# Colorado study...Deer herd fact or theory



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

http://wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdon...BE2459B8/0/EffectOfLimitedAntleredHarvest.pdf

I find it interesting that this study is thrown around on this forum like this is a proven science like gravity. After reading this paper I have no doubt that these were the findings on those four units. I don't disagree one bit, what I do disagree with is that this would be a way for anyone to prove that bucks have a negative effect on the total population of mule deer. Fawn recruitment is the main factor in this study.



> Our analysis was based on an opportunistic quasiexperiment because treatment DAUs were not selected at random.


Am I the only one that finds this statement a little hard to swallow? Maybe someone should do a study addressing self selection bias in quasi experimental evaluations of Colorado deer herds.

This study is only theory based in part on the statistics in these four units, does that mean that this should be in any way used as determining factor to manage Utah's deer herds? The answer is NO. Need proof? Lets look at four units in Utah and I will use ten year averages from statistics in the 2009 Big Game report from 2000-2009.

Chalk Creek fawn/100doe 71.7
buck/100doe 30.7 
fawn/100adult 54.8
spring fawn/100adult 50 
fawn loss 8.7%

Cache fawn/100doe 73 
buck/100doe 14.5
fawn/100adult 63.5
spring fawn/100adult 50.5
fawn loss 20.5%

South Slope, Yellowstone
fawn/100doe 61.5
buck/100doe 13.5
fawn/100adult 53.8
spring fawn/100adult 40.8
fawn loss 24.2%

Pine Valley fawn/100doe 57.8
buck/100doe 20.7
fawn/100adult 47.9
spring fawn/100adult 44.4
fawn loss 7.3%

I did the averages for 34 unit/subunits, and found it very interesting. You can go ahead and look at the population numbers for those units, I chose not to for one reason, COMPUTER MODELING. Modeling is a tool used to estimate things in science that otherwise would be hard to explain. Weather is predicted with the use of modeling and seven day forecasts are less then 40% accurate, They didn't predict the flooding that took place outside my front door, and they didn't do a good job of predicting the blizzard at thanksgiving. I remember the sunshine on my drive across the state that day. Modeling is not fact, nor should it be used as such.

Studies are done all of the time, and then later another study will come out and have completely different results. These things should never be considered fact, only theory.

After I completed the 34 unit averages it was easy for me to see that not all units are the same. I think we are long overdue for the 29 unit management, you can't control these units using region management. o-|| o-||

Place fireworks here____________________


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

The problem is with this debate is that the available science we have tells us what results to expect under certain conditions.

Since those results do not fit some of our opinions we are moving to discredit the science any way we can. If we accomplish that task we just took ourselves back a century and we know no more about game management than we knew 50, 60, or 80 years ago. 

I should point out that it wasn't that long ago that I was pushing for tag cuts, antler restrictions, and I mostly ingnored the science. Once I had the science put in front of me I chose to eat crow and change my stance. 

The micro units are "hunter" units. Deer have been managed for a long time at a local level, in many cases at even smaller levels than micro units. It is my belief that improving deer numbers should be done through improved fawn recruitment. Option 2 does not give us that. Option 2 cuts opportunity for no biological benefit and micro manages hunters even though history has shown that managing buck only hunters has very little effect on herd numbers.


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

Bullsnot what you are telling me is that the DWR put out the 2009 Big Game Report that is full of misinformation. Where do they get their #s from? Isn't that a biologists job? Read the losses in % on fawns. How many bucks/100does? Did you even read my post?


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

Also I made no mention of tag cuts in my post


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

EmptyNet said:


> Bullsnot what you are telling me is that the DWR put out the 2009 Big Game Report that is full of misinformation. Where do they get their #s from? Isn't that a biologists job? Read the losses in % on fawns. How many bucks/100does? Did you even read my post?


First off I certainly don't think you can compare game management to weather forecasting. That's apples and tomatoes.

Second I'm not sure I understand your point on the misinformation. The DWR has biologists on staff so I don't quite understand your question. I will ask you this though.....what proof do you have the information given is incorrect?


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

Thats computer modeling, its used in all asspects of science. Do you think computer modeling is accurate for deer herd counts? Total unit counts, not the ones that they observe, those total counts are done with computer modeling.

The #s from the Big Game Report, do you beleive those? I'm talking about buck/doe, fawn/doe, fawn/adult and spring counts of fawn/adult. These are the accurate #s someone went out and observed the deer.

The 4 units show fawn recruitment in %. how hard is that to see? Look at buck # in those units.

