# monroe collar study



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I received this information today about the Monroe Collar Study:

Monroe Unit Deer Radio Collar Study
(A Short Summary)

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

We monitor 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. We 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





What has happened to the deer herd on Monroe Mountain?

Many people have noticed that they are seeing fewer deer and bucks on the Monroe unit in recent years. This fawn study along with other data gathered has helped us understand why the unit’s population has declined.

For the years 2002-2007 the fawn/doe ratio averaged 60 fawns/100 does. Then in 2008 the ratio declined to 45/100, then a dry year in 2009 only produced 43 fawns/100 does. 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.

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.

Deer populations are very dependant on fawn production and recruitment. As outlined above, the Monroe unit had poor production for 4 straight years and had a very significant winter kill in 2009-10, resulting in a significant population reduction and less bucks available to hunters.

Is there any good news!

Yes!....Though fawn production was low in 2010, the fawns came through the winter with 68% survival (a very good survival rate). Due to record precipitation in 2011 our fall classification survey showed 66 fawns/100 does, more fawns than we have had in many years. So far, the winter of 2011-12 has been very mild and we expect very good survival. This will give the Monroe a needed boost for both our doe and buck segments of the herd. Though future weather conditions cannot be predicted, if current trends continue, we should see the Monroe’s deer herd increasing.

In 2012 Utah is going to unit by unit management. This will allow the Division to raise or lower buck deer permits in response to buck/doe ratios. The number of buck deer permits issued for the Monroe will likely be significantly reduced, compared to previous year’s hunter numbers. This will aid in raising the ratio of bucks/100 does.

In addition, the unit is and will experience increased predator management activities directed at coyotes. New university studies will help us determine if reducing coyote populations will help survival rates and population levels on the unit.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Glad to see Option 2 is working already!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Thanks for the update, wy2ut! Very informational.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> The number of buck deer permits issued for the Monroe will likely be significantly reduced, compared to previous year's hunter numbers. This will aid in raising the ratio of bucks/100 does.


Provided of course that people will obey the law, and hunt on the unit for which they have drawn a tag.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Fishrmn said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > The number of buck deer permits issued for the Monroe will likely be significantly reduced, compared to previous year's hunter numbers. This will aid in raising the ratio of bucks/100 does.
> ...


I personally expect to see alot more enforcement out there this year on the opening weekend than in years past.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

You are expecting too much, then....in years past, every available CO works opening weekend of the deer hunt. I don't know how they can increase that...


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Deputize everybody. Or at least be willing to be the eyes and ears of the DWR, and be willing to call the poaching hot line.


----------



## willfish4food (Jul 14, 2009)

Great info W2U. It's good to see there's hope. 



> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > The number of buck deer permits issued for the Monroe will likely be significantly reduced, compared to previous year's hunter numbers. This will aid in raising the ratio of bucks/100 does.
> ...


Not sure this will be as much of a problem. If the unit is suffering so badly that the tag numbers have to be reduced, I'm guessing not many people would even want to go there instead of the unit they drew.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I have been checked fishing at Barney twice in my lifetime.

Never once even seen a CO during the hunts never been checked nor has anyone in my family. Long long ago the forest ranger used to make a visit to camp and want to know about harvests. But more for his own personal curiosity then anything else.

I'd be willing to bet more than 50 elk are poached off that unit yr in and yr out. That's why I wanted the DWR to post names of elk tag holders. So some of us could do some poacher patrolin ourselves. As it stands now who knows who really has a tag or not. 

Back on topic. Does this study consider predator harassment as a factor in low body weight? I know the DWR is concerned about that when it comes to shed hunters. Which only hunt during daylight hours a few months a yr. And if a deer is found dead does it have to be half eaten in order to be considered a death by predation? And how do they make a determination between coyote and cougar? Could a cougar make a kill and coyote scavenge it and it be chalked up as a coyote kill? 

Cattlemen in Idaho Montana and Wyoming are claiming significant reductions in body weight on their cattle where wolves are present. So I wonder if predator presence among mule deer is having a similar effect.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Fishrmn said:


> Deputize everybody. Or at least be willing to be the eyes and ears of the DWR, and be willing to call the poaching hot line.


Deputize everybody? Or did you mean just the DWR employees? In any case, you're just joking around, right? Imagine, 80,000 untrained armed citizens checking one another for poaching! I doubt either option would be advisable, let alone legal!

I'm willing to be the ears of the DWR and if I hear someone admit to being on the wrong unit, I'll report it. But I'm not going to be the eyes or mouth of the DWR and ask a potential armed lawbreaker to show me his/her permit!

Besides, I think the majority of the those who decide to hunt on the wrong unit will be landowners who hunt their own posted property even though they don't have a permit for that unit. :x


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Does this study consider predator harassment as a factor in low body weight?


I doubt it...remember, though, that predation is linked to habitat conditions. When habitat conditions are good, predation is lower and when habitat conditions are not good, predation is higher. So, after exceptionally dry summers or during exceptionally snowy winters, predation rates will increase...as the numbers above bear out.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> And if a deer is found dead does it have to be half eaten in order to be considered a death by predation?


No. Whether a deer is eaten or not doesn't change how it was killed or why it died.



