# Declining Mule Deer...Opinions



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Please take a minute (or several) and review this report. It may not be scripture, however I found it interesting. Please post up your opinions.

http://warnercnr.colostate.edu/~gwhite/mdreport.pdf

(I guess it is possible this has been posted on here before and I didn't see it)


----------



## muleymadness (Jan 23, 2008)

Thanks for the link, looks loaded with valuable info IMO. Clearly very long, but I might have to sit back one day and digest it all.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

It has been posted before and referenced several times in "discussions" about deer but I'm sure there are pleny that haven't read it.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

I've read this multiple times and have posted the link. It is a good read and I'll post some interesting quotes (I've also taken the liberty to *BOLD*):



> Predation, particularly by coyotes, has been proposed as a primary factor in the decline of mule deer throughout the West. The only certainty is that predators kill and eat mule deer. *However, studies that investigated responses of entire mule deer herds to intensive coyote control have failed to demonstrate that mule deer numbers increased as a result of coyote control*. The contribution of predation to the mule deer decline remains uncertain.





> Excessive deer harvests have been proposed as another primary cause of declining mule deer herds. If deer populations were being hunted so intensively that populations were kept well below carrying capacity of deer habitats, reproductive rates of does should be high and mortality rates of fawns should be low. *Studies show exactly the opposite patterns.* On the other hand, hunting has been a major factor contributing to reductions in numbers of bucks throughout Colorado deer herds over the past 3 decades. Some believe that current buck numbers are so low that many does are not being bred each year and poor breeding success causes fawn production to decline. *Yet, available evidence fails to substantiate that declining deer populations can be attributed to low buck numbers.* Reproductive rates measured in a recent study of does on the Uncompahgre Plateau of southwestern Colorado are as high as reproductive rates from earlier studies despite much
> lower numbers of bucks today.





> As a result, the answer to the question, *"What caused mule deer numbers to decline?"* remains both speculative and controversial.





> The relationship of a mule deer population to its food supply is a critical factor governing the impacts of predation.* When mule deer numbers are at or near the food production capacity of their habitats, deer numbers are unlikely to increase when predators are removed.*





> Two bodies of evidence suggest that excessive hunter harvest has not been responsible for the decline in mule deer numbers. When deer populations are reduced below the food capacity of their habitats, characteristically they respond with increased reproductive rates and decreased mortality rates. Ratios of fawns per 100 does began declining just after deer harvests peaked (Fig. 5). *If excessive hunter kill was the primary cause of declining mule deer numbers, ratios of fawns per 100 does should have been increasing rather than decreasing.*





> *Nonetheless, available evidence does not support the conclusion that low buck numbers have been responsible for the drop in ratios of fawns per 100 does over the past 25 years*. Buck:doe ratios from the Uncompahgre Plateau herd are among the lowest in the state. During this decade they have varied from 8-20 bucks per 100 does after the hunting season. Yet, a 1999 study indicated that 93% of does examined from the Uncompahgre Plateau were pregnant. The average number of fetuses carried per doe (1.72) did not differ from does studied elsewhere in the state before ratios of fawns per 100 does had begun to decline (Fig. 22). *If low buck numbers were responsible for the observed decline in fawn:doe ratios, both pregnancy rates and the average number of fetuses per doe observed in the 1999 study of does on the Uncompahgre Plateau should
> have been much lower.*


http://warnercnr.colostate.edu/~gwhite/mdreport.pdf


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

It is a very good article. Thanks for posting it Bwhntr. 

This article, along with many other professional documents, is why I get so frustrated that all most people ever talk about is bucks. FAWNS, FAWNS, FAWNS! DOE, DOE, DOE!


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

All these studies disproving hunter harvest and predation as factors in mule deer declines. 

Would some of you study hounds post some studies substantiating the positive effects of habitat restoration and good weather on mule deer populations. 

After all we spent 20 times more per yr on habitat restoration then on professional predator control. Are we getting the best bang for our buck?