Maybe I don't see what you are getting at with your post.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

I guess this is something I can relate to. At work I have several hundred people that report to me. Often times there is someone that comes into my office and complains the either a) our company has no idea what we are doing or b) they have an idea of how something can be done so much better. Every once in a while one of those people has a good point but for the most part they have NO IDEA why we are doing what we are doing. 

We live in an age of accountability and lots of competition. I see some problems with the RAC/WB process but the DWR and their biologists aren't phoning this stuff in. They are working their tails off to get it right. 

On a side note the Utah DWR are using the same methods to count deer as Colorado, Nevada and other neighboring states.

I ask again what proof do you have that shows the information is incorrect?


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Look simply put if you think the numbers are wrong then you need to be able to prove that at least to some degree and then you'd have to propose a viable alternative. You have to live with all of the limiting factors that exist today such as the budget. If you do that I would listen.

It's easy to say something is wrong....the hard part is coming up with something better that actually works.


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

The ones I don't believe are the total Unit count. The accurate ones are the buck/doe fawn/doe fawn/adult. Those are observed deer in the field that someone actually counted.

So look at the buck #s in the 4 units, now look at fawn losses in %. Notice anything?


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

EmptyNet said:


> So look at the buck #s in the 4 units, now look at fawn losses in %. Notice anything?


Definitely. As I have been saying all along if you want more bucks, then improve fawn mortality rates. That's what I see.

How do you propose we do better herd counts with the budget limitations that we have? Do we believe Colorado's herd counts?


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I guess there are 2 main facts to consider with- 1-bucks never have fawns and 2-doe can not give birth without a buck. I think we can agree on those facts.

So, when the Fawn to Doe ratios are compiled, we see that units' ratios fluctuate over time and it usually never corresponds with the number of bucks. Those stats show that buck numbers have little to do with fawn production- a unit with high buck numbers might have low fawn production, while a unit with low buck numbers might have high fawn production. That seems constant through all mule deer counts which I have seen from many different states. The fluctuation in fawn numbers come from outside factors, such as predation, habitat, winter, temperatures, etc....


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Packout said:


> I guess there are 2 main facts to consider with- 1-bucks never have fawns and 2-doe can not give birth without a buck. I think we can agree on those facts.
> 
> So, when the Fawn to Doe ratios are compiled, we see that units' ratios fluctuate over time and it usually never corresponds with the number of bucks. Those stats show that buck numbers have little to do with fawn production- a unit with high buck numbers might have low fawn production, while a unit with low buck numbers might have high fawn production. That seems constant through all mule deer counts which I have seen from many different states. The fluctuation in fawn numbers come from outside factors, such as predation, habitat, winter, temperatures, etc....


Well stated!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

EmptyNet said:


> Thats computer modeling, its used in all asspects of science. Do you think computer modeling is accurate for deer herd counts? Total unit counts, not the ones that they observe, those total counts are done with computer modeling.
> 
> The #s from the Big Game Report, do you beleive those? I'm talking about buck/doe, fawn/doe, fawn/adult and spring counts of fawn/adult. These are the accurate #s someone went out and observed the deer.
> 
> ...


Okay, help me out here. How can buck/doe, fawn/doe, fawn/adult and spring counts of fawn/adult be anymore accurate than deer herd counts? Ratios are not the results of EVERY buck/doe/fawn being counted, it is based on sampling and models. If you doubt one, you need to doubt the other. Also, as Packout correctly pointed out, many factors determine fawn numbers per 100 deer/doe such as predators, quality of habitat, weather/moisture, and human pressure during critical times of the year. The great thing, and the bad thing with statistics is that they can 'prove' anyone's point depending on where you start and where you stop. Bottom line, there is NO concrete evidence that proves without so much as a sliver of doubt that raising buck:doe ratios WILL result in higher fawn survival rates. That is a FACT! To me, taking opportunity away based on a theory that hasn't even come close to being proven to be an effective means of growing the deer herd is a poor investment/cost.

I repeat the words of a wise man, "We should be managing wildlife *WITH* hunters, NOT managing wildlife *FOR* hunters."