Iron Bear said:


> And how do they make a determination between coyote and cougar? Could a cougar make a kill and coyote scavenge it and it be chalked up as a coyote kill?


Coyotes and cougars are different animals with different behaviors...their behaviors differ when it comes to killing and how it comes to killing. These behaviors help biologists determine what did the killing. For example, the skull of a dead deer can be checked for teeth marks...the absence of teeth marks on or around the skull may indicate a coyote, the presence or the size of teeth marks may indicate a lion kill. Also, good evidence must exist to make the determination; otherwise, the kill is chalked up as predation with the exact predator left as unknown. The biologists are pretty careful about skewing data by making assumptions, they try hard to check the available evidence for proof one way or another...the absence of proof leaves the biologist no choice but to chalk up the death as unknown.


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Back on topic. Does this study consider predator harassment as a factor in low body weight? I know the DWR is concerned about that when it comes to shed hunters. Which only hunt during daylight hours a few months a yr. And if a deer is found dead does it have to be half eaten in order to be considered a death by predation? And how do they make a determination between coyote and cougar? Could a cougar make a kill and coyote scavenge it and it be chalked up as a coyote kill?
> 
> Cattlemen in Idaho Montana and Wyoming are claiming significant reductions in body weight on their cattle where wolves are present. So I wonder if predator presence among mule deer is having a similar effect.


Just by the way they hunt, it's hard to blame cougar harassment for low body fat in deer or elk. Lions stalk then ambush their prey, but if the prey makes it the first 30 yards after being surprised, they get away. Lions have a tremendous burst of initial speed, but lack the stamina to maintain it more than a few yards before they are slowed to a walk. If a lion fails on it's initial attempt to score a kill, it quickly gives up and starts looking for another victim. The deer or elk is then free to go back to feeding.

Wolves and coyotes, on the other hand, often score kills by wearing down and harassing their victims. You possibly could make a case for low body weight of deer or elk being associated with coyote or wolf harassment, but I think the biggest factor in body fat is still range conditions.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Read over the information on this site...it talks about how the specific predators tend to kill and the differences among them.
http://icwdm.org/inspection/livestock.asp


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Iron Bear said:


> Back on topic. Does this study consider predator harassment as a factor in low body weight? I know the DWR is concerned about that when it comes to shed hunters. Which only hunt during daylight hours a few months a yr. And if a deer is found dead does it have to be half eaten in order to be considered a death by predation? And how do they make a determination between coyote and cougar? Could a cougar make a kill and coyote scavenge it and it be chalked up as a coyote kill?
> 
> Cattlemen in Idaho Montana and Wyoming are claiming significant reductions in body weight on their cattle where wolves are present. So I wonder if predator presence among mule deer is having a similar effect.


Based on the data, there's no way of knowing whether or not the harassment factor is considered, but it's probably a mote point since coyotes and cougars and deer have been doing this dance for eons, long before men were around to hunt them or the deer sheds. And it hasn't been a big factor either way in the rise and fall of the deer herds. Human harassment may be, but not predator harassment.

As far as the CSI's go, the DWR people are trained well enough to piece together the evidence in order to determine what happened. And any mistake they may make is rare. Even I know that cougars aren't usually scavengers and if there are cougar and coyote signs around a carcass, it's almost a sure bet that it's the cougar who's the killer. (Read the previous posts.)

I'm not sure if you're just not giving the DWR investigators enough credit or you don't believe the results, but what this study tells me is that predation is minor factor and is pretty much an afterthought when it comes to habitat, weather, and disease.

Don't get me wrong! I think cougars and coyotes need to be controlled, but not at the expense of other issues.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

An extensive study was just completed in Idaho and the conclusion was that extensive coyote and cat removal yielded almost no improvement in deer numbers for coyotes and a slight fawn mortality decrease due to cougar predation.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Sure I question the DWR I think that's prudent. If their finding have merit then it should certainly stand up to a hillbillies scrutiny.

Elkfromabove, Isn't caloric expenditure the same whether it comes as a result of deep snow, extreme cold, human activity, natural predators, elk competition or excessive search for food. It all has the same result in varying degree's. Lower body weight and malnutrition. The issue is what is acceptable and what is not.

I tend to not want to limit human activity at the drop of a hat. It is probable that there are other factors to look at before we limit the human. 

Again I am not calling for the eradication of any predator. I am just of the opinion that predation is a factor we can control. And just as we habitually look to limit human activity to help deer. We should look at predation also. After all expensive as it may seem it is by far the most cost effective manner to help deer herds out. For the moment I will concede it not to be the paramount factor in deer herd declines. When you consider all the factors that are contributors. Few can be controlled. And some take decades if not centuries to reverse or rehabilitate. Others will cost billions. Simple policy change can not only increase revenue but save DWR expenditures. And give the deer a hand up and the hunter at the same time.

Granted I don't have the resources of the Federal Gov or the DWR. But there is some basis for my claims as well as merit. I have been vindicated several time over on many issues regarding Mule deer. As annoying as you guys find me. In the end I assure you we are all pulling for the same thing. At least I hope.

Wy2 thanks for the response. You have provided some food for thought.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> For the moment I will concede it not to be the paramount factor in deer herd declines.


