget the request for help on the other study!
> 
> Lee Tracy (UWC)


Another one! I said it should get interesting and it has!

All,

Mule deer translocation update for May 19th - May 25th

We had 3 translocated deer mortalities this week (1 from the 1st translocation and 2 from the 2nd translocation). All three of these deer were found on winter range between Holden and Fillmore. They were mostly consumed and patially torn apart (not cached) when we retrieved the collars, leaving little to determine cause of death.

Both resident deer and translocated deer have continued to move this week. We have deer on the west and east sides of the Pahvant from Scipio to Beaver. The majority of translocated deer are between Kanosh and Scipio. The majority of resident deer are between Fillmore and Scipio (both west and east sides of the Pahvant), although we have one resident deer south of I-70.

During our flight on Tuesday we located one of the deer that has been missing for the last couple of months. The deer was located just south of Beaver, but west of I-15. We now have deer as far as 18 miles northeast of the release sites and approximately 70 miles south of the release sites. We expect movements to settle down in the next couple of weeks as deer enter summer patterns.

We are currently missing 5 translocated deer that we will continue to search for from the ground and during upcoming flights.

Since the last update we have identified the general locations for 45 of 45 resident deer and 75 of 80 translocated deer.

In summary, we've had 26 total mortalities (5 of 50 resident deer, 21 of 102 translocated deer) and 1 slipped collar. Forty five resident deer and 75 translocated deer were alive and accounted for this week.

Thanks to all for continued interest and support.

David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)

Until next week,
Lee Tracy (UWC)


----------



## elkfromabove

It's getting harder to find this thread each week and there's some intensive discussions going on in this sub-forum, so I'll only interupt you for a couple of minutes with this update. It'll give you a break! Lee

All,

Mule deer translocation update for May 26 - June 1

We had 1 translocated deer mortality this week (1st translocation). We suspect this deer was killed by a vehicle collision as it was found between the north and south lanes of I-15 near Kanosh.

There has been a little more movement south by a number of translocated deer, but many appear to be settling down and moving less after 2 very active weeks. The majority of deer are located between Scipio and I-70 with many on top of the Pahvant Range.

We are currently missing 6 translocated deer and 1 resident deer. Two of the translocated deer have been for missing several months. We have a general idea where some of the other missing deer are and should be able to locate them during our flight at the beginning of next week.

Since the last update we have identified the general location for 44 of 45 resident deer and 72 of 78 translocated deer.

In summary, we've had 28 total mortalities (5 of 50 resident deer and 23 of 102 translocated deer) and 1 slipped collar. We have had 11 mortalities from the first translocation and 12 mortalities from the second translocation. Forty four resident deer and 72 translocated deer were alive and accounted for this week.

Thanks to all for continued interest and support.

David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)


We should begin to see some fawning activity this coming week and next. We'll see how that pans out. There aren't any vaginal implants on this translocation study to tell when the fawns are dropped, but the ground observations should tell us more.

And as a reminder, Brock (McMillan) could use some help on the Monroe doe/fawn/coyote study where the vaginal implants will tell us when and where the fawns are dropped. If you live close to the area and/or have some time to spare in the next couple of weeks and would like to participate in the locating and processing of the newborn fawns, call the Southern Region DWR office at 435-865-6100.

Until next week, carry on!
Lee Tracy (UWC)


----------



## Lonetree

Lee, Thanks! I always enjoy the updates for this cluster **** circus they call research.


----------



## elkfromabove

Lonetree said:


> Lee, Thanks! I always enjoy the updates for this cluster **** circus they call research.


And now, ladies and gentlemen, for your entertainment, in ring 3 we give you;

All,

Mule deer translocation update for June 2-June 8

We hade 2 translocated deer mortalities this week (1st and 2nd translocations). We suspect one of these deer to be a cougar predation as it was found partially cached (approximately 26 miles south of its release site). The other deer was found in heavy pines on the east side of the Pahvant (approximately 15 miles southeast of its release site). There was no evidence of cause of death as the deer was found completely consumed and not cached.

We are currently missing 5 translocated deer. One of the translocated deer was last located near Beaver, 2 were last located on the east side of the Pahvant, and the other 2 have been missing for several months.

We currently have 3 deer south of I-70 and 2 deer east of Highway 50. The remaining deer are between Scipio and I-70.

We downloaded 1 GPS collar this week and got a visual on 1 translocated deer. This deer was alone.

Since the last update we have identified the general location for 45 of 45 resident deer and 71 of 76 translocated deer.

In summary, we've had 30 mortalities (5 of 50 resident deer, 25 of 102 translocated deer and 1 slipped collar. We have had 12 mortalities from the first translocation and 13 mortalities from the second translocation. Forty four resident deer and 71 translocated deer were alive and accounted for this week.

Thanks to all for continued interest and support.

David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)

More to come!
Lee Tracy (UWC)


----------



## elkfromabove

Not much to report this time!

All, 

Mule deer translocation update for June 9 - June 15.

We have no additional mortalaities to report this week.

We are currently missing 4 translocated deer. Two of these deer have been missing for several months.

Since the last update we have identified the general location fro 45 of 45 resident deer and 72 of 76 translocated deer.

In summary, we've had 30 total mortalities (5 of 50 resident deer, 25 of 102 translocated deer) and 1 slipped collar. Forty five resident deer and 72 translocated deer were accounted for this week.

Thanks to all for continued interest and support.
David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)


Personally I think it's interesting to see what ISN"T happening!
Until next week,
Lee Tracy, (UWC)


----------



## Lonetree

There are several things that are not happening. What sticks out to you?


----------



## elkfromabove

Lonetree said:


> There are several things that are not happening. What sticks out to you?


Primarily, two things! The number of deaths is much lower than we've been told about in other studies and the scattering is also not what we've seen in studies of the past. There are some other things as well (integration, adjustment to changed diet, capture myopathy and homing instinct, among others), but the relatively low death rate and the low numbers of deer that scattered far is surprising. Of course, we're still early in the study and the death rate of the translocated deer (24.5%) compared to the resident deer (10%) is obvious, and we aren't given all of the aspects of the study, so we still can't draw our final conclusions, but this will be a significant experiment that may result in a change in mule deer population management tactics.

We know you have other views regarding the cause of the mule deer decline and it's entirely possible that this may validate some of those views or, at least, shed some new light. In any case, it's about as close as we can get to actually doing a study based on known biology without the politics that clouds our view of wildlife management. Those deer are going to do what they are going to do regardless of our current views of transplants. And, since I and UWC have a stake in this study, we, among others, are anxious to see how this plays out.


----------



## Lonetree

elkfromabove said:


> Primarily, two things! The number of deaths is much lower than we've been told about in other studies and the scattering is also not what we've seen in studies of the past. There are some other things as well (integration, adjustment to changed diet, capture myopathy and homing instinct, among others), but the relatively low death rate and the low numbers of deer that scattered far is surprising. Of course, we're still early in the study and the death rate of the translocated deer (24.5%) compared to the resident deer (10%) is obvious, and we aren't given all of the aspects of the study, so we still can't draw our final conclusions, but this will be a significant experiment that may result in a change in mule deer population management tactics.
> 
> We know you have other views regarding the cause of the mule deer decline and it's entirely possible that this may validate some of those views or, at least, shed some new light. In any case, it's about as close as we can get to actually doing a study based on known biology without the politics that clouds our view of wildlife management. Those deer are going to do what they are going to do regardless of our current views of transplants. And, since I and UWC have a stake in this study, we, among others, are anxious to see how this plays out.


I am not surprised at the mortality rate(still not a success), adjustment, integration, diet change, or lack of homing. The deer came through 2012 in excellent physical condition, with the population trending up, after holding for years. So one would expect a degree of success here. Healthy deer are not going to die at really high rates, and these deer were moved to an area that had very similar habitat and forage. So if they are getting everything they need, then there is no need to head home, and prior health should continue as conditions allow. Healthy deer handle stress well, so it should not be too much of a surprise, if these deer integrate, and adjust well either. I am attributing most of this, to the deer's over all health. What are you attributing these things to? What is driving the data, relative to past studies?

I remember running some of "my" theories past a scientist in Montana two years ago. He studies water quality, and knows nothing about mule deer. I did this purposefully to see if he would grasp the concept, which he did. He even had some back ground information on water years. He kept telling me over and over again the importance of having a control population for any study that was devised, or to shoot for provability, if enough data already existed. In other words, a study needs to demonstrate it produces different results, from a group or scenario, where nothing is done, relative to your study group where you alter, or introduce something, to induce a change. In the absence of a control, or to prove repeatability of a prior result, you go straight to a scenario, where you look to repeat, and support, a prior result. This study, currently looks better, relative, to past studies, but why. And if it is deemed a success, can you reproduce it? Why has it failed repeatedly in the past? What is different now, and can that be reproduced, or even identified?

Others have expressed concern about the rate of capture myopathy, but that was with very little information regarding the details of those deaths. I did have one researcher tell me that it would be expected, even in healthy deer, if sub-clinical conditions existed in the recent past. Depending on age, etc. parts of a healthy population would still be predisposed, based on prior condition.

This study does not change anything. Conduct this same study while deer are in a declining trend, and see what happens. The deer will continue to decline, and your results will look very typical of past efforts. And it is in these times of decline, that you would be most likely to look to translocation as a tool. I don't need to collect $100,000 from "fees", to then propose and conduct, a study to demonstrate this.

This does not play into the overall viability of mule deer. Or give us any "tactical" tools for managing mule deer. The limiting factor for mule deer, is an ecological one. It is not a lack of translocations, It is not predation, it is not fire suppression, it is not because we need antler restrictions, it is not because we have too many elk(even though we do), it is not because the does are not getting bred during the first estrus cycle, it is not because they are all getting hit on the freeway, it is not because we have reduced grazing, it is not because we have too much grazing, it is not because the number of hunters afield in 2010 was too high, it is not because of statewide archery, it is not because of the price of rice in China, well... actually that one might have some validity.

There are many people far smarter than I, that agree with what I have been preaching. Guys with titles that have the word nuclear in them, that have been looking at this longer than I have. So are we going to transplant mule deer from Kansas, to Montana, the next time the deer suffer from an EHD die off? Are we going to translocate mule deer from Bountiful, to Washington state to boost the deer numbers there?

This does not move the conversation on mule deer further, yes it is valid biological science, regardless of what I think about it, but what does that gain us? There is no silver bullet to mule deer declines, and there may well be no way of reversing the damage done. But if we don't start challenging some long held, and unproven notions about mule deer, and look into the actual causes of mule deer declines, then yes, there is nothing that can be done about it. There is not even a chance to alter our course, and use our understanding to try to cope with current conditions. We will be left to just chase our proverbial tails nowhere. All the while claiming to be doing "something". While wasting a lot of resources in the process.


----------



## Fishrmn

10 percent of the resident deer have died. And 25 percent of the transplanted deer have died. 4 more translocated deer aren't accounted for. We haven't seen the results of birthing mortality yet. And we're months away from finding out if the translocated deer can figure out when and where to find winter range. I wouldn't be calling this a success story yet.


----------



## HunterGeek

This is an interesting study, and my thanks to those involved and reporting it. I look forward to the reports!

Despite the data it provides, I've got to agree with both Fishrmn and Lonetree. The real story will be told a year from now when the translocated deer have been forced to spend the most difficult season -- the winter -- in unfamiliar territory. Personally, I don't see a 25 percent survival rate this far along as being especially promising, but we'll see.

However, whether it's 25 percent, 50 percent, 75 percent or 100 percent of the deer that live and successfully produce fawns in the coming years, it makes little practical difference. The study will produce great data that will influence select future management decisions, but moving large numbers of deer from here to there under the most optimistic survival expectations just isn't economical and, consequently, won't be done except in rare, special circumstances.

Transplants and translocations of various animal species have been useful to establish successful seed populations in areas where conditions allowed those seed populations to expand, but despite the fact that we have fewer mule deer today than 30 or 40 years ago, we still have many thousands of them in the state. Spending hundreds or thousands of dollars apiece moving deer from one place to the next just isn't economically viable on anything approaching a large scale.