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

Okay - I read the article that Emptynet provided. I think I understand what he is trying to say. The four sites he selected in Utah are showing different, almost opposite, results of the Colorado study.
The main problem with the Colorado study is the sample size. That is also the problem with the samples shown from Utah.
However, the analysis of the Colorado data was excellent. I haven't seen any analysis of the Utah samples provided.
I thought the major factor, as stated in the research, as to why fawn recruitment was lower in these areas with higher buck:doe ratios was probably due to density dependent factors. In other words the fawns could not out compete the larger deer and most likely starved, or weakened, becoming easier targest of predators, the weather, etc. 
I have stated on here before I am a firm believer in computer modeling. It is subject to change as new data is added, but is a valuable tool to use for planning, forecasting, etc.

Sorry to nitpick on this next part - the word Theory is used wrong in this thread. Hypothesis should be the used in place of Theory. All theories are based on facts, hypothesis are proposed to obtain facts, facts are used to design theories.


----------



## Brookie (Oct 26, 2008)

Hypothesis are educated guess about what might happen next. They are usually wrong. The facts only appear after the experiment is done. So when some says you only need 5 bucks to breed a 100 does: This would be a Hypothesis. Is it a fact? Yes, in a sense, but in some cases it would be proven wrong. So a scientist would say we infer that 5 bucks is needed to breed a hundred does. Which is a scientist opinion. Theories are based on facts but they change as the technology gets better and the data gets better. Scientist have to have a big majority to even suggest a theory.

So this is where the problem is with all the debates. Every group of sportsman (Like SFW) can find scientists that will be able to infer their motive for deer herd recovery as facts.


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

Brookie said:


> Hypothesis are educated guess about what might happen next.* They are usually wrong. Even when wrong valuable data is gained, it is okay to be wrong, you then tweak the hypothesis and try again.* The facts only appear after the experiment is done. * So when some says you only need 5 bucks to breed a 100 does: This would be a Hypothesis. Is it a fact? Yes, in a sense, but in some cases it would be proven wrong. So a scientist would say we infer that 5 bucks is needed to breed a hundred does. Which is a scientist opinion. * If it is a fact in some cases and not correct in other situations, then a researcher would need to try to discover what other variables apply to make it a fact in some situations. It would be okay for the scientist to infer if they made qualifications with the inference such as; "We infer that a buck to doe ratio of 5:100 will ensure favorable fawn recruitment when the following other conditions are met.........."Theories are based on facts but they change as the technology gets better and the data gets better. Scientist have to have a big majority to even suggest a theory.
> 
> So this is where the problem is with all the debates. Every group of sportsman (Like SFW) can find scientists that will be able to infer their motive for deer herd recovery as facts.


Exactly, that is why it is important to look at the research behind the studies. It helps to determine who is the most credible.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

The Naturalist said:


> Okay - I read the article that Emptynet provided. I think I understand what he is trying to say. The four sites he selected in Utah are showing different, almost opposite, results of the Colorado study.


I admit I am guilty of misunderstanding EmptyNet's point. Now I understand, I think.

I think Empty is saying that there are units in Utah where there are higher buck to doe ratios but fawn mortality is lower and contradicts the study done in Colorado that concludes more bucks equals increased fawn mortality. I think that is easily explained however.

There is an important variable that must be considered, carrying capacity. If a unit is not at CARRYING CAPACITY then more bucks will not limit fawn production until that unit gets closer to carrying capacity. More bucks though will equal a lower carrying capacity of a unit since they eat almost as much as 2 does, and several fawns.

So based on this I would say the units that show opposite results of the Colorado study simple mean those units are not at carrying capacity. Somebody correct me if I've missed it yet again.


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

EmptyNet said:


> > Our analysis was based on an opportunistic quasiexperiment because treatment DAUs were not selected at random.
> 
> 
> Am I the only one that finds this statement a little hard to swallow? Maybe someone should do a study addressing self selection bias in quasi experimental evaluations of Colorado deer herds.


I don't find that hard to swallow; in fact, I find it significant that the researchers themselves said to take it with a grain of salt. There's interesting data there that's suggestive, but according to the researchers, the scientific controls weren't tight enough to draw reliable conclusions. In other words, we've noticed something interesting, but there's more work to be done before arriving at a conclusion.



EmptyNet said:


> Thats computer modeling, its used in all asspects of science. Do you think computer modeling is accurate for deer herd counts?


While researching this two or three weeks ago, I ran across a peer-reviewed study that appeared in a biology journal (too lazy to look it up at the moment). The study was actually an analysis of the accuracy of the mathematical modeling used to estimate wildlife populations. The results indicated that the accuracy was pretty good if the on-the-ground data fed into the equations was collected correctly. Also, computer modeling is a bit of a misnomer. The results of the statistical modeling come about via some complicated algebra and calculus that fill in values of unknown variables based upon other known or approximated numbers in the equations. The results amount to statistical probabilities and margins of error. The modeling could be done by hand, but why spend a week on something that a computer can digest and spit back out in a couple of seconds?