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

I thought this was an interesting read last night:

http://www.muledeerworkinggroup.com...and Population Response to Experimental R.pdf


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> All these studies disproving hunter harvest and predation as factors in mule deer declines.


See if this article interests you at all:

http://www.kpcnews.net/outdoors/ind...r-populations&catid=37:don-mulligan&Itemid=55


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Thanks for the links. 

I am aware of the predation studies done in So Idaho. 

bwhntr, You cant compare Whitetail to Muleys. Mule deer are obviously and inferior species that falls over dead at the sight of human activity cant find food die in bad weather. :mrgreen:

Are there any studies done on increased mortality due to simple predator presence on winter range. Many here think shed hunting and ATV's have a negative effect on deer while wintering. I wonder what effect predators chasing them 24/7 has on winter mortality whether they catch and kill them or not. And does this stress contribute to fawn abortion?

Wy2, When a collared doe is found dead on Monroe does it have to be half eaten before its death is chalked up to predation? Could thin deer with little fat reserves be contributed to not only poor range conditions but excessive exertion from predator harassment? 

These effect have been identified as a problem with wintering elk and wolves.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Great questions Iron Bear. I am waiting for information on studies the SFW may have used to back up their proposals. I will post up what information I can.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> All these studies disproving hunter harvest and predation as factors in mule deer declines.
> 
> Would some of you study hounds post some studies substantiating the positive effects of habitat restoration and good weather on mule deer populations.
> 
> After all we spent 20 times more per yr on habitat restoration then on professional predator control. Are we getting the best bang for our buck?


I posted this before, and I guess you ignored it....hopefully you will take the time to read it this time...... 

http://www.muledeerworkinggroup.com/Doc ... hanges.pdf



> The quiet crisis began with the settling of the West. After livestock were introduced into the Great Basin in the 1860s, native bunch grasses were overgrazed and replaced by sagebrush.* A severe winter in the late 1800s decimated* many livestock herds and *wildlife populations.* This was followed by an abundance of wildfires and about seven wet years in the Great Basin, which led to the widespread establishment of bitterbrush, a high quality preferred food of mule deer.
> 
> The increase in quality and quantity of plants preferred by mule deer caused mule deer populations to rebound by 1950. During the 1950s, biologists noted fawn:doe ratios of 75 to 100, or even 100 to 100, something that is unheard of in many places in the West today.


It took ONE year for wildlife populations to be "decimated". It took SEVEN years of "abundant" wildfires, and another SEVEN wet years to establish bitterbrush. And it took roughly another FIFTY YEARS for the mule deer populations to REBOUND. So, while man made restoration hasn't yet provided 'overwhelming' results, we can see it takes as long as FIFTY years for habitat improvements to be fully realized.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> I posted this before, and I guess you ignored it....hopefully you will take the time to read it this time......


So has Wy2 about 50 times. I've read it a few times over. No answers just excuses. :roll:

As far as I am concerned that is just an op ed.

I view the Mule Deer Working Group as a propaganda machine with little difference between them and the boys at the USFW that pushed for Wolf reintroduction.

They have biologist from Hawaii and Alaska in that group. :roll:

I'm asking for a specific tangible evidence that habitat restoration is working. Working for deer not cattle and elk. Because I know on Monroe habitat restoration efforts have benefited elk and cattle plenty. While at the same time reducing capacity for deer on that unit. Both summer (Dry creek, Six patch) and winter (Koosharem res).


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

WOW!

Me thinks you will dismiss every study/trend that doesn't fall within your preconceived 'facts'. Too bad....

When someone dismisses a working group made up with resumes that should be above question, then one has to wonder what data they would believe. So, I don't see the point in further responding to such a close-minded individual.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > I posted this before, and I guess you ignored it....hopefully you will take the time to read it this time......
> ...


Wow. You're right, John Wayne doesn't wear shop glasses.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

:lol: :lol: :lol: 

I was in hurry to leave and didn't get to express.