There is some factor or, likely, a combination of factors that all add up to the deer decline. The solution lies in figuring out and remedying that problem, because if we don't, it makes little difference how many deer we move from here to there -- the problem remains the same. It's a good study and returning good data, but for those expecting anything approaching a meaningful solution to the deer problem, this isn't it — no matter what the study results ultimately show.


----------



## elkfromabove

Whatever the outcome at the release site, let's remember that this transplant study was done for the primary purpose of removing some does from overused winter range, as opposed to shooting the total number needed, and was not for the purpose of supplimenting the herd at the release site. It turned out to be a compromise between SFW and the DWR, UWC, and BLM, with the BYU graduate students/professors conducting the processing and monitoring. And also remember that this is a 3 year study and that SFW is funding it from funds other than Conservation permit funds. These were the conditions agreed upon and any future management decisions resulting from this study will take that into account. No, this isn't anything near the ultimate solution, but whatever we learn, positive or negative, will help us.


----------



## Lonetree

Conservation tags?, or convention tags? 

I did not see the resource depletion, so I can not make any definitive comments on it. Are there any before after photos of the habitat degradation?

And, is there any study on the affects of the area where the deer were removed?


----------



## elkfromabove

Lonetree said:


> Conservation tags?, or convention tags?
> 
> I did not see the resource depletion, so I can not make any definitive comments on it. Are there any before after photos of the habitat degradation?
> 
> And, is there any study on the affects of the area where the deer were removed?


Conservation/auction tags only! As you may be aware, the Convention tag application fees have no strings attached, at least not yet. (That decision has been put on hold until the current Convention contract expires in 2016.) But we (UWC & DWR) made it clear that the funds were NOT to come from the committed 90% of any Conservation tag funds, nor were they to come from any DWR funds. I guess the DWR staff involved in the initial captures were paid salaries from DWR, but the contract with DragonFly Aviation and the ongoing study expenses are being paid for by SFW's membership fees and/or general fundraising and/or BYU grants.

I'm not aware of any pictures before and after, but there are at least 2 exclosures (one that keeps domestic cattle out, but allows wildlife in, including deer and elk, and another that also keeps most wildlife out, including rabbits. The degradation/differences are very obvious on each side of the fences around both exclosures, even with the encroachment of cheatgrass in the exclosures. Of course those exclosures only show long term damage, not year to year damage, but that's what the doe hunts versus transplants was all about.

As far as a specific study going on on the Parowan Front, that's been an ongoing study for many years. Whether or not it has changed or will change isn't something I'm privy to, but the BLM, the DWR and the NRCS have been working on the problem also for many years, even before I-15 was built. P & J encroachment, agriculture expansion, cheatgrass, grazing allotments, housing development and weather have been ongoing, changing concerns for a long time. Additionally, that 25 mile valley is in a unique weather bubble. It rains, blows, snows or hails (or not) regardless of what's going on in Cedar City or Beaver. In fact, Cedar City weather reports don't even reflect our weather in Enoch which is only 6 miles further north and closer to Parowan. I can't tell you how many times I would drive home from my job as a custodian at Cedar High School into a completely different weather world.

I'll tell you what I'll do! I'll try to learn more details about the study(ies) and report what I learn on this thread. I'll also pass along any logical suggestions you or others may have, though I can't speak for any participants regarding the soundness of implimenting your suggestions(except UWC if I get permission). And I'll keep doing my assignment of posting the updates!


----------



## Lonetree

elkfromabove said:


> Conservation/auction tags only! As you may be aware, the Convention tag application fees have no strings attached, at least not yet. (That decision has been put on hold until the current Convention contract expires in 2016.) But we (UWC & DWR) made it clear that the funds were NOT to come from the committed 90% of any Conservation tag funds, nor were they to come from any DWR funds. I guess the DWR staff involved in the initial captures were paid salaries from DWR, but the contract with DragonFly Aviation and the ongoing study expenses are being paid for by SFW's membership fees and/or general fundraising and/or BYU grants.
> 
> I'm not aware of any pictures before and after, but there are at least 2 exclosures (one that keeps domestic cattle out, but allows wildlife in, including deer and elk, and another that also keeps most wildlife out, including rabbits. The degradation/differences are very obvious on each side of the fences around both exclosures, even with the encroachment of cheatgrass in the exclosures. Of course those exclosures only show long term damage, not year to year damage, but that's what the doe hunts versus transplants was all about.
> 
> As far as a specific study going on on the Parowan Front, that's been an ongoing study for many years. Whether or not it has changed or will change isn't something I'm privy to, but the BLM, the DWR and the NRCS have been working on the problem also for many years, even before I-15 was built. P & J encroachment, agriculture expansion, cheatgrass, grazing allotments, housing development and weather have been ongoing, changing concerns for a long time. Additionally, that 25 mile valley is in a unique weather bubble. It rains, blows, snows or hails (or not) regardless of what's going on in Cedar City or Beaver. In fact, Cedar City weather reports don't even reflect our weather in Enoch which is only 6 miles further north and closer to Parowan. I can't tell you how many times I would drive home from my job as a custodian at Cedar High School into a completely different weather world.
> 
> I'll tell you what I'll do! I'll try to learn more details about the study(ies) and report what I learn on this thread. I'll also pass along any logical suggestions you or others may have, though I can't speak for any participants regarding the soundness of implimenting your suggestions(except UWC if I get permission). And I'll keep doing my assignment of posting the updates!


Thanks, for all the info. And thanks for offering to report more.


----------



## elkfromabove

Lonetree said:


> Thanks, for all the info. And thanks for offering to report more.


You're welcome!

This latest update was delayed because it was the first sent by Randy, not Dave, and it came a couple of days later and because it contained a kmz attachment that I couldn't access until I got help from our UWC Southern ViceChair (Shawn, aka klbzdad). In any case, I'm not going to include it in this update, but will forward Randy's full e-mail to any of you who request it via e-mail to me ([email protected]). When I get better at this computer thing, I'll figure all this stuff out (or not). In the meanwhile, you'll still be getting the basics!

Here it is;

All,

David has been in the field most of last week and is there today - thus the update from me covering June 16 - June 22.

We had two translocated deer mortalities this week (first and second translocations). One of these deer was found east of Holden and the other deer was found south of Elsinore. Both appeared to be cougar kills as they were cached and found near drag marks.

By way of summary, the attached kmz file shows the spatial location of all mortalities to date. (Note from Lee. He then talks about the attachment)

We received results from the lab on a translocated deer we submitted for necropsy last month. The lab diagnosed this deer with hemoglobinuric nephrosis and liver failure, though we were unable to isolate the cause behind this condition. Potential causes include a couple of common bacterial diseases.

We are currently missing 6 translocated deer. Three of these deer have not been heard from the ground or air for more than 1 month. The majority of translocated deer, however, seem to be settling into high-elevation summering areas on the Pahvant and are found in the same area each week.

In summary, we've had 32 total mortalities (5 of 50 resident deer, 27 of 102 translocated deer) and 1 slipped collar. Forty five resident deer and 68 translocated deer were alive and accounted for this week.

Over the next several weeks we will be very busy assessing reproductive output (number of fawns) for residential and translocated deer. Assessment of reproductive output will be the next big piece of information for this project.

Thanks to all for continued interest and support.

David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)

(Randy Larsen, PhD and Assistant Curator of Birds @ Wildlife and Wildlands Conservation Program @ Department of Plant and Wildlife Sciences, BYU.)

Until next week!
Lee Tracy (UWC)

Edited: Hemoglobinuric nephrosis = blood related kidney condition/disease, aka blue kidney.


----------



## elkfromabove

The latest;

All,

Mule deer translocation update for June 23 - June 29.

We had 3 translocated deer mortalities this week (all from the second translocation). These deer were found between 7 and 14 kilometers (4-1/3 and 8-2/3 miles) from their release sites. There was very little evidence remaining (in part due to the heat) to determine cause of death.

We are currently missing 7 translocated deer. Three of these deer have not been heard from the ground or air for more than 1 month. While most of the translocated deer appear to have settled, we have a small number that continue to move.

We have begun the process of observing both translocated and resident deer to document reproductive output. We observed several deer this week, but did not see fawns with any resident or translocated deer although terrain and cover made for reduced visibility. We suspect deer are hiding fawns as we approach and anticipate easier detection of fawns over the coming weeks as they get older. These efforts will be the focus of the coming weeks.

In summary, we've had 35 total mortalities (5 of 50 resident deer, 30 of 102 translocated deer) and 1 slipped collar. Forty five resident deer and 63 translocated deer were alive and accounted for this week.

Thanks to all for continued interest and support.

David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)


Many thanks to David and Randy and crew members for hanging in there regardless of the weather. Next week!
Lee Tracy (UWC)

Edited; Keep in mind that there were 2 known poached deer (1 resident and 1 translocated) that were killed (small caliber) near the release sites the week of March 9th-15th and SFW is offering a $5,000 reward for the arrest and conviction of the culprit(s). Call the DWR UTip poaching hotline 1-800-662-3337 if you have any information.


----------



## Fishrmn

90% of the resident deer are alive and accounted for. They were trapped, collared and released. Only 63% of the translocated deer are accounted for. They were trapped, collared, transported and released. We're 6 months into the study.


----------



## Lonetree

elkfromabove said:


> You're welcome!
> 
> This latest update was delayed because it was the first sent by Randy, not Dave, and it came a couple of days later and because it contained a kmz attachment that I couldn't access until I got help from our UWC Southern ViceChair (Shawn, aka klbzdad). In any case, I'm not going to include it in this update, but will forward Randy's full e-mail to any of you who request it via e-mail to me ([email protected]). When I get better at this computer thing, I'll figure all this stuff out (or not). In the meanwhile, you'll still be getting the basics!
> 
> Here it is;
> 
> All,
> 
> David has been in the field most of last week and is there today - thus the update from me covering June 16 - June 22.
> 
> We had two translocated deer mortalities this week (first and second translocations). One of these deer was found east of Holden and the other deer was found south of Elsinore. Both appeared to be cougar kills as they were cached and found near drag marks.
> 
> By way of summary, the attached kmz file shows the spatial location of all mortalities to date. (Note from Lee. He then talks about the attachment)
> 
> We received results from the lab on a translocated deer we submitted for necropsy last month. The lab diagnosed this deer with hemoglobinuric nephrosis and liver failure, though we were unable to isolate the cause behind this condition. Potential causes include a couple of common bacterial diseases.
> 
> We are currently missing 6 translocated deer. Three of these deer have not been heard from the ground or air for more than 1 month. The majority of translocated deer, however, seem to be settling into high-elevation summering areas on the Pahvant and are found in the same area each week.
> 
> In summary, we've had 32 total mortalities (5 of 50 resident deer, 27 of 102 translocated deer) and 1 slipped collar. Forty five resident deer and 68 translocated deer were alive and accounted for this week.
> 
> Over the next several weeks we will be very busy assessing reproductive output (number of fawns) for residential and translocated deer. Assessment of reproductive output will be the next big piece of information for this project.
> 
> Thanks to all for continued interest and support.
> 
> David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)
> 
> (Randy Larsen, PhD and Assistant Curator of Birds @ Wildlife and Wildlands Conservation Program @ Department of Plant and Wildlife Sciences, BYU.)
> 
> Until next week!
> Lee Tracy (UWC)
> 
> Edited: Hemoglobinuric nephrosis = blood related kidney condition/disease, aka blue kidney.