----------



## prettytiedup (Dec 19, 2007)

The thing that I see is this. In states with micro-units there is at least the APPEARANCE that the state is actually managing the deer herd. From my perspective I see little evidence of Utah's DWR doing any management. The DWR had 10+ years to work on fawn recruitment under the previous system with ZERO results. 

My belief and one I have read studies to support is that a doe's more likely to reject an immature buck during her first estrus cycle. The readers digest version of the study was that mature bucks do a better job of breeding the does during their first estrus cycle resulting in fawns born earlier in the spring providing resulting in healthier stronger fawns entering their first winter. Increasing the buck to doe ratio should provide more mature bucks entering the rut which in turn should provide healthier fawns.

I would be interested in seeing fawn recruitment from units like the book cliffs or the henries to see what effect a high buck to doe ratio has on fawn recruitment.

Lastly, my hope is that the 29 units require the DWR to actually manage the deer herd. Having hunted Colorado the past 6 years I can say they always have a presence in the field. We have always seen DWR officers in the field when hunting CO but I have never seen one here in Utah. Every year for the past 6 years I have seen Doe deer wearing radio collars. I have never seen a collared deer in utah. That by itself leads me to believe that Colorado is actually managing their deer herd and gives the appearance that Utah is not.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

prettytiedup said:


> The thing that I see is this. In states with micro-units there is at least the APPEARANCE that the state is actually managing the deer herd. From my perspective I see little evidence of Utah's DWR doing any management. The DWR had 10+ years to work on fawn recruitment under the previous system with ZERO results.
> 
> My belief and one I have read studies to support is that a doe's more likely to reject an immature buck during her first estrus cycle. The readers digest version of the study was that mature bucks do a better job of breeding the does during their first estrus cycle resulting in fawns born earlier in the spring providing resulting in healthier stronger fawns entering their first winter. Increasing the buck to doe ratio should provide more mature bucks entering the rut which in turn should provide healthier fawns.
> 
> ...


Just a clarification, they had less than 2 years under the previous system, so we really don't know if it would have worked. Second, if you though you saw a lack of CO's in the field what makes you think that now that they have cut 13,000 tags give or take that they can afford to put more CO's in the field with micromanaging?


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

prettytiedup said:


> Lastly, my hope is that the 29 units require the DWR to actually manage the deer herd. Having hunted Colorado the past 6 years I can say they always have a presence in the field. We have always seen DWR officers in the field when hunting CO but I have never seen one here in Utah.


Colorado 2010 DOW budget: $115 million
Utah 2010 DWR budget: $67 million

Are you prepared to have your permit fees increase by several hundred percent to pay for this additional deer management that, by the way, hasn't spared Colorado from the decline in mule deer herd numbers experienced by all our surrounding states?


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Something else that has been bugging me, most of the people who are supporting option 2 are the ones who complain about hillbilly roadhunters shooting all the forked horned bucks. I find it ironic that most of them also state that we need more mature bucks to breed the does, because the first cycle does will more than likely pass on getting breed by one of these younger bucks. So using your guys reasoning, will you guys do what is best for the deer herds (using your postion) and instead of shooting 4 point or better, shoot 3 point or smaller. Hey leave those big bucks to breed and shoot those little ones that haven't sexually developed all the way yet. In case you didn't catch on I am being very sarcastic, but hopefully you can see the the irony.


----------



## prettytiedup (Dec 19, 2007)

jahan said:


> prettytiedup said:
> 
> 
> > The thing that I see is this. In states with micro-units there is at least the APPEARANCE that the state is actually managing the deer herd. From my perspective I see little evidence of Utah's DWR doing any management. The DWR had 10+ years to work on fawn recruitment under the previous system with ZERO results.
> ...


I was actually referring to the 5 region management plan. That has been in place since '94 or '96 I believe. As far as the numbers of CO's you are making my point. I argue that Utah doesn't actively manage any of the wildlife here. Maybe the changes taking place will force them to.


----------



## prettytiedup (Dec 19, 2007)

HunterGeek said:


> prettytiedup said:
> 
> 
> > Lastly, my hope is that the 29 units require the DWR to actually manage the deer herd. Having hunted Colorado the past 6 years I can say they always have a presence in the field. We have always seen DWR officers in the field when hunting CO but I have never seen one here in Utah.
> ...