I know and understand the history of mule deer in the last few centuries. Pro with your 10,000 post you may not remember we have been over and over this same exact conversation for more than 6 yrs now. I remember debating with you on the DWR website whether or not elk were having a negative effect on deer on Monroe. And whether or not land management practices are favoring cattle and elk not deer since it is largely BLM and FS land we hunt in Utah. The BLM and FS don't sell deer tags. There is not a subject we haven't bantered. You should know by now I'm pretty set in my views. I have 888 posts on the UWN and 880 contain the words predators or cougar and most both. :lol: 

I understand habitat has changed and it is very well the reason we don't have 2 million deer in Utah. But I am confident it is not the reason we have less than 300,000 today. And I will not accept habitat and weather as the reasons we cant have 500,000 someday in the future. Biology is a science. So is meteorology. Not exact science, much is left to interpretation. You understand there are several ways to successfully raise cattle. So why is that not true with wildlife? 

And yes business is slow and its wintertime and I have nothing better to do than rant online about predators. Just rest assured spring is right around the corner business will pick up and I will shut up. But fair warning winter will return and so will I.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)




----------



## bowhunt3r4l1f3 (Jan 12, 2011)

I've read multiple articles like this. IMO the biggest thing affecting the Mule Deer pop is how strong we fight wildfires. I say...let them burn! :lol:


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Iron Bear said:


> I view the Mule Deer Working Group as a propaganda machine with little difference between them and the boys at the USFW that pushed for Wolf reintroduction.


You just lost any credibility with me with that remark! Sixty-four of the west's top wildlife managers and biologists either don't know as much as you? or they are conspiring to keep the mule deer population declining? How sad!


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Lets be honest I never had any credibility with you have I. :^8^:


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Iron Bear said:


> Lets be honest I never had any credibility with you have I. :^8^:


Yes, let's be honest! I think you are running your train on only one track, but disagreeing with you on issues doesn't mean I dismiss your research or your conclusions based on that research, though I must admit you actually haven't provided much of that. I've always thought you have a point in that cougars do indeed take a lot of deer, but I do disagree with your viewpoint that cougars are the major factor in the deer decline. However, when you dismiss the data of 64 trained world-class wildlife biologists and managers based on some conspiracy theory simply because it doesn't match your viewpoint, you lose me, for one.

See you next winter and hopefully we'll all learn a few more things about what's causing the declining herds.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

IB,
Intresting comments, while some claim you lose credibility others would say you're just seeing more clearly than the others.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> IB,
> Intresting comments, while some claim you lose credibility others would say you're just seeing more clearly than the others.


I am certainly seeing things more clearly now................


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

bowhunt3r4l1f3 said:


> I've read multiple articles like this. IMO the biggest thing affecting the Mule Deer pop is how strong we fight wildfires. I say...let them burn! :lol:


I went to the DWR meeting last night and this was brought up by several biologist and a few people were there. I am starting to believe this is one of the bigger factors limiting deer growth. Look at the Henry's unit for example. Prior to the 2003 fire down there that burned a large chunk of that unit the fawn survival rates were very low. After the fire we got some good precip. and some seeding took. Now we are seeing very good fawn survival numbers down there and that is the key to deer population growth, not B ratios. Our habitat is getting old and getting choked out, wildfires naturally helps these things out, not to mention so forbs that seeds sit dormant waiting for the perfect storm per-say. Sorry for changing the subject, but I thought bowhunt3r4l1f3 comment was excellent and deserved more attention.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I don't have my stats with me so I'm not sure.

Didn't they also take nearly all the cats off the Henry's about the same time?

Not saying the fire and precept wasn't a big help but not the only factor.


----------



## bowhunt3r4l1f3 (Jan 12, 2011)

jahan said:


> bowhunt3r4l1f3 said:
> 
> 
> > I've read multiple articles like this. IMO the biggest thing affecting the Mule Deer pop is how strong we fight wildfires. I say...let them burn! :lol:
> ...