"An experiment was conducted to study the effects of feeding a 96.8% cull pea basal ration, low in selenium (0.061 ppm) and vitamin E (7.0 IU alpha-tocopherol/kg of ration), to growing pigs with and without supplementation of selenium, vitamin E, or both. The basal ration was high in crude protein (25.2%) and contained no supplemented fat. Nine of 10 pigs fed the unsupplemented basal ration had lesions attributed to selenium-vitamin E deficiency, and 8 of these pigs died during the 160-day experiment. The deficiency was usually characterized by sudden death (with no prior signs of illness), massive hepatic necrosis, hemoglobinuric and to a lesser extent cholemic nephrosis, degenerative myopathy of cardiac and skeletal muscles, edema, icterus, and acute terminal congestion and hemorrhage. Clinical signs, deaths, or lesions attributed to selenium-vitamin E deficiency were not observed in any of the pigs fed the basal ration supplemented with as little as 0.01 ppm selenium as sodium selenite or 100 ppm alpha-tocopherol. Pigs fed the unsupplemented basal ration gained more slowly (P less than 0.01) and less efficiently and had higher serum glutamic oxalacetic transaminase (SGOT) levels (P less than 0.01) than pigs fed the basal ration supplemented with selenium, vitamin E, or both. There was no difference (P greater than 0.05) in albumin-to-globulin (A/G) ratios among dietary treatment groups. Using the criteria of this study, the minimum selenium requirement of growing pigs fed a low tocopherol cull pea diet was determined to be between 0.06 and 0.07 ppm."

hemoglobinuric nephrosis occurs in cattle and sheep, and is found in the same areas as liver flukes. Liver flukes have shown up in high proportions, as much as a third or more of animals, in areas where post 1984 moose declines are occurring. This has also been observed in moose, in June, in Norway, in 1995/1996. This can be caused by hepatotoxins, as well as other diseases.

Reduced glutathione function, and those things that cause reduced function, can increase occurrence.


----------



## elkfromabove

From: Randy Larsen
Sent: Wed 7/10/13 1:27 PM

All,

David has been in the field almost continually for the past few weeks.

Mule deer translocation update for June 30 - July 6.

We had 1 translocated deer mortality this week (first translocation). This deer was found west of Junction and south of its release site. There was very little evidence remaining (in part due to the heat) to determine cause of death. We also had 2 collars detach prematurely this week (1 resident, 1 translocated).

We are currently missing 6 translocated deer. Three of these deer have not been heard from the ground or air for more than 1 month.

We observed several deer this week looking for fawns, but did not see fawns with any resident or translocated deer. Several of the deer acted as if they had hidden fawns and we did stumble upon 2 fawns within 150 yards of a resident deer after seeing the doe. It appears the females are still hiding fawns rather than allowing them to follow as we approach. Terrain and heavy cover make seeing the deer difficult and time consuming. Nonetheless, these efforts will continue to be the focus of the coming weeks and we expect fawns to be more readily observed as they get older.

Large thunderstorms arrived during the afternoon of several days leaving substantial rain (even some hail).

In summary, we've had 36 total mortalities (5 of 50 resident deer, 31 of 102 translocated deer) and 3 slipped collars (1 resident, 2 translocated). Forty four resident deer and 63 translocated deer were alive and accounted for this week.

Thanks to all for continued interest and support.

David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)


Please be patient, folks! It's getting tougher for them to find time (and energy) for updates.
Lee Tracy (UWC)


----------



## elkfromabove

elkfromabove said:


> Please be patient, folks! It's getting tougher for them to find time (and energy) for updates.
> Lee Tracy (UWC)


From: David Smedley
Sent: Mon 7/22/13 4:13 PM

Mule deer translocation update for July 7 - July 20

We've had 2 translocated deer mortalities in the last 2 weeks. We picked 1 collar up July 11, approximately 2 miles south of its release site. We were unable to find a carcass to determine cause of death, though there were teeth marks in the collar (leather strap) and antenna. We also found part of a leg bone nearby. We picked up the other collar July 18, 6.8 miles south of its release site. This deer had been missing for several weeks and for the most of the past few months the radio has been very intermittent with a weak signal. We were unable to determine cause of death as the deer was completely consumed.

We are currently missing 8 translocated deer and 1 resident deer. Three of these deer have not been heard from the ground or air for more than 1 month. We hope to locate these missing deer this week or next on a flight.

We downloaded several GPS collars over the last couple of weeks. The files show the movements of 1 resident deer and 1 translocated deer from March - June and the translocated deer has demonstrated much more movement during May and June than the resident deer. We will continue to download collars and compare differences in movement, but a general pattern of increased movement for many of the translocated deer during May and June appears evident.

We documented the first evidence of reproduction for the translocated deer this past week and observed a single fawn with one of the translocated deer on the north end of the Pahvant Range. This fawn was good size suggesting birth sometime near mid June. Observing fawns with females (both resident and translocated deer) has been challenging due to the steep terrain and thick cover many of the deer are located in. Females appear to be hiding fawns for much of the day as they are not trailing behind them consistently. As an example, we unsuccessfully attempted to observe fawns with this female on five different occasions prior to the successful observation last week. As the fawns get older, it will be easier to observe them and we expect much more information on reproduction for both resident (control group) and translocated deer over the next several weeks.

In summary, we've had 38 total mortalities (5 of 50 resident deer, 33 of 102 translocated deer) and 3 slipped collars (1 resident, 2 translocated). Forty three resident deer and 59 translocated deer were alive and accounted for this week.

Thanks to all for continued interest and support.

David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)

Until next time!
Lee Tracy (UWC)

FWIW, I asked the biologists at the Southern Region DWR office about the testing of the samples taken at the capture site and was informed that the snipet of tissue taken from the vaginal area was for CWD and pregnancy while the blood sample was tested for minerals (including selenium, copper and iron), diseases and white cell count. There were no unusual results from the tests.


----------



## elkfromabove

We're getting pushed clear to Page 4, but we'll continue updating!

From David Smedley, Mon 8/05/13 9:46 AM

Mule deer translocation update for July 21-August 3.

We had two translocated deer mortalities (second translocation) since the last update, both of which were found this week less than 3 miles from their release areas. We were unable to determine cause of death as both carcasses were mostly consumed.

Despite a regularly scheduled flight, we are currently missing 7 translocated deer. These deer are unlikely to be on the Pahvant. We will continue to search for missing deer from the ground and on upcoming flights.

We've spent considerable time observing females during the past few weeks and have very carefully obtained visuals on 9 deer (4 resident deer and 5 translocated deer). Three resident deer had at least 1 fawn and 1 resident was not observed with any fawns. Two translocated deer had at least 1 fawn with 3 translocated deer observed without fawns. Terrain and cover have made visuals difficult and time consuming and we suspect females are still hiding some fawns as we approach. Many deer will require repeat visits to determine fawn numbers and reproductive success.

In summary, we've had 40 total mortalities (5 of 50 resident deer, 35 of 102 translocated deer) and 3 slipped collars (1 resident, 2 translocated). Forty four resident deer and 58 translocated deer were alive and accounted for this week.

Thanks to all for continued interest and support.

David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)


Until next time,
Lee Tracy (UWC)


----------



## Fishrmn

58 out of 102 translocated deer are accounted for. 8 months in and we've lost, or lost track of almost 1/2.


----------



## swbuckmaster

Seems like 90% + have died to the cougars we don't have.


----------



## elkfromabove

The latest;

From David Smedley, Mon 8/12/13 10:47 AM

Mule deer translocation update for August 4 - August 10

We have no additional mortalities to report this week for either resident or translocated deer.

We are currently missing 6 translocated deer.

We have continued obtaining visuals on females and have now observed a total of 23 deer (10 resident deer and 13 translocated deer). Four resident deer and 4 translocated deer were observed with at least 1 fawn. The others were observed without fawns or in cover too heavy to detect fawns. As we continue to get visuals on deer over the next few weeks, we will make repeat observations on those deer we have found without fawns.

In summary, we've had 40 total mortalities (5 of 50 resident deer, 35 of 102 translocated deer) and 3 slipped collars (1 resident, 2 translocated). Forty four resident deer and 59 translocated deer were alive and accounted for this week.

Thanks to all for continued interest and support.

David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)


Until next time,
Lee Tracy (UWC)


----------



## elkfromabove

It's next time!

Mule deer translocation update for August 11 - August 17

We picked up radios from 3 translocated deer this week (3 mortalities) (2 from the second translocation, 1 from the first translocation). We found 2 deer partially consumed underneath trees, though there was no evidence of carcass caching. The third deer appears to have died from natural causes as the entire unconsumed carcass was found. Unfortunately, with the heat and associated tissue breakdown, we will be unable to determine exact cause of death for this deer with a necropsy.

We are currently missing 7 translocated deer. Most of these deer have been missing for several months now and we have been unable to locate them on flights despite searching as far south as Cedar City.

We have continued observing both translocated deer and resident deer to document reproduction. We have now observed a total of 34 deer (18 resident deer and 16 translocated deer). Five resident deer and 4 translocated deer have been observed with at least 1 fawn. The others have either been without fawns (likely for some) or have hidden fawns as we approached in thick cover (likely for many). We expect the proportion of females observed with fawns to increase as we move into the Fall and fawns get older.

In summary, we've had 43 total mortalities (5 of 50 resident deer, 38 of 102 translocated deer and 3 slipped collars (1 resident, 2 translocated). Forty four resident deer and 54 translocated deer were alive and accounted for this week.

Thanks to all for continued interest and support.

David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)


Keep in mind that there are some fawns dying alongside these does who are no longer there to nurse and/or protect them. And there haven't been many, if any, twins sighted yet either. All of these things will come into play at the end of the study when the evaluation of transplants vs doe hunts to save damaged winter range takes place. 

Until our next update, thanks for viewing!
Lee Tracy (UWC)


----------



## elkfromabove

Mule deer translocation update for August 18 - August 24.

We picked up the radio from 1 translocated deer this week (first translocation). We found this collar in heavy cover, but were unable to locate any sign of a carcass. (Assumed to be 1 new mortality, Lee)

We downloaded 5 GPS collars this week.

We are currently missing 7 translocated deer. Most of these deer have been missing for several months now and we have been unable to locate them on flights despite searching as far south as Cedar City.

We have continued observing both translocated and resident deer to document reproduction. We have now observed a total of 39 deer (20 resident deer and 19 translocated deer). Seven resident deer and 4 translocated deer have been observed with at least 1 fawn. The others have either been without fawns (likely for some) or have hidden fawns as we approached in thick cover (likely for many).

In summary, we've had 44 total mortalities (5 of 50 resident deer, 39 of 102 translocated deer) and 3 slipped collars (1 resident, 2 translocated). Forty four resident deer and 54 translocated deer were alive and accounted for this week.

Thanks to all for continued interest and support.

David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)


Nothing big happening, but the translocated deer deaths and MIA's just keep marching on. It is what it is!
Lee Tracy (UWC)


----------



## elkfromabove

This week's update.

Mule deer translocation update for August 25 - August 31

We have no additional mortalities to report this week for either resident or translocated deer.

We are currently missing 7 translocated deer. Most of these deer have been missing for several months now and we have been unable to locate them on flights despite searching as far south as Cedar City.

We have continued observing both translocated and resident deer to document reproduction. We have now observed a total of 45 deer (21 resident deer and 24 translocated deer). Eight resident deer and 6 translocated deer have been observed with at least 1 fawn. The others have either been without fawns (likely for some) or have hidden fawns as we approached in thick cover (likely for many).

In summary, we've had 44 total mortalities (5 of 50 resident deer, 39 of 102 translocated deer) and 3 slipped collars (1 resident, 2 translocated). Forty four resident deer and 54 translocated deer were alive and accounted for this week.

Thanks to all for continued interest and support.

David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)


Science isn't always exciting, but it is vital information for managing our wildlife. We'll keep updating.
Lee Tracy (UWC)


----------



## DallanC

It would be cool if the transplanted does fawns, as found, are added to this count going forward. It would be a indicator of the entire transplants effect in the area.


-DallanC


----------



## Mavis13

I believe it; but over half are in city limits eating grandmas flowers.