What are you prepared to do to improve the health of the deer herd? Give more tags to SWF to auction off? If money is the issue then it need to come from some were. There has been a drastic reduction in tags in many units in CO due to declining numbers based on winter kill and other factors. I'm not saying that CO is perfect, I am saying that they actually manage their wildlife and do it without groups like SWF.


----------



## prettytiedup (Dec 19, 2007)

jahan said:


> Something else that has been bugging me, most of the people who are supporting option 2 are the ones who complain about hillbilly roadhunters shooting all the forked horned bucks. I find it ironic that most of them also state that we need more mature bucks to breed the does, because the first cycle does will more than likely pass on getting breed by one of these younger bucks. So using your guys reasoning, will you guys do what is best for the deer herds (using your postion) and instead of shooting 4 point or better, shoot 3 point or smaller. Hey leave those big bucks to breed and shoot those little ones that haven't sexually developed all the way yet. In case you didn't catch on I am being very sarcastic, but hopefully you can see the the irony.


The last deer I killed in Utah was in the book cliffs in 2005. Yep he was the biggest buck I saw the whole time I was there. He wasn't the only mature deer I saw though. Every year I pass small bucks and even a few mature deer. Even being in the dedicated hunter program I have elected not to kill deer with the hopes of being able to find them when they are a little bigger.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

prettytiedup said:


> I was actually referring to the 5 region management plan. That has been in place since '94 or '96 I believe. As far as the numbers of CO's you are making my point. I argue that Utah doesn't actively manage any of the wildlife here. Maybe the changes taking place will force them to.


Let's dispell some common myths here. I would be very interested in hearing your comments after reading this post. I'm not calling you out and I hope you have an open mind. I'm just trying to point out what Utah has been doing for mule deer.

Here is a link to Utah's here management plans that were voted on and approved in 2006. These are 30 deer management units. Only hunters have been managed on a region level:
http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/hunting/hu ... plans.html

Here is a link to the mule deer plan that was approved in 2008. Lots of good tools to use....I seriously challenge you to read it. You will be shocked to see how much substance there is there. Ask yourself why haven't we given this plan more time to work? And why hasn't the wildlife board used all the tools in this plan before making changes yet again?
http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggam ... r_plan.pdf

Finally here is a summary of some of the things Utah has been doing to manage deer:

1. Habitat - We are conducting the most massive effort to restore mule deer habitat conditions ever undertaken in Utah, or in the West. In the last five years, the Division, along with its many partners, has improved mule deer habitat on more than 600,000 acres at a cost of more than $70 million. Habitat improvement projects often take a few years before they begin to pay off, but I am confident that in the long term they will result in healthier deer populations throughout the state. Our deer management plan has an objective to improve another 500,000 acres of habitat in the next five years. 
2. Predators - The Division recognizes that coyotes and other predators can cause significant mortality, especially among mule deer fawns, and that predator control is an important part of a deer management program. In the last five years, the Division has provided almost $3 million to Wildlife Services to control coyotes in areas that are important to our deer populations. Last year alone, Wildlife Services killed more than 1,700 coyotes in critical deer habitat areas with funding and guidance provided by the Division. The Division would like to expand our predator control efforts if we can obtain new funding. 
3. Highway Mortality - Deer-auto collisions are responsible for the death of thousands of deer annually. We are working closely with the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) to reduce highway mortality, and we appreciate their cooperation in addressing this serious issue. In the past five years, UDOT has spent more than $45 million on fencing and highway bypass structures around the state for both mule deer and elk. The Division is also providing funding to Utah State University for a study to further identify the most effective types of highway bypass structures for both deer and elk. 
4. Poaching - The Division has stepped up our law enforcement efforts and put more resources into catching poachers who steal many deer from Utah sportsmen each year. Several high-profile arrests have recently been made of poachers who have unlawfully killed multiple deer. Information we receive from sportsmen, alerting us to illegal activity, has been a key to our law enforcement success. 
5. Disease - Diseases can cause significant mortality in deer populations. The Division has expended more than $1 million in the last five years in the surveillance and research of chronic wasting disease and other diseases that affect mule deer. 
6. Research - The Division has initiated numerous research projects in recent years to better understand the factors that are negatively affecting our mule deer populations. Last winter, the Division embarked on an extensive statewide radio telemetry study to better understand over-winter survival of both does and fawns. Hundreds of deer will be collared over the next few years-at an expense of more than $1 million-in order to gain better information about deer survival rates. The Division is also planning a comprehensive productivity study that will focus on the impacts of predators on mule deer fawns. 
7. Emergency Feeding - The Division has an emergency winter feeding policy for deer should unusually severe conditions arise that warrant supplemental feeding. Even though feeding deer is both expensive and labor intensive, the Division has resources set aside for emergency situations. In 2008, the Division, in concert with several sportsman organizations, fed more than 14,000 deer in the Northern Region at a cost of more than $228,000.