You had to throw in the "for the moment" caveat. :lol:

I find wisdom in your words when you finally decide to come out of your corner and are less black and white. I know you've got that in you, but many onlookers just see the cougar conspiracy theorist.

I'm still trying to figure out how a cougar killed Lincoln. :mrgreen:


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> I'm still trying to figure out how a cougar killed Lincoln. :mrgreen:


A cougar didn't kill Lincoln, but a cougar did get JFK. Remember how he hid behind the "Grassy Knoll" and struck? 

Very informative post, W2U. The number of malnutrition related deaths during some years also gives support to the habitat restoration efforts as more important than they may at times seem.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

But are you certain the habitat restoration has been done correctly if the objective is to improve deer habitat?

I'd argue and the statistics show that Monroe has less deer capacity post treatment. And I don't have the figures on dollars spent on habitat restoration in this unit but from what I have witnessed it has been a lot. I figure elk and cattle capacity is improving. Are we being duped? 

Funny I get into these predation debates. And rarely is capacity mentioned. When it is the foundation to whether or not predation is having an effect. Most arguments saying predation isn't a problem are counting on the deer being at capacity.

Dam you concision!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Funny I get into these predation debates. And rarely is capacity mentioned. When it is the foundation to whether or not predation is having an effect. Most arguments saying predation isn't a problem are counting on the deer being at capacity.


Something to think about....with this Monroe collar study 6 out of 37 deer deaths have been attributed to mountain lions. That is 16% of your mortality. If this percentage holds out for the entire population, I would venture to say that mountain lions are having a minimal impact on the deer population. Also, I think it would be wise to come up with plans to mitigate the losses of deer that can contributed to the other 84% of your mortality first.

As far as the habitat work being done and whether it has been effective or not, I suggest emailing some of the range specialists and asking them...I am sure that over the years that the methods being used have been changed, adapted, improved etc. I am also sure that biologists are using methods that have been deemed effective by others in surrounding states...


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Funny I get into these predation debates. And rarely is capacity mentioned. When it is the foundation to whether or not predation is having an effect. Most arguments saying predation isn't a problem are counting on the deer being at capacity.


Ooooh, the elusive "capacity" conversation. I've talked with bios many times about capacity. In fact, I asked 2 a few days ago, point blank, "Statewide, are we at capacity". The answer :from both: "pretty much". Most don't understand the complexity of carrying capacity. They take it as X acres of feed vs. how many animals are there. There are so many factors that contribute to how many animals can be sustained (Healthily) on ranges. Is it summer range issues? Is it winter range issues? Are there forage issues that can't be seen from driving by a sage flat on an ATV? Are there other animals competing for range? An so on..... Interesting debate, at a minimum.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Tree,
That answer does not surprise me one single bit. "Pretty much" is a safe answer. It means I don't need to change anything because it wont matter. That is one of the major problems with our current mangegement or non management.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Carrying Capacity can change so much from year to year. The leader growth of the sage on our ranch was 4x more than any year in the past decade. We would have been able to run 2x more cows and calves with the increased grass production. The shrub oak leaves were full, healthy and didn't whither all summer. 5 years ago we couldn't keep 1/2 the normal number of cows and the sage didn't grow and the oak leaves were 1/2 brown by August. So much goes into carrying capacity.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Tree,
> That answer does not surprise me one single bit. "Pretty much" is a safe answer. It means I don't need to change anything because it wont matter. That is one of the major problems with our current mangegement or non management.


What a load! Too bad we can't spread the crap you spew on winter range, we would increase the carrying capacity big time..... :roll: 
Like Packout mentioned, carrying capacity can vary from year to year, I will even take it further and say it can vary even more than that. A big snow storm can decrease carrying capacity overnight. I am baffled how people can dismiss PROVEN biology, and yet be so adamant about how positive they are that reducing BUCK deer permits will help. :?


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Did carrying capacity vary from the 30s through the 80s? Must not have been greatly.

I would contend with little too no predation and less road kill during that period. Capacity was tested. But there was never any major crashes that the deer didn't rebound from in a yr or two. It very well may be that Monroe's deer herd is at summer as well as winter capacity. If this is the case capacity reduction from habitat restoration efforts hasn't helped. 

I cant peak to actual numbers. But I would bet my bottom dollar that Monroe's deer herd today is 1/10th what it was in its glory days. Maybe even more.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Did carrying capacity vary from the 30s through the 80s? Must not have been greatly.
> 
> I would contend with little too no predation and less road kill during that period. Capacity was tested. But there was never any major crashes that the deer didn't rebound from in a yr or two. It very well may be that Monroe's deer herd is at summer as well as winter capacity. If this is the case capacity reduction from habitat restoration efforts hasn't helped.
> 
> I cant peak to actual numbers. But I would bet my bottom dollar that Monroe's deer herd today is 1/10th what it was in its glory days. Maybe even more.


I would say that habitat restoration hasn't helped much YET.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I will say, this study is consistent with what I witnessed on Monroe, Not many deer
killed by lions. The lions there are mostly living on the elk............