----------



## elkfromabove

elkfromabove said:


> Mule deer translocation update for August 18 - August 24.
> 
> Nothing big happening, but the translocated deer deaths and MIA's just keep marching on. It is what it is!
> Lee Tracy (UWC)


Tue 9/17/13 10:14 AM
Mule deer translocation update for September 1 - September 14

We picked up 2 radios from translocated deer during the past two weeks (first and second translocations). Both deer were found in heavily forested areas on the west side of the Pahvant. One deer was completely consumed leaving little evidence to determine cause of death. We suspect that the other deer was killed by a cougar based on the drag marks and location of the carcass.

We are currently missing 8 translocated deer. Most of these deer have been missing for several months now and we have been unable to locate them on flights despite searching as far south as Cedar City.

there has been some recent movement by some of the translocated deer during the last couple of weeks. Most of these movements have involved deer that have been on the east side of the Pahvant all summer moving back to the west side.

We've had 46 total mortalities (5 of 50 resident deer, 41 of 102 translocated deer) and 3 slipped collars (1 resident, 2 translocated). Specific breakdown of the causes of mortality is as follows:
-bobcat predation = 1
-coyote predation = 6
-cougar predation = 13
-capture related causes = 3
-disease = 5
-poaching = 2
-roadkill = 3
-unknown = 13

Most of the deer labeled as unknown have been picked up during summer when high temperatures facilitate quick breakdown of tissues by bacteria, insects, etc. We've also been conservative in assignment of mortality causes and limited designation of those with reasonable amounts of evidence. Some of the deer were likely killed by coyotes which often consume most of the carcasses and scatter bones. Complete consumption and scattering of carcass remnants makes it difficult to determine if deer were killed by coyotes or simply scavenged on following death by other causes. In these instances, we've labeled cause of death as unknown.

Forty four resident deer and 51 translocated deer were alive and accounted for this week.

Thanks to all for continued interest and support.

David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)


----------



## Lonetree

Right on schedule, with the propaganda part spelled out more clearly this time. 

So why has there only been a 10% loss of resident deer. But a 40% loss of translocated deer? And what is the mortality differential between the two groups, how did the 5 resident deer die?

And just to get ahead of the curve here. If lions and coyotes, are the problem, as so many will surely proclaim, why do resident deer experience one quarter of the mortality of the translocated deer? 

If there is a predator problem, resident deer would experience statistically similar rates of predation, as the translocated deer. Translocated deer appear to be weak, and targets for predators. Maybe this is why translocation has such a dismal success rate?


----------



## klbzdad

Oh, read the Don Peay response to the latest and you'll know EXACTLY what his pea brain is thinking. Translocate deer to take pressure off of resident deer and then get the legislature to spend another couple million for intense coyote control on the trophy units where we already have tightly limited tags for giganto deer. BARF!!!!


----------



## Lonetree

I can already see it. "It would have worked, but the predators killed them all, In the future we will need to use extensive predator control before we translocate" :mrgreen:

Hhhhmmmm pay $1000+ per head to translocate, or receive $40 per head on doe hunts?


----------



## Lonetree

klbzdad said:


> Oh, read the Don Peay response to the latest and you'll know EXACTLY what his pea brain is thinking. Translocate deer to take pressure off of resident deer and then get the legislature to spend another couple million for intense coyote control on the trophy units where we already have tightly limited tags for giganto deer. BARF!!!!


I need to type faster. I am lazy, please point me to Peay's response.


----------



## alpinebowman

I am beginning to believe this is all once again a huge waste of cashola.


----------



## Fishrmn

alpinebowman said:


> I am beginning to believe this is all once again a huge waste of cashola.


Didn't the DWR say that it was going to be? Didn't everybody who has ever seen the results of a Mule Deer translocation project predict exactly that?

YUP.


----------



## klbzdad

He looses me at the end with his famous use of the lame a$$ word, "abundant". But, here ya go, Lonetree:

From: [email protected]
Subject: Some additional thoughts
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 10:41:06 -0600
To: [email protected]

David

Thanks for your analysis, and the additional thoughts and the conservative or cautious estimate and cause of unknown deaths.

In late August, you reported on dead deer found and unharmed, the rest have been scavenged

5. thoughts

1. Do deer just fall over and die in good habitat in the summer, when other deer are showing no signs of disease?

2. If you assume a random distribution of deer dying from say the Monday they were checked, till they were found dead the next Monday, a fair number of deer would have died in the Friday, Saturday, or Sunday and the fact all but one dead deer has been scavenged, coyote death is probably a good probability of death. I doubt most of the deer died on Tuesday or Wednesday of natural causes giving coyotes 3 to 5 days to find them and scavenge them.

3. I think one enhancement of the study next year is to not look for fawns until September. Jim Karpowitz said several times from his deer study it is futile looking for fawns until late August, or September. And the. Focus could be greater intensity on finding the cause of death in 7 days interim from survey.

4. Sacrificial anode theory. I think this study is proving the sportsmen right, and the DWR right. The DWR - specifically former game manager mike welch - that the transplanted deer didn't do as well as natives. However, sportsmen might be right, the transplanted Deer take some pressure from predation of native herds. Thus, in the end, a successful restoration of the Henry Mountain deer herd. A combination of better habitat, water,predator control, and transplants. in engineering, sometimes you attach a piece of zinc to a copper pipe. The system has unsolvable corrosion problems, so you put something for the corrosion to eat and let your pipes alone.

5. For these coyotes to be scavenging every caucus shows there are still way to many coyotes, and there ought to be a super intensive coyote control program the next five months. This study isn't to see if coyotes or predators kill deer. The objective as I understand it is to see if Deer can be transplanted, and increase deer populations

Sorry, the old scientist comes out in me once in a while, and these are some facts to consider.

Thanks for the persistent hard work. Very valuable information, we are not doing a study. We are getting data to design, engineer, build and sustain abundant deer herds!

Don Peay


----------



## Lonetree

My responses in Blue



klbzdad said:


> He looses me at the end with his famous use of the lame a$$ word, "abundant". But, here ya go, Lonetree:
> 
> From: [email protected]
> Subject: Some additional thoughts
> Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 10:41:06 -0600
> To: [email protected]
> 
> David
> 
> Thanks for your analysis, and the additional thoughts and the conservative or cautious estimate and cause of unknown deaths.
> 
> In late August, you reported on dead deer found and unharmed, the rest have been scavenged
> 
> 5. thoughts
> 
> 1. Do deer just fall over and die in good habitat in the summer, when other deer are showing no signs of disease?
> 
> Define "good" habitat? Large, and small scale summer die offs of mule deer and black tailed deer have been documented. These have been associated with "energy deficiencies" or an inability to convert carbohydrates into energy, electrolytes can help these conditions, but these are hard to identify. High heat can contribute to this. These are frequently over looked, and probably misdiagnosed more often than not. And yes, they just tip right over. But they would be more susceptible to predation also. And as for showing signs of disease, there are many subclinical disease issues, that do not readily present. But if you have increased predation, especially coyote predation(coyotes are not the key predator of deer) then that is a sure sign you have something going on with the deer, you have DEER problem, not a coyote problem.
> 
> 2. If you assume a random distribution of deer dying from say the Monday they were checked, till they were found dead the next Monday, a fair number of deer would have died in the Friday, Saturday, or Sunday and the fact all but one dead deer has been scavenged, coyote death is probably a good probability of death. I doubt most of the deer died on Tuesday or Wednesday of natural causes giving coyotes 3 to 5 days to find them and scavenge them.
> 
> What are "natural" causes? And why do you have coyote predation in the first place? In the Wind rivers of Wyoming, there were almost undetectable amounts of coyote predation on bighorn sheep, for decades. As soon as there was a disease problem, coyotes accounted for as much as half of the predation. Does this mean it was the coyotes that were causing bighorn declines? No, coyote predation is the symptom of other causes of declines, not the cause. That is why it expresses as compensatory in nature.
> 
> 3. I think one enhancement of the study next year is to not look for fawns until September. Jim Karpowitz said several times from his deer study it is futile looking for fawns until late August, or September. And the. Focus could be greater intensity on finding the cause of death in 7 days interim from survey.
> 
> All this does, is deprive researchers of good data, but maybe that is the goal. If fawns are to be part of any good study, they need to be part of the data as early as possible. That is why so much has gone into perfecting VIT technology. Karpowitz predates these techniques by quite a while. Cause of death does not matter. the fact that it is 4 times the rate of resident deer, says most of what you need to know. It does not matter if its lions or coyotes, they are not killing resident deer at anywhere near the same rates, so it is not a predator problem, its a deer problem.
> 
> 4. Sacrificial anode theory. I think this study is proving the sportsmen right, and the DWR right. The DWR - specifically former game manager mike welch - that the transplanted deer didn't do as well as natives. However, sportsmen might be right, the transplanted Deer take some pressure from predation of native herds. Thus, in the end, a successful restoration of the Henry Mountain deer herd. A combination of better habitat, water,predator control, and transplants. in engineering, sometimes you attach a piece of zinc to a copper pipe. The system has unsolvable corrosion problems, so you put something for the corrosion to eat and let your pipes alone.
> 
> First off you don't use sacrificial anodes on copper pipes, based on galvanic differential, and the way a plumbing system is branched, and layed out, it would not do you much good. You attach zinc anodes to ships. In the case of copper pipes, the solution is to isolate them from grounds, and other metals that could have a galvanic interaction with the copper. Besides in the context of deer, a cathodic example may be a better example. This is bad engineering, and bad wildlife biology. This makes the assumption that you are up against a predator problem, as your limiting factor. This needs to be proven, before the hare brained "anode" idea can be tested. Everything says it is a deer problem, not a predator problem. so how is feeding the predators, helping the deer. Are we trying to create a predator problem, by artificially inflating them? This is convoluted to say the least. Additional information, after some question were posed to me. For an anode to work it must be placed in solution, this is why putting them on ships, under the water line works, the zinc anode takes the place of the ships steel hull, in the galvanic process. You would need to put a zinc anode inside a copper pipe, for it to possibly work, that's why it can not work. This defies the laws of chemistry, and physics. I do find it ironic, that zinc and copper are mentioned, but completely out of the context of biology, where they might actually apply to deer. This is beyond sad, but thats Utah for you.
> 
> Bottom line, in order to further any such idea, you need to establish predation as a limiting factor, and rule out others. All of this finding problems for solutions, is ridiculous. It is waste of time, money, and other valuable resources, not mention the deer. Anyone that claims to be an engineer, or scientist knows there are process's for determining what a core or root problem is, that is how trouble shooting is done. You don't just make up problems, to apply made up solutions.
> 
> 5. For these coyotes to be scavenging every caucus shows there are still way to many coyotes, and there ought to be a super intensive coyote control program the next five months. This study isn't to see if coyotes or predators kill deer. The objective as I understand it is to see if Deer can be transplanted, and increase deer populations
> 
> Deer can of course be transplanted, but at what cost, and with what efficiency? Study after study has shown that the success rate is very, very low. predator control can not change that. It is a deer issue, therefor any solution to deer transplants lies with deer, and their health. It is not the world they are moved to that kills them, it is moving them, that kills them. Further more transplants can not grow deer, it is not like bighorns where we just don't have them. It is overcoming limiting factors in the deer we do have. Transplants have no role in that situation.
> 
> Sorry, the old scientist comes out in me once in a while, and these are some facts to consider.
> 
> I'll leave this alone.
> 
> Thanks for the persistent hard work. Very valuable information, we are not doing a study. We are getting data to design, engineer, build and sustain abundant deer herds!
> 
> Don Peay


----------



## Lonetree

There is no semblance of proper engineering here, let alone an understanding of those principles. This guy is not qualified to install a toilet, but for some reason he has a say in the management of our wildlife? And people wonder why...............


----------



## Lonetree

DYAC! :mrgreen: Just had a great one pointed out, one word can sometimes speak volumes.


----------



## klbzdad

*Put Your Boots On...its going to get ABUNDANTLY deep!*

Follow up exchanges between DP and Randy.....uhmmmmm

"Randy

Some great additional detail, I know you guys really know what you are doing, and the detailed discussion, ie pavant being highest survival, if it holds fora few more months, gives support for sacrificial anode theory, shows that to all.