Still feel Utah isn't doing anything to actually manage deer?


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

bullsnot said:


> The Naturalist said:
> 
> 
> > Okay - I read the article that Emptynet provided. I think I understand what he is trying to say. The four sites he selected in Utah are showing different, almost opposite, results of the Colorado study.
> ...


I left town for xmas didn't realize that some of the posts would get so far away from what I was trying to say, but you got it now.

Pine Valley has an objective population of 12,800, is this what you are calling carrying capacity? Pine Valleys current population as of 2009 was 13,400. It was the same in 2007 & 2008. Fawn recruitment may be a big problem in some units but not in others, Pine Valley bucks are not a problem for the does and fawns. The buck to doe ratio is above the 3 extra bucks that everyone is so afraid of, but yet Pine Valley has 20/100 and the herd looks fine to me. I can go out on any day of the week and find hundreds of deer. Does, fawns and bucks included, but this doesn't mean that thirty inchers are running all over the place.

I have been looking at the stats for a while and have noticed something that I would think is a problem, but I'm tired and going to bed. I will try to get on here tomorrow for more discussion.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

EmptyNet said:


> Pine Valley has an objective population of 12,800, is this what you are calling carrying capacity? Pine Valleys current population as of 2009 was 13,400. It was the same in 2007 & 2008. Fawn recruitment may be a big problem in some units but not in others, Pine Valley bucks are not a problem for the does and fawns. The buck to doe ratio is above the 3 extra bucks that everyone is so afraid of, but yet Pine Valley has 20/100 and the herd looks fine to me. I can go out on any day of the week and find hundreds of deer. Does, fawns and bucks included, this doesn't mean that thirty inchers are running all over the place.


In short the population objective is the number we pick out of a hat that we desire the populations to be. This is driven by hunting, ranching, farming, travel, development and other social issues. Carrying capacity is obviously the max number of animals that the landscape can biologically sustain at a healthy level. Carrying capacity's and objectives rarely are the same IMHO. It's my opinion that in some units the objective is higher than capacity (i.e. the Books and Henry's). These units have aging forests and wintering grounds that choke out the types of vegetation that deer eat among other issues like predators and disease. But in other units the objective is lower than capacity. (i.e. the entire Wasatch Front, especially Bountiful and in areas with lots of farming). In these cases it will appear that deer can be grown and managed as easily as dandelions in your front lawn since nature is growing them faster than humans desire.

The problem is I'm not sure that we know what the carrying capacity is on a lot of these units. To be fair it would be a tough task to take on and would be a liquid number that would change with weather (winters/drought), vegetation conditions, and human development among other things.


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

If I was to do a study in Utah to try and duplicate the Colorado study I would pick:
Morgan-South Rich
fawn/100doe 76 
buck/100doe 43.5
fawn/100adult 53.1
springfawn/100adult 40.7 
fawn loss % 23.4

East Canyon 
fawn/100doe 74.9 
buck/100doe 28.7 
fawn/100adult 58.2 
springfawn/100adult 43.4 
fawn loss % 25.4

Nine Mile,RC 
fawn/100doe 56.1 
buck/100doe 24.1 
fawn/100adult 45.2 
springfawn/100adult 31.5 
fawn loss % 30.31

Just by taking the ten year average from the 2009 Big Game Report(pgs55-76) you can see how a unit does over a short time(most would say ten years is a short time). I think if you choose a unit that shows poor fawn recruitment that would be the results of a study done on that unit. I also think you could preselect units that show excellent fawn recruitment with higher buck to doe ratios. Small samples for any study always seem to have bias to me.

Now on to what I have noticed with the stats from pgs55-76, some units have great fawn recruitment but very poor fawn to doe #s. Being the son of a rancher seeing the states average fawn to doe at 60/100 is an alarm bell to me, that means 40% of the does in the state aren't producing but they still feed and take up space in their summer/winter range.......hhmmm -Ov- food for thought.


----------