And 2-4 years ago, I was attributing this to the lack of deer,,,,,,pretty simple.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Did carrying capacity vary from the 30s through the 80s? Must not have been greatly.
> 
> I would contend with little too no predation and less road kill during that period. Capacity was tested. But there was never any major crashes that the deer didn't rebound from in a yr or two.


Oh come on, Iron Bear, surely you have heard about he famous Kaibab deer debacle?

In 1924 the Kaibab peaked at an estimated 100,000 deer...it was around this time that the state of Arizona and the Federal Government were in a heated debate about the deer herd on the Kaibab. Ultimately, the Feds won out and forced hunting on the Kaibab because the deer were exceeding their carrying capacity...but, as luck would have it, the Feds were too late and the deer started crashing even before any hunting could take place. Let's take a quick look at the estimated population on the Kaibab yearly:
1924--100,000 deer
1925--60,000
1926--40,000
1927--37,000
1928--35,000
1929--30,000
1930--25,000
1931--20,000
1935--18,000
1939--10,000

In the fall of 1924, 675 deer were harvested by hunters...over the next two winters it was estimated that around 60,000 deer starved to death. As you can see, the deer herd didn't rebound in a year or two...or even close.

As for Utah, a quick look at the hunting history in Utah and we can see a different history..."In 1908 the hunting season on deer was closed to help protect Utah's dwindling deer herd (Rawley 1980). In 1913 deer hunting resumed when the legislature enacted a buck only law which remained in effect until 1950. However, as the deer herd increased game managers realized the need for antlerless harvest in order to keep the deer herds in balance with their habitat. The first limited harvest of does began in 1934 on four separate herd units and multiple permits, multiple seasons, and extra permits for antlerless deer were common in the 1950s and early 1960s. Deer harvest peaked in Utah in 1961 when over 132,000 deer were harvested (Figure 1). As the number of hunters and permits increased, deer populations were gradually reduced and brought more in balance with available forage and habitat." So, major crashes were avoided in the time period mentioned because of doe harvest and multiple tag opportunities...


----------



## muleydeermaniac (Jan 17, 2008)

Here is a thought, The study was done with doe and fawns, Are they saying that cougars and coyote's don't eat bucks? And the last I checked they were included in the carrying capacity and all the other equations that are out there. Now I do understand that does are the ones that give birth, etc, etc. But the deer herd as a whole includes bucks as well. So predators do have an effect, not a complete one but a good portion. IMHO. So the percentages for deer killed by cougar or coyote would go up if they included the bucks that were killed. And i'm not talking the yearling bucks that are collared.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

You are correct in saying that predators do have an effect...however, you have to remember that, again, the growth of a herd depends on the does and fawns more so than the bucks. The production of fawns this past winter (and in some previous winters)and the poor fawn recruitment in the past are evidence that buck numbers are not limiting the population...buck predation would be negligible. Also, we know that fawn recruitment is limiting our deer herds...so collaring the fawns and finding out why they are not surviving is of the utmost importance.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

So why not decrease predation on bucks to facilitate an increase of hunter harvest of buck? After all its the buck hunter are largely paying to hunt. 

And wouldn't predator reduction also aid to increase buck doe ratios.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

A couple reasons: 1) buck predation is negligible...not enough to make any noticeable difference 2) the way to facilitate an increase of hunter harvest is to grow the herd, so growing the deer herd should be the priority....and, in order to grow the deer herd, we must first understand what is limiting it (we know that fawn recruitment is limiting the herd, but we don't know for sure what is killing the fawns).

With that being said, measures are being taken to decrease buck predation...these are the same measures that are being taken to reduce fawn predation--coyote control and increases in lion permits.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

How many deer do you believe a cougar kills per yr?

And what do you believe is the split from buck to doe kills?

How many cougar do you believe reside on the Monroe unit?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Read this again, Iron Bear:
wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/.../predator_management.ppt

Link doesn't work...some snippets:

"Generally, cougars impact adult survival and not fawn survival."

Wolfe et al. (1995 - Present) Oquirrh / Monroe
Effects of harvest - Hunted vs Non-hunted 4 years of liberal harvest on the Monroe Mtn resulted in > 60% decline in density - Oquirrh Mtn. (Kennecott) population remained stableSport harvest is a viable tool for reducing cougar densities
What happened to the Deer Populations on the Monroe Mtn?
*Deer populations on Monroe Mtn showed little or no response to the decreased cougar densities*

Currently 22 out of 49 predator management units are under predator management plans for cougars
Last recommendation cycle tags / quotas were increased by 13% on cougar units under PMPs
Harvest data indicates that the statewide cougar population was decreased in late 1990's and early 2000's and is currently being held at a reduced level

*Kill rates are often quoted, but offer little to understanding predator/prey relationships if habitat limitations are unknown

Example: the phrase "cougars will eat a deer a every 10 days" may be true, but it may or may not impact the population based on if the mortality is additive or compensatory. *

Look at information at the beginning that I posted...what does it show? It shows that weather patterns are impacting the fawn recruitment greatly...that is obvious. It also shows that habitat during those rough years was not adequate which means that predation was compensatory...