+1!

There have been many articles from Bioligsts about how since we started to controll wildlfires the herds have slowly declined. I don't know why we make such a strong effort to stop them? Obviously if it's going to burn someone's home something needs to be done. But, if it's just BLM/National forest yeah it's ugly for a while but it really helps out all wildlife! Plus it get's rid of those nasty tree destroying beetles!


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> I don't have my stats with me so I'm not sure.
> 
> Didn't they also take nearly all the cats off the Henry's about the same time?
> 
> Not saying the fire and precept wasn't a big help but not the only factor.


Let me clarify, I don't think it is the only reason, but I think it was a big reason that people over look or don't think about. Plus, there are no cats out there, who are you kidding. :mrgreen:  :lol:


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Pj and pine incursion into aspen are pretty evident.


----------



## Califbowmen (Jul 1, 2008)

IMO, habitat loss is one reason for the decline in the deer population. An area where I have hunted for about 9 years had a lot of logged over and burned areas with lots of new growth food sources. It is now so overgrown that the food sources are rapidly deminishing. In the last few years I have seen more Mountain Lions and Bears than ever before. Poaching is part of the problem. Lastly, I've been finding more carcasses of dead deer that have been shot and either left because they were to small ( not legal ) or the hunters who shot them gave up on tracking after losing a blood trail.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Pj and pine incursion into aspen are pretty evident.


True, but old sage/bitter brush are not as easily recognized. Bitter and sage brushes are crucial winter forage for mule deer. I personally would love to see a bigger push to do burns, and plant bitter/sage along with kochia. We planted about 200 acres of kochia last spring, and the deer are drawn to it like flies to stink. It is high in protein, is able to thrive out little moisture, is fire resistant, and pheasants LOVE it. If done right, it keeps cheat grass from taking over, and is an excellent source of protein during the winter months.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Kochia, I'm not familiar with it.

Is this some. If so it looks to be a lower elevation vegetation. Is it native to Utah?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

http://www.angusjournal.com/ArticlePDF/ ... odFeed.pdf



> "Because of its nutritional value,wildlife resource managers are also interested in its potential to alleviate diminishing winter ranges for deer and elk, and provide habitat for sage grouse,"Waldron adds."Our research shows forage kochia can test over 20% protein in July, suggesting that it may be used to alleviate protein deficiencies faced by
> nonmigratory wildlife." Waldron says forage kochia is tolerant of drought, as well as saline and alkaline environments. It does not cross with annual kochia and will not readily spread into established stands of perennial grass. Forage kochia is adaptable to most marginal rangelands, where it does out-compete rangeland invaders, including cheatgrass, Russian thistle and poisonous annual halogeton.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Good article


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> http://www.angusjournal.com/ArticlePDF/PrettyGoodFeed.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Looks like you're on to something! I wonder how much the DWR biologists know about this weed, and if they've tried or are trying it anywhere!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

That is one of the questions I will ask at the open house next week in Richfield. My cattle love it, and the deer do as well. In fact, I just returned from my kochia field, after tagging the first calf of the year....a stocky braunveigh/angus bull calf......and there were 100+ deer in there. I keep being amazed at how many fawns I see this winter, with more sets of twins than I can recall. Man I am glad Option 2 is working so well.....


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

http://www.unce.unr.edu/publications/fi ... FS9848.pdf



> Nevada has several million acres of rangeland that is dominated by cheatgrass and other annuals. This acreage is expanding every year with the major contributing factor being rangeland wildfires. Many rangeland managers thought that if given time and protection from grazing, native grasses would again dominate cheatgrass infested ranges. However, on low elevation rangelands (that comprised of Wyoming big sage before burning), cheatgrass has remained the dominant plant. Forage kochia can be an important tool for competing with cheatgrass, providing forage and habitat diversity for wildlife and livestock, and helping to control fire.