I also, commented, and expressed thanks for the extra caution on coyote mortality, no mater what is reported some won't believe it. But I was glad to see you start to address it.

What is positive, is with strong habitat work and predator control, some transplants, we can rebuild herds and have abundant ones. I am just on the edge of my knowledge on these issues

I am waiting for someone to step into my wheelhouse, and start talking about cost effectiveness of coyote control, transplants, etc!

Have great goat hunt! And keep up the great work.
Don Peay

On Sep 17, 2013, at 2:37 PM, Randy Larsen <[email protected]> wrote:

Don et al.,

Great discussion to be having. Thanks for the input and tremendous support on this and many other projects. We are learning a lot and it wouldn't have been possible without the collaborative effort of everyone. A couple of additional thoughts to further the discussion.

We certainly could expend less energy looking for fawns during the summer next year. I do think, however, that the information obtained to date on fawn production is valuable. We have observed a total of 45 deer (21 resident deer and 24 translocated deer) and noted fawns with 8 resident deer (38%) and 6 translocated deer (25%). The true percentage of deer with fawns is certainly higher (i.e., these estimates are biased low), but most important here is the relative difference between groups. At this point with the proportions and sample sizes above, we would not find a statistical difference (i.e., suggestive that reproductive output was similar for resident and surviving translocated deer). In my view, that initial read is worth something to this project despite the inherent challenges with observing fawns early. More definitive information on reproduction will come in November/December as we revisit this process to determine fawn:doe ratios. Fawns will be traveling with females and data collection will occur during the traditional timeframe used by UDWR to classify mule deer. As a side note, there has been some discussion about having SFW help with this effort. If we can make that happen, our efforts will be magnified.

In reference to the "sacrificial anode theory"--The survival rate of resident deer on the Pahvant is currently on the high end (90%; 5 dead out of 50) of rates observed within and outside of Utah for adult females. If we don't lose any more resident deer through December and report an annual survival rate of 90% it won't be unprecedented, but will certainly be on the high end (mean annual survival is usually about 86%). 

Some of the challenges with identifying causes of mortality are technological. The radios have an 8-hour mortality sensor in them and thus emit an "alive" signal as long as the radio has moved (my understanding is there is a bearing inside that is sensitive to movement) within the previous 8 hours. Once the bearing has not been jostled or moved over an 8 hour period it switches to a "mortality" signal. Additional movement, however, will cause the radio to switch back to "alive" mode and I've seen radios switch back and forth on this and other projects as a function of carcass consumption by predators, scavengers (i.e., ravens, magpies), and even rain from a thunderstorm. Thus, more frequent monitoring of radio-marked animals would certainly reduce the number of mortalities classified as unknown, but would not eliminate them. As an example, if a deer is killed by a predator and that animal returns to feed on the deer for a couple of days and then scavengers pick at the carcass for a day or two following that, we may not get emission of a mortality signal for 4-5 days following death of the deer which can complicate efforts to identify a cause. If we tune the 8 hour period down too far, you often end up chasing false mortality signals associated with resting animals. Thus, most use 6 or 8 hour delays as we've done.

Other challenges with identifying causes of mortality are seasonal because scavengers can detect dead animals more quickly via smell during the warmer summer months. Years ago, for example, we had challenges with identifying causes of mortality for chukars-particularly during the summer. We conducted a small experiment using game cameras and chukar carcasses and found on average scavenging occurred during summer within about 9 hours. During scavenging, radios associated with carcasses were moved up to 100 meters with associated switching to "alive" signals. There was also a positive relationship between carcass size and time to scavenging--bigger carcasses were scavenged more quickly. Our pattern of unknown designations on this deer project show very few during winter with most of the 13 unknowns associated with summer . There are simply some inherent challenges with the summer period. I expect fewer unknowns as we move into the fall/winter. 

Finally, some of the caution and conservative approach stems from my past history with attempted publication of cause specific mortality data. We recently published an analysis of 13 years of survival data on sage grouse in Strawberry Valley associated with a project supported by the UDWR, SFW, and the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission (mouthful). The initial draft of this manuscript included causes of mortality and analysis of survival rates of grouse in relation to removal of red fox. The editors and reviewers, however, refused to allow the manuscript to move forward without removal of the cause specific information. We thus were forced to remove it because we wanted the information available in an "official" form. Nonetheless, we were able to show some support for a positive relationship with number of foxes removed by USDA wildlife services and adult survival rates of female sage grouse. The review process on this particular manuscript was especially brutal as our results were contrary to what others had found and the comments from reviewers and editors (some very valid; others not worth much) during this process have left me erring on the side of caution. 

Just a couple of additional thoughts to provide context. We very much welcome the feedback and in general I'm very pleased with progress on this project. We could, however, make adjustments if needed and are absolutely not above constructive criticism. 

As an aside, my younger brother and hunting partner was fortunate to draw a Uintah's Mountain Goat permit and we are leaving today. I'll be away from the office most of this week, but will look forward to any continued discussion when I get back.

Thanks much,

Randy 

********************************************

Randy Larsen, PhD
and Assistant Curator of Birds
Wildlife and Wildlands Conservation Program
Department of Plant and Wildlife Sciences 
Brigham Young University
407 WIDB
Provo UT 84602
Phone: 801-422-2322
E-Mail: [email protected]

********************************************"
​


----------



## Lonetree

****ing lunacy! 

We want to increase deer populations, so we are going to implement the two least effective methods(read not effective at all)?

"We certainly could expend less energy looking for fawns during the summer next year. I do think, however, that the information obtained to date on fawn production is valuable. We have observed a total of 45 deer (21 resident deer and 24 translocated deer) and noted fawns with 8 resident deer (38%) and 6 translocated deer (25%). The true percentage of deer with fawns is certainly higher (i.e., these estimates are biased low), but most important here is the relative difference between groups. At this point with the proportions and sample sizes above, we would not find a statistical difference (i.e., suggestive that reproductive output was similar for resident and surviving translocated deer)."

So the mortality rate is 4 times higher for translocated deer, but the reproductive rate is "similar" between resident, and translocated deer? Mark my words, come November and better counts, this will not hold true, this is ridiculous.

The "sacrificial anode" theory is not new at all. This was proposed for decades, and has been disproven over and over again. In the past it was proposed that sheep took the predation pressure off of deer, like "sacrificial anodes", it was never shown to have any merit, just like deer transplanting. 

"I am just on the edge of my knowledge on these issues"--Don Peay

This is the understatement of the year. So we have a "scientist" that knows nothing about science or engineering, along with a biologist, that is reproducing already failed transplant studies. Trying to pass it all off as a solution, in the middle of it crashing and burning. Utah is the wildlife biology laughing stock of the West right now.


----------



## elkfromabove

Please, Let's keep this transplant and study in perspective! 

First off, this transplant was an effort originally proposed by SFW to avoid raising the Parowan Front doe hunt permits to the number needed (500) in order to remove enough deer to allow the winter range to recover. Once this transplant of 100 does was proposed, neither SFW nor DWR was willing to increase the number of permits from the current 150 despite the urging of UWC, due to the political ramifications of the expected public outcry. Basically, this transplant was designed to simply remove does from the Parowan Front and was not designed to try to increase the Pahvant herd. They had to be moved somewhere and the Pahvant was the closest similar habitat and this transplant would have happened with or without the study and with or without an increase in the Pahvant herd.

As far as the financing of the transplant goes, a condition of accepting the transplant was that SFW was to pay for it out of their own funds and it wasn't to come from ANY public funds, ie; no committed Conservation Permit funds, no public tags, license or application fees and no state tax funds. The only committed public funds that were involved were the salaries (and equipment expenses) of the state employees (DWR) and federal employees (BLM) who were on the site. And those expenses would have happened anyway, no matter what they were doing.

And because SFW financed the transplant, I suspect DP considers it an obligation to make the best use of their money and I personally don't fault him for that, right or wrong. In fact, I'm glad he asked his questions because it gave Randy an opportunity to educate him and us. Additionally, if his reply is some kind of precursor to gain further access to public money, I think we'll need to deal with that issue if and when it crops up.

As for the study, that was pretty much an afterthought and was proposed/offered by the BYU biology department and is taken care of financially by a private grant of some kind. Apparently, Randy and David considered it an opportunity to contribute to the knowledge of mule deer biology and someone from BYU agreed with them enough to finance it. Now, you may consider it a waste of time and money, but keep in mind it's not wasted public time or money. Also, it's been my observation that many good scientists over the history of the world have added knowledge by not only challenging the unknown, but by challenging current knowledge. In any case, this study will either shed new light or will put to rest the feasibility of transplanting mule deer versus removing them with hunts. And it will help determine our next moves regarding both the doe hunts and the biological/scientific reasons for the mule deer population declines.

Finally, maybe "Utah" is considered a laughing stock by some, but the State of Utah (DWR) is just an interested observer of this private enterprise, just as you readers are and has no more investment than you do. Target your hee-haws at BYU and/or SFW if you must, but leave "Utah" out of it. And whether or not other states are laughing at us, you can bet they're watching and are as interested in the outcome as you are!

It ain't over yet, folks!


----------



## Lonetree

First off, SFW is very much a part of Utah wildlife management, some would argue they are one and the same.

"The objective as I understand it is to see if Deer can be transplanted, and increase deer populations" -d peay

"4. Sacrificial anode theory. I think this study is proving the sportsmen right, and the DWR right. The DWR - specifically former game manager mike welch - that the transplanted deer didn't do as well as natives. However, sportsmen might be right, the transplanted Deer take some pressure from predation of native herds. *Thus, in the end, a successful restoration of the Henry Mountain deer herd. A combination of better habitat, water,predator control, and transplants.* in engineering, sometimes you attach a piece of zinc to a copper pipe. The system has unsolvable corrosion problems, so you put something for the corrosion to eat and let your pipes alone."-d peay

Are you waiting for the version that is chiseled in granite?

While it is not tax payer $$$$ right now, that is absolutely the intention in the future. That is the plan, more predator control, and more transplants, at the expense of tax payers and sportsmen. A deer tag was $35, now it is $40 for coyote control, and next it will be $45, for transplant costs.

Perspective? really?


----------



## Lonetree

"And whether or not other states are laughing at us, you can bet they're watching and are as interested in the outcome as you are!"

I've been on the phone with three people in other states over the last two days. I guess you could say they are "interested" in the outcome. Most did not know this study is occurring, and on the surface, they could care less, it is not until they get the details and context, that they get "interested" :mrgreen: its a joke, I'm sorry you don't have the perspective to understand this.


----------



## 4pointmuley

I think they might have meant 40,000!


----------



## elkfromabove

Lonetree, I look forward to seeing and hearing you in upcoming RAC and Wildlife Board meetings to make sure we all have the right perspectives!


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

elkfromabove said:


> Lonetree, I look forward to seeing and hearing you in upcoming RAC and Wildlife Board meetings to make sure we all have the right perspectives!


It is the approach used by him and others that keep me from getting involved. If he were at a round table discussion I am certain that he would carve a seat in the middle.


----------



## Lonetree

elkfromabove said:


> Lonetree, I look forward to seeing and hearing you in upcoming RAC and Wildlife Board meetings to make sure we all have the right perspectives!


That's it? that's the best you could come up with?

"And it will help determine our next moves regarding both the doe hunts and the biological/scientific reasons for the mule deer population declines."--elkfromabove

No, it will be used to justify the next round of bad policy that some want to implement in this state. It will tell us nothing about mule deer population declines, nothing! It is completely irrelevant to the phenomenon of contemporary wildlife declines. That's the problem, it is smoke and mirrors. Explain to me how it sheds any light on declines? Or, how it can grow deer herds?

Honestly, do you think me pitching anything I have to say, at RACs, or wildlife board meetings will help? Or are you just pointing out my isolation, because you think your not?