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

:lol: Wont touch those questions with ten foot poll will you? 8)


----------



## muleydeermaniac (Jan 17, 2008)

Here is a link to some infor on the amount of deer a cougar will kill.
http://www.aws.vcn.com/mountain_lion_fact_sheet.html


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> How many deer do you believe a cougar kills per yr?
> 
> And what do you believe is the split from buck to doe kills?
> 
> How many cougar do you believe reside on the Monroe unit?


Those questions don't really matter...

But, just for you:

1) Depends on the cougar....I have read that they kill about 1 deer every 7-14 days.

2) Wolfe et al. (1995 - Present) Oquirrh / Monroe
Prey Composition - 23 Cougars, 501 kills
89% Mule Deer (55% Does, 45% bucks, 68% adults), 4% Elk

3) around 40


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

A snippet from the book on cougar management and from the chapter on cougar-prey relationships:

"Low-density traits will be evident in any population far below K, even if it experi- 
ences no predation. *Therefore, even when the ungulate population is apparently well 
below K, a decision to reduce cougar numbers only makes sense when the manager has 
data that indicates cougar predation is the strongest limiting factor operating on the 
ungulate population.*"

I bolded the part that applies to the Monroe!


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

So its plausible that cougar kill more buck per yr on Monroe than hunters. Not to mention the doe they kill. Now even if Monroe is at capacity. Even though it is way under objective. Wouldn't removal of 20 cats open up nearly 250+ bucks to hunter harvest. And we would have the same population roughly we have today?

I am saying why not have a cougar population objective of 20 while the deer herd population is at 4800 or less and increase the cougar population objective if and when the deer herd increases?

I put the deer hunters priorities ahead of the houndsman.

Hunter buck harvest on Monroe in 2010 was 240 bucks. -)O(-


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> So its plausible that cougar kill more buck per yr on Monroe than hunters. Not to mention the doe they kill. Now even if Monroe is at capacity. Even though it is way under objective. Wouldn't removal of 20 cats open up nearly 250+ bucks to hunter harvest. And we would have the same population roughly we have today?


 If the carrying capacity is not increased, increasing the number of bucks will HURT the deer population, as it will equate to fewer does/fawns in the mix. Reducing predator numbers may seem like a great idea, and reducing buck permits may seem like a good idea, but it is all for naught if the carrying capacity, specifically on winter range, isn't increased. We could kill every lion, and every coyote, and shut hunting down on the Monroe completely, and unless carrying capacity is increased the herd will not flourish.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Wouldn't removal of 20 cats open up nearly 250+ bucks to hunter harvest?


Doesn't that depend on whether or not those kills are additive or compensatory?

I think that's the biggest downfall of your argument: you don't understand the difference between additive and compensatory mortality.

Michael Crichton said in an essay that "...Indoctrinating children in proper environmental thought was a hallmark of the green movement, and so children were being 
instructed to protect something about which they knew nothing at all. It did not escape notice that this was exactly the formula that had led to well-intentioned environmental degradation in the past..."

Basically, people today are very passionate, and yet at the same time very uneducated about the very subjects that they want to protect.

Further, from Crichton:
"...Such policies would never have been instituted if people really 
understood the environments they were trying to protect."


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> I am saying why not have a cougar population objective of 20 while the deer herd population is at 4800 or less and increase the cougar population objective if and when the deer herd increases?


The HO for cougars on Monroe has been increased because of the deer population level....that is an automatic trigger in Utah's predator management plans...I posted that earlier in this thread.

I have also mentioned many times that reduced cougar population levels 10-12 years ago did NOT result in increased deer numbers or harvest numbers by hunters....that idea is supported by the information I posted in this thread. So, like others have stated, even if you kill a bunch of lions that eat deer does NOT mean that you will save deer...and it appears very likely that Monroe is a perfect example of this!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

When did Monroe Mountain become Jurassic Park?
:shock: 8)


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> I am saying why not have a cougar population objective of 20 while the deer herd population is at 4800 or less and increase the cougar population objective if and when the deer herd increases?


IF the deer collar studies on Monroe were to show that lions are having a significant impact on deer mortality, I would be all for knocking the heck out of the lion population...but until we can show that lions are a significant limiting factor, reducing lion numbers is like pissing in the wind!


wyoming2utah said:


> *Therefore, even when the ungulate population is apparently well below K, a decision to reduce cougar numbers only makes sense when the manager has data that indicates cougar predation is the strongest limiting factor operating on the
> ungulate population.*"


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

So the DWR is up in the night with their objective number of 7500 on Monroe? I wonder what other units they are off by nearly 40%. Is this an indication that the bios at the DWR don't have any idea what the capacity is. Or is capacity something they claim to just bolster there standpoint. 

Monroe objective 7500. I know I know the WB sets objectives. But with the input from the DWR.

PBH I understand the whole con Vs add situation. I probably understand it better then anyone else around here. Since it is thrown at me at every turn for the last 6 yrs. You are assuming that Monroe is at capacity. What basis do you have for that assertion? And if you do have one you should inform the DWR because they don't have one.

Are you guy capable of free and cognitive thinking or do you only believe what the DWR tells you?