> In the Dunphy Hills area (Elko BLM District) forage kochia, grasses and shrubs were seeded on degraded rangeland that was considered "critical" winter habitat for mule deer. The first year after seeding, annual plants still dominated, however forage kochia was evident. Forage kochia becomes a stronger part of the plant complex, and after four years, evidence of Wyoming big sage, thickspike wheatgrass, and other native bunchgrasses and forbs were becoming visible. *As a consequence mule deer fawn ratios have increased in recent year *(Clements, 1994).





> Forage kochia is one of the few plants found that can be seeded into cheatgrass ranges, establish itself, and over time out-compete cheatgrass.


----------



## flinger (Nov 19, 2007)

Forage kochia seed is in many of the seed mixes for restoration projects on lower lands. The project on the dwr lands above mayfield had it in there. It is being used more and more, but it is not native. Half of the seeds they use now are not native though, but since some non natives are usually more capable of competing with cheatgrass and have good forage value they get the nod. Pro, are you irrigating the kochia field or dry farming?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

flinger said:


> Forage kochia seed is in many of the seed mixes for restoration projects on lower lands. The project on the dwr lands above mayfield had it in there. It is being used more and more, but it is not native. Half of the seeds they use now are not native though, but since some non natives are usually more capable of competing with cheatgrass and have good forage value they get the nod. Pro, are you irrigating the kochia field or dry farming?


Using a non-native to battle a non-native? What'll they think of next? Now, if we can only get Utah sportsmen to wait the 2 to 5 years it takes to work before we decide we need to cut more buck tags.

Also, Pro, are you using a mix and, if so, what? And has it, or will it, pull the deer from your other crops? Also, how high on the mountain can it be used? One concern I think we need to consider is whether or not this weed would keep more deer on natural winter range all year.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

flinger said:


> Forage kochia seed is in many of the seed mixes for restoration projects on lower lands. The project on the dwr lands above mayfield had it in there. It is being used more and more, but it is not native. Half of the seeds they use now are not native though, but since some non natives are usually more capable of competing with cheatgrass and have good forage value they get the nod. Pro, are you irrigating the kochia field or dry farming?


Good to know about Mayfield, as I am just over the hill to the west. I dry farm the forage kochia. After one year I am very impressed. I planted another pasture last month, so we'll see how it does on a potentially low water year. All my winter range is dry farmed.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> Using a non-native to battle a non-native? What'll they think of next? Now, if we can only get Utah sportsmen to wait the 2 to 5 years it takes to work before we decide we need to cut more buck tags.
> 
> Also, Pro, are you using a mix and, if so, what? And has it, or will it, pull the deer from your other crops? Also, how high on the mountain can it be used? One concern I think we need to consider is whether or not this weed would keep more deer on natural winter range all year.


Yep, but this non-native plant is non-invasive and helps slow/retard the spread of cheatgrass. It is also a good fire break. And you're correct, this will take at LEAST 3-5 years to see its full effect.

I mix it with crested wheatgrass, but I am talking with USU about some other options. It can be used at elevations as high as 6000', in fact it works best at 4500'-6000', but can be effective at higher/lower elevations. The deer seem to like it, but it doesn't keep them out of my grass/hay fields. I still see more in the sagebrush than anywhere, even with little/no snow this winter. So, I don't see deer staying on kochia stands year round.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I'd rather see our conservation permit dollars spent on subsidizing land owners in winter range to grow some Kochia or something like it then paying for harrow projects on summer range.


----------



## flinger (Nov 19, 2007)

http://wri.utah.gov/WRI/Assets/Handlers ... wma-08.pdf

Here is what was in the 12 mile mix. It's going on 5 years since it was planted, it would be interesting to see how it's doing now. If someone goes up there to take a look at it take some pics and post them on here. Sainfoin is another good one, but it's more like alfalfa, so not really a year round type of plant. Apparently small burnet has some pretty attractive qualities to deer as well. I think USU or someone is working on a different strain of forage kochia that is taller so it would be better in areas that receive deep snow in the winter. I think its coming out this year sometime.