Oh wait, let me try this one: What is your solution?


----------



## Lonetree

Mr Muleskinner said:


> It is the approach used by him and others that keep me from getting involved. If he were at a round table discussion I am certain that he would carve a seat in the middle.


Middle of what? If this is supposed to be some sort of, implication of I only hold the line on the internet, you are mistaken, and there are people here that can verify that.

While there may be groups, or louder voices that drowned you out. My lone voice is not preventing you from anything, that is a cop out.

My approach is completely separate from the issue at hand, and intentionally harsh. What about the actual issues? What is your solution?


----------



## Lonetree

I am not here to make friends. You can dislike me all you want, I prefer it, and make this easy. Those that can not separate my approach, my arrogance, my elitism, from my argument, in your favor. Are only examples of what I have been saying.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Lonetree said:


> Middle of what? If this is supposed to be some sort of, implication of I only hold the line on the internet, you are mistaken, and there are people here that can verify that.
> 
> While there may be groups, or louder voices that drowned you out. My lone voice is not preventing you from anything, that is a cop out.
> 
> My approach is completely separate from the issue at hand, and intentionally harsh. What about the actual issues? What is your solution?


You would carve yourself a seat in the middle of the table so you would be the center of attention. You are stuffed full as a Christmas goose. I don't doubt your knowledge on the subject but jeez what a windbag. You talk down to everybody at any opportunity you get. You think coming off as a jerk impresses people? Sorry it doesn't. It also isn't just your lone voice. Like I said, it is you and the many others that favor the "full of themselves" approach and gloat about what they believe is their superiority. There is a big difference between copping out and making a choice not to associate.

You like to think that you have the ability to infuriate people because it gives you a feeling of power and control. For me it just more of a nauseous feeling that I get similar to when I see somebody on the interstate picking their nose and eating it. Most troubling is the fact that I agree with a lot that you say but in my opinion your delivery really sucks. Do you get attention? Sure, but you will never rally people around your ideals by telling everybody else that they are stupid. Education doesn't go very far in the public arena without applying a little common sense. Since you preach education so much here is some of your own medicine. It also a feeble effort on my part to "pay it forward" to others on the forum.

http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/0671723650

Give it a rip. You have nothing to lose but your superiority complex.


----------



## Lonetree

Mr Muleskinner said:


> You would carve yourself a seat in the middle of the table so you would be the center of attention. You are stuffed full as a Christmas goose. I don't doubt your knowledge on the subject but jeez what a windbag. You talk down to everybody at any opportunity you get. You think coming off as a jerk impresses people? Sorry it doesn't. It also isn't just your lone voice. Like I said, it is you and the many others that favor the "full of themselves" approach and gloat about what they believe is their superiority. There is a big difference between copping out and making a choice not to associate.
> 
> You like to think that you have the ability to infuriate people because it gives you a feeling of power and control. For me it just more of a nauseous feeling that I get similar to when I see somebody on the interstate picking their nose and eating it. Most troubling is the fact that I agree with a lot that you say but in my opinion your delivery really sucks. Do you get attention? Sure, but you will never rally people around your ideals by telling everybody else that they are stupid. Education doesn't go very far in the public arena without applying a little common sense. Since you preach education so much here is some of your own medicine. It also a feeble effort on my part to "pay it forward" to others on the forum.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/0671723650
> 
> Give it a rip. You have nothing to lose but your superiority complex.


You are replying to me, I already have influence over you. And I don't want to be your friend.

:grin: You are really missing the boat on this. I have explained this before. You are supposed to recoil at the delivery. :grin: Your a tradesman, did you have a bunch of nice old guys that pampered, and spoon fed you, as you came up through the ranks? You have to want it, its hard for a reason.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

not a tradesman. I own a business and nobody here asked to be your friend. Being a negative influence will never get you as far as you could otherwise. I pity you.

You are about two sandwiches shy of a picnic.


----------



## Charina

Mr Muleskinner said:


> You have nothing to lose but your superiority complex.


I'm not so sure. I'm not concluding superiority complex without a comorbid condition to explain some anomalies. With the desperate attempts to prove this or that (e.g. "you are mistaken, and there are people here that can verify that"), there is clearly a lack of self-rooted confidence that hints at an inferiority complex hidden by overbearing presentation and attempted projection of superiority. 




Mr Muleskinner said:


> It is the approach used by him and others that keep me from getting involved. If he were at a round table discussion I am certain that he would carve a seat in the middle.


Its not just the counterproductive approach used, but the ignorance of the effects of the counterproductive approach that is a turn-off/shut-down on the process for me. I've been involved in DWR workgroups in the past, and I definitely would have bowed out (along with all of the other reasoned and intelligent individuals) had such a member been involved. I'm actually beginning to really pity not only the ignorance, but the ignorance of the ignorance.


----------



## Lonetree

Mr Muleskinner said:


> not a tradesman. I own a business and nobody here asked to be your friend. Being a negative influence will never get you as far as you could otherwise. I pity you.
> 
> You are about two sandwiches shy of a picnic.


Wow! Tell a guy he is skilled, and he immediately denies it.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Yawn.......go back to picking your nose


----------



## Lonetree

Charina said:


> I'm not so sure. I'm not concluding superiority complex without a comorbid condition to explain some anomalies. With the desperate attempts to prove this or that (e.g. "you are mistaken, and there are people here that can verify that"), there is clearly a lack of self-rooted confidence that hints at an inferiority complex hidden by overbearing presentation and attempted projection of superiority.
> 
> Its not just the counterproductive approach used, but the ignorance of the effects of the counterproductive approach that is a turn-off/shut-down on the process for me. I've been involved in DWR workgroups in the past, and I definitely would have bowed out (along with all of the other reasoned and intelligent individuals) had such a member been involved. I'm actually beginning to really pity not only the ignorance, but the ignorance of the ignorance.


You almost got it, which shows some objective thinking on the matter. Which if applied to the larger Western psyche, would explain more of it to you. When the technique was developed back in 2004, those that have since verified it, were skeptics, funny how that works. This is actual peer reviewed, political science. But as you guys have said, it does not work, right?

As to my actual mental state, yes I'm crazy, don't forget your Mr. obvious award on the way out. Act soon, we are running low.

You assume that I don't know the ramifications of what I am doing, which would be incorrect. I'm not trying to get you to sign on with me, or send me money, or elect me to office. You assume my goals, it is you that is projecting.


----------



## Lonetree

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Yawn.......go back to picking your nose


Why do you keep replying then? It is almost like I'm stuck in your craw, but you want to prove otherwise?


----------



## Lonetree

There are those that will separate the message from the messenger, and those that will get the message because of the messenger, whether they like it or not. It is typically the not. What I say rattles around in your head whether you like or not, and that is because it leaves an impression, like smacking your thumb with a hammer, you remember it, even if you don't want to. Your responses are evidence of this. And whether you like me or not, is irrelevant, I don't like many of you,as individuals either. As usual, those that fall for the tactics, do keep attention on the thread though. And allow me to point out, yet again, that those that can not support their argument on the actual subject matter, resort to ad hominem attacks, which I do like, these are easy, and classify the field pretty quick. Making up your mind, on wildlife issues, and policy, based on how it is presented, and whether you like the messenger, says more about you, than it does about me. In fact it supports much of what I cite as the problem. And it says a lot about why the last 20 years went the way they did. Because some people are ****ing idiots.



Anyone want to talk about wildlife? I'm good to go either way.


----------



## elkfromabove

Sorry for the interuption!

Here's the latest update;

Mule deer translocation update for September 15 - September 21

We have no additional mortalities to report this week for either resident or translocated deer.

We were able to locate 1 of the deer that has been missing for the last couple of weeks on the north end of the Pahvant. We supect this deer may have a weak radio signal as we typically only have intermittent contact with her. As winter approaches and she moves into a more accessible area, we may have more regular contact with this deer.

We are currently missing 7 translocated deer. These deer have been missing for several months now and we have been unable to locate them despite searching as far south as Cedar City. We will focus our search for these deer on our upcoming flight which is scheduled for today (Tuesday September 24th).

In summary, we've had 46 total mortalities (5 of 50 resident deer, 41 of 102 translocated deer) and 3 slipped collars ( 1 resident, 2 translocated). Forty four resident deer and 52 translocated deer were alive and accounted for this week.

Thanks to all for continued interest and support.

David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)


Until next time. And be safe on your hunts!
Lee Tracy (UWC)


----------



## Lonetree

What? No break out on predator mortality this time?


----------



## swbuckmaster

Why would there be anymore does getting eatn. They have fawns now and the fawns are the easy targets. 

Since the introduction of wolves the lolo herd went from 20, 000 elk down to 1, 200

The moose population in yellowstone went from 1, 200 moose to 120 moose. 

Those herds are not dying from selenium! There dying from wolves.

Lonetree you will never convince me predators don't affect game numbers!

Wolves affect elk like coyotes\cougars affect deer! Its simple math everytime you loose a deer to anything its minus 1 from your herd. 

One thing missing from the whitetail equation back east is lions. Im also convinced they don't have the coyote numbers we have. In 8 years of working in the field day after day I don't see the coyote sign like I do here in utah or anywhere in the west.

Simple math any deer killed by predators is one more than I want killed. 

Lonetree you keep packing salt blocks and praying for perfect rain cycles and ill keep shooting coyotes when I see them and managing hunters socially for the game we have. If your rain cycles and salt blocks work then more tags can be issued. Until then somethings has to give and I'd rather see a dead coyote than a dead deer.


----------



## Lonetree

Why would there be anymore does getting eatn. They have fawns now and the fawns are the easy targets. Because predation is not driving mortality. It is correlative, not causative. It is expressed as predation, but that is not the root cause of the declines. This can be seen in the difference in mortality, between the resident deer(controls) and the translocated deer.

Since the introduction of wolves the lolo herd went from 20, 000 elk down to 1, 200 They were decling before reintroduction. And as wolf numbers were sharply reduced, and held at lower numbers, the elk population did not respond in a positive fashion. If wolves were driving the declines, the elk numbers would have risen, when wolf numbers were reduced. In the beginning of reintroduction, when the elk were already declining, there were very few wolves anyway.

The moose population in yellowstone went from 1, 200 moose to 120 moose. Moose have suffered declines everywhere in the West, and the Mid West, for the last 30 years. This is with wolves, and without wolves. 

Those herds are not dying from selenium! There dying from wolves. Even the ones dying were there are no wolves? 

Lonetree you will never convince me predators don't affect game numbers! Predators do affect game numbers, but it depends on whether we are talking about additive, or compensatory predation. In the case of contemporary declines, of the last 30 years, predation is not driving these declines.

Wolves affect elk like coyotes\cougars affect deer! Its simple math everytime you loose a deer to anything its minus 1 from your herd. Yes one is animal removed is one animal removed. And in the case of additive predation, where it is predation that drives the declines, then predators have a negative affect on the herd. But again, in the case of the lsat 30 years of declines, in bighorn sheep, moose, elk, and deer. Study after study is telling us it is compensatory. When you remove the predators, it does not change the trend line. 

One thing missing from the whitetail equation back east is lions. Im also convinced they don't have the coyote numbers we have. In 8 years of working in the field day after day I don't see the coyote sign like I do here in Utah or anywhere in the west. White tails live in the East, and are not mule deer. So does this mean mule deer would thrive in the East? This is an apples vs oranges argument.

Simple math any deer killed by predators is one more than I want killed. But if the predation is compensatory, then that deer would have met its fate by other means if the predator did not get it. Which means that there is something driving that decline, and you should be just as incensed with that, as you are with predators.

Lonetree you keep packing salt blocks and praying for perfect rain cycles and ill keep shooting coyotes when I see them and managing hunters socially for the game we have. If your rain cycles and salt blocks work then more tags can be issued. Until then somethings has to give and I'd rather see a dead coyote than a dead deer. Kill all the coyotes you want, I don't care, just don't think it will increase deer. Here is the argument, for 20 more year, of the last 20 years.