And your mentalities whether you realize it or not play directly in to the anti hunting agenda's.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> So the DWR is up in the night with their objective number of 7500 on Monroe? I wonder what other units they are off by nearly 40%. Is this an indication that the bios at the DWR don't have any idea what the capacity is. Or is capacity something they claim to just bolster there standpoint.
> 
> 
> wyoming2utah said:
> ...


Iron Bear, again...even if the population is below carrying capacity, or K, reducing lion numbers doesn't make sense!

Also, 7500 is not a carrying capacity number...it is the population objective a goal that they wish to achieve for the unit. All of the habitat work done on Monroe is supposed to help INCREASE carrying capacity to help make that possible.

Also, FWIW, I believe what state fish and game agencies are able to substantiate with proven science...and I stop thinking for myself when proof is stacked against my own unsubstantiated opinions! And, if anyone's opinion plays into the anti-hunting agenda it is yours...because you advocate the elimination of predators WITHOUT solid reasoning and support management of ungulates that is not ecosystem based. Your approach lacks balance....that kind of thinking has and will give antis far more ammunition than those of us who support predator reduction when and only when they are limiting ungulate populations and ample proof supports that position.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> PBH I understand the whole con Vs add situation. I probably understand it better then anyone else around here. Since it is thrown at me at every turn for the last 6 yrs. You are assuming that Monroe is at capacity. What basis do you have for that assertion? And if you do have one you should inform the DWR because they don't have one.


"Where individuals in an ungulate population are in excellent nutritional condition, 
predation by cougars will have a larger effect on the rate of increase than if the prey are 
in poor condition. Any animal removed from a population well below K probably 
would have survived if not preyed upon, and probably was not hindering reproduction 
or survival of other individuals through competition. Under these circumstances, 
cougar predation is largely additive mortality that slows the growth rate of the prey 
population. However, in a prey population in poor condition, where individuals are 
restricting the reproduction and survival of conspecifics through competition, cougar 
predation helps lower prey population density, reduces competition, and increases the 
likelihood of survival and reproduction for the remaining individuals in the prey 
population (Caughley 1979, Bartmann et al. 1992). Under those circumstances, cougar 
predation is compensated for by increased recruitment and survival of remaining prey 
(compensatory mortality). Mortality caused by predation in this scenario has little 
depressing effect on the prey population (Bailey 1984)."

This is what I don't get about your arguments, Iron Bear, I posted information at the beginning of this thread that showed that many deer on the Monroe unit are not surviving because they die during the winter months because of malnutrition. I give evidence that shows that deer mortality on Monroe is more closely associated to weather patterns than to predators....I give information that shows that Monroe deer numbers didn't respond positively to depressed lion numbers...and you still want to argue that we need to kill more lions. Take a good look at the evidence stacked against your arguments...It looks really obvious to me that if deer mortality is high during the winter, if deer mortality is higher due to predation by coyotes than lions, and if deer numbers didn't increase when lion numbers were down that killing more lions will NOT improve deer numbers. That is my own independent thinking based on the facts I have in front of me....


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> because you advocate the elimination of predators


I changed my signature just for comments like this one. And "all out war on predators".

So let me get you guys straight. The deer herd has been in a steady decline for 40 yrs now and there is nothing to do but pray for good weather dump 100s of millions into habitat restoration that has no statistical proof of deer population improvements. Slow down traffic hinder human activity. Harbor a max capacity predator population. Allow virtual unlimited buck harvest while we wait decades or centuries for habitat and capacity to improve. Meanwhile do our best to increase hunter recruitment and retention. And lastly don't question the DWR unless you have a study to substantiate your viewpoints.

That's a hard sell.

WY2, You have a way of exhausting me. So I am tired for now. -O\__- O|*


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Edit


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> So let me get you guys straight. The deer herd has been in a steady decline for 40 yrs now and there is nothing to do but pray for good weather dump 100s of millions into habitat restoration that has no statistical proof of deer population improvements. Slow down traffic hinder human activity. Harbor a max capacity predator population. Allow virtual unlimited buck harvest while we wait decades or centuries for habitat and capacity to improve. Meanwhile do our best to increase hunter recruitment and retention. And lastly don't question the DWR unless you have a study to substantiate your viewpoints.
> 
> That's a hard sell.


If that were really what anyone were saying, it would be a hard sell....but thankfully it isn't! :roll:

Maybe the DWR should just take the easy road and make that easy sell like you suggest and simply pin all the blame on lions. Great idea....just ignore all the information gained from this deer collar study and all other information that gives evidence to the contrary and start blaming the lions. Afterall, it had incredible results just a decade ago when lion numbers on Monroe were estimated at around 10 cats... :roll:

In all honesty, though, isn't the responsible thing to listen to what the science is telling us? Isn't the smart thing to try and mitigate the limiting factors as the numbers suggest?


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

It looks like mal-nutrition is the cause of the death for the most part, I don't have a problem killing some cougar, coyote, bobcat to help the herd numbers if we are doing something to help with the malnutrition as well.

If we are just killing predators and not addressing the problem we are wasting mine and my childrens time because it won't fix the problem. 

An all out war on predators and cutting tags wouldn't help the deer herd if the deer just ended up starving to death during the winter. 

And I am someone who wants to kill alot of predators.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

I would have to say that I think IB asked some good questions and I find it hard to believe that the majority of opinions on the subject seem to be that we should have left things alone.