Edit: might want to check and make sure you can even go on the WMA right now. Could be closed to the public. Probably best to wait till spring.


----------



## mack1950 (Sep 11, 2007)

It seems to me from what i have observed in the local area that kochia is definatly more attractive to the local deer and elk however i have noticed that when the elk move in the deer move to find diffrent feeding areas. i have heard that there going to do a dredge above town i hope the they reseed at least partically with kochia. like most have said it will take some time for it to become previlant but it alot better than most ideas i have seen other than the 50 bounty being the creedy type i would love to see that idea passed


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

mack1950 said:


> however i have noticed that when the elk move in the deer move to find different feeding areas.


You don't hear this talked about as much, but can this also be a reason for the decline?? I know that with the rise of the elk herd they have taken over what had been traditional mule deer wintering areas....and as Mack mentioned, when the elk move in, the deer move out. If deer are forced into more marginal wintering areas because of the presence of elk, this would have to impact survival rates I would think.

Anyone know of any studies on this subject??


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

Kevin D said:


> mack1950 said:
> 
> 
> > however i have noticed that when the elk move in the deer move to find different feeding areas.
> ...


I just look at Colorado, a lot more deer and a lot more elk. Yeah I know comparing the two (Colorado and Utah) is like apples and oranges, but I don't think elk have as much of an impact on deer populations as some may think.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I watched 3 doe run with 2 350+ bull elk for a few days on Monroe last summer. I have also watched deer and elk bed right together several times.

I have also seen deer run top speed clearing a meadow 1 minute later a herd of elk came in. The deer obviously knew or heard them coming well before I did. I have seen this more than once also. 

Since I have already had my OIL LE elk hunt. I say lets do something (maybe) for the deer and defiantly avoid wolves and get rid of all the elk. :mrgreen:


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Kevin D said:


> mack1950 said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone know of any studies on this subject??


Yes, no, absolutely maybe.

There's some evidence of direct competition in which deer avoid elk. Idaho did a collar study, (I don't think it's conclusive.)

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... Qg&cad=rja

Indirect competition between elk and mule deer involves weather and habitat conditions. So numerous studies have looked at pieces of the puzzle but we don't have enough pieces to really see the big picture. The consensus right now is that competition for winter range forage probably exists, but it's significance is periodic, temporary and localized.

My personal take is that if indirect competition between elk and deer hasn't already been a limiting factor in some deer populations, it soon will be. We can't add more animals to diminishing habitat and expect otherwise.

http://www.createstrat.com/muledeerinth ... edeer.html
http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/31314


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

Thanks for the info Finn. Possibly, maybe,and almost.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Does anyone know what the feed bill is for the elk at hardware?

Just thinking out loud here. It may be feasible in certain units that have a serious issue with deer/elk competition on winter range. To feed the elk as they do in Hardware or Jackson. This could help keep elk concentrated to certain areas and open up elk free acreage for deer.
Not to mention provide more viewable wildlife like hardware and Jackson. I'm thinking the Elbow Ranch and Marysvale WMA's would be a great place to try it. Now if the feed bill for Hardware is hundreds of thousands then that may not work. 

Just a thought.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Here's the DWRs state wide estimates...
2007- 302,430
2008- 273,400
2009- 301,700
2010- 293,700

Deer herd numbers have fell dramatically over the last 3-4 years in ALL the areas
I look at....I personally don't believe were any were close to 293K deer right now.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

They use 300 tons of hay per yr at Hardware. That feeds 500 to 600 elk. They grow there own grass hay on the ranch. I am certain the folks of Piute county would welcome a visitor attraction in their county. Especially in the winter months that you could readily see 400" bull elk. 