----------



## elkfromabove

elkfromabove said:


> Until next time. And be safe on your hunts!
> Lee Tracy (UWC)


It's next time!

Mule deer translocation update for September 22 - October 5

We picked up collars for 2 translocated deer (mortalities) and 1 resident deer (missing) over the last two weeks. One of the translocated deer was roadkill found between the east and west bound lanes of I-70. The other translocated deer was found near Manderfield Reservoir, south of I-70, and had indications of cougar predation as it was found cached and partially consumed. We found the resident deer collar east of Holden, near the top of the Pahvant. The collar was in heavy cover, ripped, without any evidence of a carcass. We suspect the necklace material on this radio to have failed causing the collar to fall off prematurely.

We were able to locate radio signals for 3 of the deer that have been missing for the last several months on a scheduled flight Tuesday, September 24. One of these deer was found on the south end of the Monroe. Another was found near I-70 and the third was found on the northeast side of the Beaver mountain range.

We are currently missing 5 translocated deer (collared). Most of these deer have been missing for several months now and we have been unable to locate them despite searching as far south as Cedar City. One of Don's friends reported seeing a radio-marked (collared) deer with (an) ear tag while hunting near Kolob Reservoir. We suspect this deer to be one of the missing 5 and will spend some time trying to locate her over the next couple of weeks.

Thanks to all for continued interest and support.

David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)

From Lee,
In summary, we've had 48 total mortalities (5 of 50 resident deer, 43 of 102 translocated deer), 4 slipped/broken collars (2 resident, 2 translocated) and 5 missing radio signals (all translocated). Forty three resident and 52 translocated deer were alive and accounted for this week.

We'll continue to update as we can, but it's hunting season and we have priorities, don't you know! Be safe out there.
Lee Tracy (UWC)


----------



## JuddCT

I caught a collared doe on my camera up 12 mile canyon (see below). I didn't know they had collared deer on that part of the unit, but probably too far north to be one of the missing.


----------



## elkfromabove

JuddCT said:


> I caught a collared doe on my camera up 12 mile canyon (see below). I didn't know they had collared deer on that part of the unit, but probably too far north to be one of the missing.


Interesting photos. Thanks for posting.

It's likely not one of the missing transplanted deer because it doesn't appear to have an ear tag, but it could very well be one of the located resident deer which were collared, but not tagged. And the releases were east of Holden in the valley on the west side of the Pahvant, so it isn't very far north at all. And, in fact, some of the transplanted deer have been located south of Beaver and, as this recent update indicated, may be as far south as Kolob Reservoir (125 miles), so they can travel a long way if they've a mind to.

Additionally, your photos were taken in August when the deer are fully in their summer range and, per the radio signals, the resident deer appear to summer on the top and east side of the Pahvant. This one may have gone further east than most of them.

In any case, your photos brought up some further questions I have about the details of the study. I asked a lot of questions during the transplant, but I keep finding that I didn't ask enough. There's a lot more to this project than most of us realize and I have a lot of respect for those biologists who covered all the details. I know a few mule deer transplant studies have been done in the past, but none as detailed as this one. Hopefully, we can get more answers, not only about transplants, but about mule deer biology and sociology.


----------



## JuddCT

If they need to know where the pic was taken, let me know and I can send the coordinates.


----------



## klbzdad

I'm gonna need those coordinates, JUDD. 

Interesting in this latest update from David and Randy, that they have now started omitting the mortality count. 

I shot a coyote with my Glock 23 today at about a football field length trying to do my part. It was a female too so she won't be adding to the population anytime soon.


----------



## elkfromabove

Mule deer translocation update for October 6 - October 19

We have no additional mortalities to report for either resident or translocated deer.

We located a signal for one of the missing deer near Kolob Reservoir (thanks Don for passing on the information and thanks to Jason for checking on this deer). This deer was last heard near Beaver in May.

We are currently missing 4 translocated deer. Most of these deer have been missing for several months now. We are hopeful additional sightings of missing deer will occur this week on the general deer hunt.

Over the past couple of weeks we have seen some movement of deer from the east side of the Pahvant towards the western side. Most deer are still high, but appear to be staging for an eventual move to winter range.

In summary, we've had 48 total mortalities (5 of 50 resident deer, 43 of 102 translocated deer) and 4 slipped collars (2 resident, 2 translocated). Forty three resident deer and 53 translocated deer were alive and accounted for this week.

Thanks to all for continued interest and support.

David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)

Please report ANY sightings (GPS if possible or good discription of location) of collared does (especially ear-tagged) to;
[email protected] or
[email protected] or
[email protected] or call the Southern Region DWR at 435-865-6100
Thanks, Lee Tracy (UWC)


----------



## elkfromabove

Another update!

Mule deer translocation update for October 20-October 26.

We had 1 translocated deer mortality this week. This deer was found on winter range (approximately 6 miles south of its release site) partly consumed and not cached. We suspect this deer to have been killed by coyotes.

We are currently missing 4 translocated deer. Most of these deer have been missing for several months now.

We are starting to see more movement toward winter range. It appears that many of the translocated deer will winter near the area they were released (Holden, Utah), though we may have collared deer in a few different locations around the Pahvant mountain range.

We presented an update to UDWR and SFW.

In summary, we've had 49 total mortalities (5 of 50 resident deer, 44 of 102 translocated deer) and 4 slipped collars (2 resident, 2 translocated). Forty three resident and 52 translocated deer were alive and accounted for this week.

Thanks to all for continued interest and support.

David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)

Until the next report!
Lee Tracy (UWC)


----------



## elkfromabove

Again!

Mule deer translocation update for October 27 - November 2

We have no additional mortalities to report this week.

We are currently missing 5 translocated deer. Four of these deer have been missing for several months now. The most recent deer to go missing has been in and out of contact over the summer (we suspect a weak radio signal). This deer summered on the Pahvant and we anticipate locating this female on our next flight scheduled for Wednesday November 6th.

We have seen a lot of movement toward winter range this week. The majority of translocated deer that summered on the south end of the Pahvant have moved north towards their initial release sites where they spent the last months of winter following release. Many of the signals from radios on both resident and translocated deer can now be heard from listening locations on or near winter range.

We have started our 2nd round of reproductive assessment for both translocated and resident deer. The timing of this effort coincides with the traditional post hunt classification done by UDWR. These efforts involve approaching radio-marked deer to observe and count fawns. It is a wonderful time to be on the mountain and we could use help if anyone from SFW or UDWR is interested in participating.

In summary, we've had 49 total mortalities (5 0f 50 resident deer, 44 of 102 translocated deer) and 4 slipped collars (2 resident, 2 translocated). Forty three resident deer and 51 translocated deer were alive and accounted for this week.

Thanks to all for continued interest and support.

David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)


See ya next week!
Lee Tracy (UWC)


----------



## elkfromabove

elkfromabove said:


> See ya next week!
> Lee Tracy (UWC)


It's not next week, but we have a problem! Here's the latest email;

All,

We picked up a collar from a translocated deer on Tuesday of this week that appears to have been removed with scissors or a knife. We suspect this deer was *poached* and have reported such to biologists and conservation officers in the Southern Region. Our conclusion is based on the following pieces of information:

1) Both bands of fabric were cut (straight and clean cut) in the same place. Radio collars that are removed from deer by predators have jagged tears (bite marks) in the fabric that don't align. Likewise, radios that slip off animals typically do so due to failure of hardware (connecting bolts) or weakening of fabric (often where the battery housing is attached. This particular radio didn't have hardware failure and the collar fabric is in good condition (won't tear despite any amount of effort on our part). In our view, the fabric is strong enough to hold the weight of a deer through any amount of struggling.

2) Furthermore, we found no evidence of a struggle and the collar was not picked up under a fence or anything that could have snagged. Rather, we found this collar on the west side of I-15, 25 feet off the Cedar Mountain Road (road that runs west from the freeway) approximately 1/2 mile from the north Fillmore exit. The location of the collar suggests it was thrown from the window of a vehicle.

3) This deer was released in January of this year and has spent the past 10 months east of I-15 near Holden (winter/spring) and on the southern end of the Pahvant (summer/early fall). This particular female has never been found on the west side of I-15 and only recently moved back north. We suspect this deer was poached on the east side of I-15 as she returned to winter range near the release location and that the collar was cut, removed and tossed out of a vehicle on the road off the north Fillmore exit.

If anyone has any information, please contact UDWR.

David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)

Call the Southern Region DWR office at 435-865-6100 or the UTIP (Turn in poachers) line at 1-800-662-3337 or email Teresa (Southern Region big game manager) at [email protected].

SFW has offered a $5,000 reward for information leading to the conviction of the culprits of the previous poaching of two transplanted does and I'm sure that will include this one. In any case, by catching these game thieves, we may solve both cases, 'cause they're probably connected. Let's get these **##**##s (fill in the blank).
Lee Tracy (UWC)

PS: There were some photos of the collar with the email, but since I don't know how to post them on these forums, I'll forward the email to any of you who request it. [email protected]

Edited; If you happen to come upon the carcass of a doe with an ear tag or a cut ear where a tag could have been, it might help with the investigation.


----------



## wyoming2utah

so, how many poached deer is that now?


----------



## Lonetree

Not that it would excuse what has happened, but what about a highway mortality, and someone taking the deer? 

I can see someone poaching a deer with a collar on it, but going to the effort of removing the collar and placing it away from the deer, does not make much sense. 

They are migrating right now, and this was a released animal in new territory. Not that it excuses any of this.


----------



## elkfromabove

wyoming2utah said:


> so, how many poached deer is that now?


That's 3 known suspected. We don't know about the missing or slipped collars or some that were completly consumed.

Edited: Only one had a fatal small caliber bullet wound, but the other two (this and one of the earlier ones) were suspect because of other evidence.


----------



## elkfromabove

Lonetree said:


> Not that it would excuse what has happened, but what about a highway mortality, and someone taking the deer?
> 
> I can see someone poaching a deer with a collar on it, but going to the effort of removing the collar and placing it away from the deer, does not make much sense.
> 
> They are migrating right now, and this was a released animal in new territory. Not that it excuses any of this.


Possible, but there was no sign of a struggle (blood, thrashing) nor footprints and I'm sure they walked the road a ways for evidence.

And removing a collar makes perfect sense to me. We can't locate a carcass with a crime scene.


----------



## wyoming2utah

elkfromabove said:


> That's 3 known suspected. We don't know about the missing or slipped collars or some that were completly consumed.


I wonder what the poaching mortality rate of resident deer is to translocated or collared deer is...?


----------



## Lonetree

Back in '03-'04 I crunched some data, on collar "disposal" of poached animals. This resulted in convictions. Road proximity is huge, in certain kinds of incidences, and I can see that in this case. But proximity to home range is a bit of an outlier. Collars are either left with the animals, or when they are removed, they get moved much more than ten miles, with additional efforts at dismantling, and hiding them. There tends to be a sense of malice involved. 

Being hit by a car, may be the crime scene. Some one may have thought they would be in trouble for hitting a collared deer. Again, I'm casting some doubt, but in no way saying it was not poached, or that this is justified.


----------



## elkfromabove

Lonetree said:


> Back in '03-'04 I crunched some data, on collar "disposal" of poached animals. This resulted in convictions. Road proximity is huge, in certain kinds of incidences, and I can see that in this case. But proximity to home range is a bit of an outlier. Collars are either left with the animals, or when they are removed, they get moved much more than ten miles, with additional efforts at dismantling, and hiding them. There tends to be a sense of malice involved.
> 
> Being hit by a car, may be the crime scene. Some one may have thought they would be in trouble for hitting a collared deer. Again, I'm casting some doubt, but in no way saying it was not poached, or that this is justified.


And there are other possibilities as well. Maybe someone found a dead doe killed by a cougar (or other means) and they wanted a souvenir, but later decided that didn't want to get caught by the signal.