A ton of money has been spent on habitat restoration on the Monroe over the past ten years; controlled burn, spring tooth harrowing, some chaining and now an aggressive logging program in the Dairies. What we have learned from these habitat restoration protects is that the elk have benefited most from the projects. One who has travelled the Monroe can tell you that the Langdon and Forshae have some of the best bitter brush and deer browse areas on the Monroe and yet they are devoid of deer.

I read that a bunch of people on this forum want to increase hunting opportunity and are unwilling to consider that continual pressure on the deer is and maybe leading to all of the problems mentioned here. I tend to believe that the late season rifle elk hunt was the final nail in the coffin for the Monroe deer herd. Concentrating both the deer and the elk on the winter range almost two months earlier than in the past is causing higher mortality rates on the deer herd.

I also concur with IB that cougars and coyotes are having a dramatic impact on fawns on the Monroe and having an ear to hear while bugling for elk down on the Monroe, one quickly realizes that coyotes are doing well and on the upswing. 
Big


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Longfeather said:


> It looks like mal-nutrition is the cause of the death for the most part, I don't have a problem killing some cougar, coyote, bobcat to help the herd numbers if we are doing something to help with the malnutrition as well.
> 
> If we are just killing predators and not addressing the problem we are wasting mine and my childrens time because it won't fix the problem.
> 
> ...


Wouldn't malnutrition, in any species, be an indication of overpopulation?


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

Limited winter range...developers, elk, and deer all competing for it...newsflash to everyone...deer take 3rd place in that contest...


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Longfeather said:
> 
> 
> > It looks like mal-nutrition is the cause of the death for the most part, I don't have a problem killing some cougar, coyote, bobcat to help the herd numbers if we are doing something to help with the malnutrition as well.
> ...


The DWR and just about everyone else around here believes shed hunting during the late winter and early spring is a bad thing for deer and elk. (pro believes one shouldn't venture in the woods until June) Its believed the harassment and stress a wintering deer or elk receives from the activity hinders there ability to survive. Chasing wintering deer and elk causes them to use extra calories increasing the chance they will get dangerously low body fat or malnutritioned. Regardless if the deer were at capacity or not on a particular range. If as suspected is true elk/deer competition for winter range would also result in lower deer body weights. Predators on winter range which out number even the Henry's shed hunters are hunting deer 24/7 all winter long. I would figure whether they were actually being chased or not. The mere presence would elevate stress levels and heart rates burning more calories. Now before anyone thinks I'm calling for eradication. Read my signature.

So to answer your question sure but not definitively. Malnutrition could be an indicator of a few things.

I'm disappointed to here WY2's reply that predator harassment is probably not considered as a factor in deer found to have low body fat. If this is truly the case I would consider this study inconclusive. And flawed from the start. After all aren't we striving for the best possible science. Or is the motive of the study to conclude predation as a limited or non factor to mule deer recovery. Seems to me with many of these study objectivity is lacking.

And we haven't even discussed predator harassment and the effects in concerns to fawning and calving.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Don't they also close of WMA's in winter to protect wintering deer and elk from harassment?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Yes and I see your points. 

Just thinking out loud. "Nature" has a function that is more or less limited to species survival and propagation. Sure, we anthropomorphize animals (Even hunters, wolves killing for fun?), but on a basic natural level, nature and everything in it does things with basic self sustaining purpose. Are there exceptions? Humans? Shed hunters, ATVers, hikers, bikers, etc. These are all leisure activities that I guess if you wanted/needed to refine it down, we could say it's "necessary" because it gives us a bunch of things that lead us to function better, such as esteem, joy, stress relief etc. But really, if you take the nature function I'm eluding to as a premise, are we in the hills in these capacities as a part of nature or as a separate entity?

If it's the latter, wouldn't our "stress caused" deaths, highway mortalities and other human caused mortalities be the only valid additive deaths? 

If so this leads to something you have said, which is that if there are X number of compensatory deaths available, humans need to eliminate the causes of other compensatory deaths, especially among bucks, to be able to effectively harvest animals without additive impact.

So what's the solution? Because we don't have a good starting point. In order to remove and replace compensatory harvest with humans, we'd need to know what the unmanaged and untouched populations would be with conditions as they are now. We need to know how many bucks per hundred does we would have. We need to know how many cougar per 100 deer we would have. Coyotes, yep. rabbits? Yep. etc, etc.

Seems to me that if that's what we are after (And I'm not in any way suggesting this) we need to stop hunting for about 20-30 years to see what these numbers are, and then come back with some educated management practices based on the data provided.

Speaking of rabbits. Any chance that since humans have hunted the hell out of rabbits for the past who knows how many years that predators, especially coyotes, have been forced to change their ways and feed more on deer? What's the rabbit population like compared to 30 years ago? Snow shoes? mountain hares? Cotton tails? Jacks?

**** cougars.

I need less coffee.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Iron Bear said:


> Don't they also close of WMA's in winter to protect wintering deer and elk from harassment?