I think I'm on to something. Other than the inevitable counter that naturally wintering elk is preferred by the DWR.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I oppose winter feeding elk. The chances of serious/fatal diseases being rampant are significant. The costs of 300 tons of hay, plus delivering it is high. Right now hay is going for $200-$250 a ton. That is $60,000-$75,000 plus the costs of delivering the hay. And, how do you keep the deer out? Hardware Ranch is unique, it is tied in with research facilities, and the demographics are conducive to a feeding program. Jackson Hole is getting immense pressure to phase out the feeding program, and I support phasing it out. Feeding programs do NOT fix the overlaying problems, and more often than not they compound the problems wildlife face.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

So why don't they phase out hardware? I don't even think that's on the radar. Is the DWR acting irresponsibly? An elk research facility hasn't shown itself to be detrimental to elk herds in the cache area? 

Again a push to let nature be as it wants to be. Cant intervene with nature. Except to unnaturally reduce buck doe ratios with virtually unlimited buck harvesting. :? 

I know of a trucker that would deliver hay to fulfill his DH hrs. 60K to 70K sounds like a reasonable cost to me. Especially when you consider those costs would be offset by visitor admission. 

Your not concerned about 300 tons of hay going to elk out of the Sanpete Sevier Piute area's raising the price of hay are you? :lol:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> So why don't they phase out hardware? I don't even think that's on the radar. Is the DWR acting irresponsibly? An elk research facility hasn't shown itself to be detrimental to elk herds in the cache area? I am no expert on Hardware Ranch, so I am not going to even attempt to answer your questions on this. I will see if my friend Travis Sparks (Mulepacker) can answer them for you.
> 
> Again a push to let nature be as it wants to be. Cant intervene with nature. Except to unnaturally reduce buck doe ratios with virtually unlimited buck harvesting. :? Intervening is one thing, putting band aids on and calling them solutions is another. Do you know what the 'natural' buck:doe ratio is, if so, what is it? And, when you include man into the equation, does that 'natural' ratio change? It doesn't have to be either or, you throw out extremes, and blur over any mention of balance. Intervening in ways that are beneficial to, first the wildlife, and second to long term health/sustainability is wise and prudent. Intervening in ways that cause short/long term harm to wildlife and are unsustainable is foolish and a waste of time/energy/resources. IMHO......
> 
> ...


On the subject of hay prices, I read a report that Texas is facing a drier year than last year, which was the primary cause of hay prices going over the $200/ton mark. I have friends in the mid-west predicting hay prices exceeding $300/ton by fall. That will have a far greater impact on feed prices than feeding a few hundred elk in Piute County.......


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

bwhntr said:


> http://warnercnr.colostate.edu/~gwhite/mdreport.pdf


Apparently Colorado or any other western state does not have Cougar according to this paper or at least they don't eat deer. In its attempt to discount predation as a significant source of mule deer declines and disprove that predator control works to help increase deer numbers. *Not one single mention of cougar* only mention of coyotes. :? :roll:


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Pro' I read mother nature likes her buck doe ratios at 30 to 40 buck per 100 doe.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Mother Nature is not trying to fund the DWR budget. The boilogical arguement only works when it favors more harvest...right??? :lol:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Pro' I read mother nature likes her buck doe ratios at 30 to 40 buck per 100 doe.


Where did you read that?


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Iron Bear said:


> Pro' I read mother nature likes her buck doe ratios at 30 to 40 buck per 100 doe.


I'd like to know where you read this as well. Every source I have looked at has revealed different numbers. However, they are very close and surprising to boot.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Iron Bear said:


> So why don't they phase out hardware? I don't even think that's on the radar. Is the DWR acting irresponsibly? An elk research facility hasn't shown itself to be detrimental to elk herds in the cache area?


I was told by the ranch personnel that the ranch is kept up by several sources of revenue. A great part of it being Cache farmers that want to keep the elk out of their lands and crops. Other funding comes from grants for research and admissions which is the smallest of the sources.


----------