In any case, they use the words "suspect", "in our view", "typically", "suggests" and "found no evidence" which means they know there are other possible scenerios as well. If we had the carcass and/or found the "crime" scene we'd know more. And if this happened to be one of the GPS collars, we could trace some route also, but all the given evidence points to poaching and that's why the call for help.


----------



## elkfromabove

wyoming2utah said:


> I wonder what the poaching mortality rate of resident deer is to translocated or collared deer is...?


Of the 3 known suspected poached collared does, we had one resident and two transplanted which is 2% for both groups. Typical? Probably! But remember, these are does. The rate for bucks is probably much higher.


----------



## elkfromabove

Another update!

Mule deer translocation update for November 3 - November 16.

We had 1 translocated deer mortality since the last update. This deer was found on the north end of the Pahvant, 50 yards west of highway 50. There was very little evidence to determine cause of death (mostly consumed and not cached). We also picked up 1 collar from a resident deer that detached prematurely (collar material was torn in a jagged fashion after getting snagged on a branch).

We found (visually) one of the deer that went missing several weeks ago (deer #26 from the first translocation). This deer is currently near Holden, on winter range and appears to be in good shape (see attached picture*) This deer's radio collar has failed (couldn't hear the signal while taking the attached photo*) and we don't expect to have further contact with her and will no longer report her as missing.

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

Most of the deer are now back on winter range near their release sites. Interestingly, the 3 deer that summered on the Beaver (near Junction, Manderfield, and Beaver) have made the long return to Fillmore/Holden. For a couple of these deer it would have been less distance to go back to the Parowan Front rather than return to the release areas. The comparison of movement pattern shown by translocated deer in year 1 versus year 2 will be very interesting and informative. As a side note, much of the winter range where these deer are located appears to be in great shape this year with multiple healthy age classes of valued shrubs such as Mexican Cliffrose.

We started our 2nd round of reproductive assessment for both translocated and resident deer. To date, we have carefully observed 21 deer (8 resident, 13 translocated) and noted the presence of fawns with at least 5 of them (attached photo shows a translocated deer with her fawn*). These 5 deer observed with young include a single fawn with 2 of 8 resident deer, a single fawn with 2 of 13 translocated deer and twin fawns with 1 of 13 translocated deer. From this initial sampling effort, reproductive output appears similar for translocated and resident deer.

In summary, we've had 51** total mortalities (5 of 50 resident deer, 46 of 102 translocated deer), 5 slipped collars (3 resident, 2 translocated), and 1 failed collar (1st session translocated #26). Forty two resident deer and 48 translocated deer were alive and accounted for this week.

Thanks to all for continued interest and support.

David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)

From Lee:
* Their emails to me sometimes include photos, but I don't know how to post them on this forum (sorry) and they are usually just photos of collared/tagged live deer which don't hold much interest. If any of you would like to see them, please email me at [email protected] and I'll forward their emails.

** We actually had 1 known translocated deer mortality this update which is posted above and 1 strongly suspected (poached) translocated deer mortality in the previous mini-update, thus the total 51.

Edited: Also please be aware that I sometimes correct spelling and/or figures and/or clarify things with (....) that may be difficult to piece together. If I am breaking any copyright laws or if you'd rather I didn't do that, please let me know.

Until next time,
Lee Tracy (UWC)


----------



## Bax*

Thanks Lee!

So we have roughly a 55% success rate at this point with these transplants with fawns obviously unaccounted for. Although I would have hoped for a little higher success rate, that seems like an OK start.


----------



## klbzdad

Oh, this snow in the area is going to change the dynamic of research altogether. Interesting that just before the RACs and WB meeting on translocation and predator control of those sites, these updates end. This despite it being important enough of a project that there was also a "closed door" meeting with division managers/bios, researchers, and select members of sfw. There are no backroom deals? Whatever.


----------



## ridgetop

klbzdad said:


> Oh, this snow in the area is going to change the dynamic of research altogether. Interesting that just before the RACs and WB meeting on translocation and predator control of those sites, these updates end. This despite it being important enough of a project that there was also a "closed door" meeting with division managers/bios, researchers, and select members of sfw. There are no backroom deals? Whatever.


I'm sure if the UWC would have ponied up 100k, they would have been invited too.


----------



## elkfromabove

ridgetop said:


> I'm sure if the UWC would have ponied up 100k, they would have been invited too.


Actually, on the original range ride, UWC asked for and was assured we would be a part of every event, meeting and update pertaining to this transplant in order to keep the public fully informed, so maybe we were invited, but somebody just forgot to tell us when and where.

And FWIW, this wasn't the first meeting or event or update they forgot to tell us about. Maybe it is the 100k, huh? Or maybe it's the public being FULLY informed part! Or maybe it's just been oversights (4 that I know of)!

But, don't worry, I'll still get (and post) the official updates even if I have to get them late and/or 3rd hand like I've done in the past.

Hey, I've got an idea! How about if we (UWC) sell personal update email subscriptions to y'all instead of just posting this stuff for free! You'd pay $1.00 per month wouldn't you? That way we could make the $100,000 we'd need to get invited (plus a little extra for my personal time). That's sorta how the original $100,000 was earned! :grin:


----------



## klbzdad

Probably right ridge. $100,000.00 to listen to actual research presented to management and biologists from the division might be worth it. Its the rest of the crowd and their stupid pipe dreams that degrades the value of attending. 

Again, the timing of certain events are suspect but not unexpected. How come the mighty sfw doesn't have a page solely dedicated to updates from the researchers? Just curious......

elkfromabove, you've got my $1.00 commitment. And I'll pony up another $9.00 to make it a nice round number! Where do I sign up?


----------



## elkfromabove

klbzdad said:


> Probably right ridge. $100,000.00 to listen to actual research presented to management and biologists from the division might be worth it. Its the rest of the crowd and their stupid pipe dreams that degrades the value of attending.
> 
> Again, the timing of certain events are suspect but not unexpected. How come the mighty sfw doesn't have a page solely dedicated to updates from the researchers? Just curious......
> 
> elkfromabove, you've got my $1.00 commitment. And I'll pony up another $9.00 to make it a nice round number! Where do I sign up?


I love ya, big guy, but don't give SFW any ideas! I'd be out of a job which I enjoy, even though the money isn't much ($0). And you already signed up! Just add that amount to your monthly donation to UWC.


----------



## elkfromabove

elkfromabove said:


> Until next time,
> Lee Tracy (UWC)


 It's been a while, but here it is!

Mule deer translocation update for November 17 - December 7

It has been a quiet couple of weeks with only 1 resident deer mortality. This deer was found a little east of Holden, completely consumed, leaving little evidence to determine cause of death, but the carcass was not cached suggesting coyote predation. We also had 1 resident deer collar that detached prematurely. The collar material was weathered and weak and appears to have detached after getting snagged on a fence.

We are currently missing 5 translocated deer and 1 resident deer. Three of these deer have been missing for several months. The resident deer was located near winter range during the last flight, and we expect she is currently on winter range with a weak radio signal. We will continue to search for missing deer on the ground and on upcoming flights.

We have continued with our 2nd round of reproductive assessment for both translocated and resident deer. To date, we have carefully observed 33 deer (9 resident, 24 translocated) and noted the presence of fawns with 2 of 9 resident deer and 6 of 24 translocated deer. These estimates are likely biased low, but valuable in relation to each other. To date, it appears that reproductive output for surviving translocated deer is similar to that observed with resident deer.

In summary, we've had 52 total mortalities (6 of 50 resident deer, 46 of 102 translocated), 6 slipped collars (4 resident, 2 translocated), and 1 failed collar (translocated). Thirty nine resident deer and 48 translocated deer were alive and accounted this week.

Thanks to all for continued interest and support.

David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)

Thanks for sticking with us! The weather and the holidays may slow things down a bit, on the ground, in the air, and on the computers, so please be patient. 
Lee Tracy (UWC)


----------



## elkfromabove

The latest!

Mule deer translocation update for December 8 - December 21

We have no additional mortalities to report for either translocated deer or resident deer.

We are currently missing 5 translocated deer and 3 resident deer. Three of these deer have been missing for several months. We suspect 1 of the resident deer to have a weak radio signal. The other 2 resident deer have been heard on winter range but we have been unable to locate them over the last couple of weeks and hope to locate them on an upcoming flight.

We have continued with our 2nd round of reproductive assessment for both translocated and resident deer. To date, we have carefully observed 41 deer (12 resident, 29 translocated) and noted the presence of fawns with 2 of 12 resident deer and 8 of 29 translocated. Data continues to support the idea that reproduction was similar for resident and translocated deer.

In summary, we've had 52 total mortalities (6 of 50 resident deer, 46 of 102 translocated deer), 6 slipped collars (4 resident, 2 translocated), and 1 failed collar (translocated). Thirty seven resident deer and 48 translocated deer were alive and accounted for this week.

Thanks to all for continued interest and support.

David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)


Also, THANKS and have a Merry Christmas and a Happy, Healthy, and Safe New Year.
Lee Tracy (UWC)


----------



## elkfromabove

A Heads Up! Round #2 of the Parowan Front deer transplants is scheduled for next weekend Sat. 11th and Sun. 12th at the Parowan Airport beginning at 8:00 each morning. You're invited to come and help, but call the Southern Region Office to verify. 435-865-6100. Talk to Jason, Riley or Teresa.

They are also doing a capture/recapture of resident deer on the Pahvant two days prior to the transplant (Thur 9th & Fri 10th), but I don't know much about it. Call the DWR Office if interested.

Lee Tracy (UWC)


----------



## elkfromabove

elkfromabove said:


> A Heads Up! Round #2 of the Parowan Front deer transplants is scheduled for next weekend Sat. 11th and Sun. 12th at the Parowan Airport beginning at 8:00 each morning. You're invited to come and help, but call the Southern Region Office to verify. 435-865-6100. Talk to Jason, Riley or Teresa.
> 
> They are also doing a capture/recapture of resident deer on the Pahvant two days prior to the transplant (Thur 9th & Fri 10th), but I don't know much about it. Call the DWR Office if interested.
> 
> Lee Tracy (UWC)


 THE TRANSPLANT IS NOW ON FOR MONDAY AND TUESDAY!!!! Because of the storms up by Antelope Island that are delaying the bighorn sheep transplant, the Parowan Front deer transplant has been delayed two days. (thus far). We'll still be at the Parowan Airport at 8:00 each morning and all DWR staff and volunteers will still be fed lunch, but keep in mind, anything can still change per the weather. We'll keep you posted!


----------



## elkfromabove

An update on the 2013 transplant. (We'll start a new thread for the upcoming transplant.)

Mule deer translocation update for December 22-January 4

We had one translocated deer mortality in the last 2 weeks. This deer was found east of Meadow, Utah and appears to be a coyote predation (not cached and signs of a struggle with coyote tracks in the snow).

We are currently missing 5 translocated deer and 2 resident deer. Three of these deer have been missing for several months. We suspect 1 of the resident deer to have a weak radio signal.

We have continued with our 2nd round of reproductive assessment for both translocated and resident deer. To date, we have carefully observed 43 deer (12 resident, 31 translocated) and noted the presence of at least one fawn with 3 of 12 resident deer and 8 of 31 translocated deer. Data continues to support the idea that reproduction was at least as good for translocated deer as it was for resident deer.

In summary, we've had 53 total mortalities (6 of 50 resident deer, 47 of 102 translocated deer), 6 slipped collars (4 resident, 2 translocated) and 1 failed collar (translocated). Thirty eight resident deer and 47 translocated deer were alive and accounted for this week.

Capture and transplant of additional deer from the Parowan Front to Holden will occur this coming week** and we look forward to monitoring these deer. Recapture of a sample of translocated deer from last year will also occur this weekend. This effort will provide an opportunity to re-measure fat levels and condition for comparison with last year and in relation to resident deer.

Thanks to all for continued interest and support.

David Smedley and Randy Larsen (BYU)


Until next time!
Lee Tracy (UWC)
**Monday 13th and Tuesday 14th, 8:00 am, Parowan Airport.


----------