Some are and some are not. On Monroe, Marysvale WMA (580 acres) and Elbow Ranch WMA (3720 acres) are closed during the winter AND spring. City Creek (145 acres) is not. Of course the coyotes and cougars can't read the signs.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> I'm disappointed to here WY2's reply that predator harassment is probably not considered as a factor in deer found to have low body fat. If this is truly the case I would consider this study inconclusive. And flawed from the start. After all aren't we striving for the best possible science. Or is the motive of the study to conclude predation as a limited or non factor to mule deer recovery. Seems to me with many of these study objectivity is lacking.
> 
> And we haven't even discussed predator harassment and the effects in concerns to fawning and calving.


Funny.....You have pretty much deemed this and every other study ever done on the effects of predation as faulty long before this one ever began. You have scoffed at the idea of compensatory predation for years and have again and again denied the FACT that when lion numbers on Monroe were severely depressed deer numbers did NOT respond. If anyone lacks objectivity with this study (or any other predator) study it is you, Ironbear.

And, again, you are still neglecting the information that is gained from the information I posted at the beginning of this thread...the FACT that the survival of mule deer fawns is very closely related to weather patterns and precipitation and weather/precipitation is having a much larger impact on the survival of fawns than predators have had. Based on only a couple years of data, this idea is very clear.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Glad to hear you too have concluded the results of this study before it has finished. :lol:

Biased much?


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I was talking to a couple CWMU managers I know this weekend. Neither of them PHD's in wildlife biology. But they rely on the revenues from their leases to feed their families. Neither of them tolerate cougars on their leases. They cannot eradicate them from their leases. But they sure don't allow a thriving population of predators at or near capacity on their land. I also asked if they knew of a CWMU that managed for trophy cougar hunting they laughed and both basically said that's an oxymoron if your in the business of selling deer and elk hunts. 

Just another tidbit. They both feed deer in the winter.


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

Most CWMU operators up here have the same attitude Iron Bear. They don't like cougar on their leases and if you have a cougar kill permit, they'll gladly give you access to their ground.....but they won't allow you to go in there just to pursue. 

They would also prefer that you only kill female lions and leave the dominant toms alone. The reason for this is that territorial toms will kill or drive away any young toms trying to move into the area plus kill any kittens that aren't theirs. It is their belief, and there is some evidence to support it, that killing the dominant tom actually increases the lion population in a given area.

Funny thing is however, public areas next to the CWMU's get hunted almost daily. Local lions learn to avoid houndsmen by moving onto these CWMU's.....they become like little refuges for cougar because they are not getting chased every day. Furthermore, lions soon learn to focus on the CWMU operator's feeding stations because the deer are more concentrated. I don't know, but I suspect these CWMU's loose more of their deer every year by the combination of restricting pursuit and feeding stations than they would if they had just let things be.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

True Kevin I forgot to mention one did say a big dominant Tom wasn't the worst to have around for the reasons you mentioned. When you have a cougar in the area some deer being killed is a given. These guys watch these deer weekly if not daily. They name them, catalog them and keep pretty good tabs on them. And if some of their prized bucks end up being killed by predators they are fit to be tied. And are going to remove what they consider a problem to their business. 

Your probably also spot on about CWMU's being refuges from hunters. Most of the pursuit and hunting comes in the winter when snow is on the ground. At this time of yr is also when they are feeding and watching deer. Just like with sheep herders if a cougar gets in the habit of preying on the deer around a feeding station. His/her days are numbered. 

CWMU managers are a tight knit group. They readily share info with each other and have meetings annually ect. I trust because the ole mighty dollar is king with them. They are not doing something that has been proven to not work. Regardless of what a study on Monroe is saying about predation on deer.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> CWMU managers are a tight knit group. They readily share info with each other and have meetings annually ect. I trust because the ole mighty dollar is king with them. They are not doing something that has been proven to not work. Regardless of what a study on Monroe is saying about predation on deer.


I am not questioning their 'tightness', but I do question whether all their methods are tried and true. I know plenty of farmers who still practice methods that are NOT the most efficient. My dad is...or was....one of this type of farmer. He ran the place the way his father and grandfather did. I am NOT saying I am smarter than them, but I have implemented....and am in the process of implementing many more.....more efficient farming methods, such as rotational grazing, using 'modern' grasses, using different EMP's when selecting new breeding bulls, and several other methods that will raise profitability and productivity. My point is, just because most CWMU operators do certain practices, does NOT automatically equate with them using the most effective practices. They may very well be, but it is not a given, nor can what happens on private land be applied 100% on public land. I hope you agree with that.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I agree with your post. :shock: 8) :lol:


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> My point is, just because most CWMU operators do certain practices, does NOT automatically equate with them using the most effective practices. They may very well be, but it is not a given, nor can what happens on private land be applied 100% on public land. I hope you agree with that.


Well, I agree! Especially when the goals are so different! What is done on a CWMU to create the "big bucks" doesn't necessarily apply to a "general" unit.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I can say not all CWMU's are managed for "big bucks". A majority aren't. Some are managed for a maximum harvest just like general units.


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

Thanks Wyoming for the post. 

Its disturbing how everyone knew the winter was hard on deer in 2009-10; yet, we've heard nothing but "where have all the deer gone?" We need to kill more preditors, cut more tags, and make more units.


----------

