# Wintering Ranch for wildlife



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

The DWR owns the property called Doc Steeles just below Mtn Nebo on the west side. This land is several thousand acres. Right now, it's a weed patch and it isn't very beneficial for wildlife. Many years ago this area was a huge alfalfa field and in the winter time then you would see a lot of elk and deer wintering on this property.This land could be used to grow hay and act like a mini Hardware Ranch where elk would migrate to be fed instead of wintering in unwanted places which causes conflicts with farmers. I realize it would be dry farming so you couldnt get three crops.There is also a few springs on this land. This would increase the winter ground for elk and deer because we would make the land more valuable to wildlife. I also believe this could also increase our elk and deer herds.

We have great summer grounds for elk to feed all summer and when they come down in the winter it causes conflicts with farmers so why not have places that will attract elk to winter in other places? Make the ground worth more. Improve the habitat better. Have more places to feed the elk and plant more bitterbrush, sage and mohgany for the deer. I like the programs of cutting out jupiters because this helps deer habitat. So many thing can be done to make things better. Look at what they do back east. They plant food plots everywhere.

I know the DWR is against feeding elk because of sickness, but could they also medicate the elk?

There is an old saying.......If you build it then they will come.  

Just a thought


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

So Yote, You FINALY figuring out how poor of shape the Nebo elk herd is in?

And deer, Just a couple years ago Doc Steeles place had 1000"s of deer and elk on it..

And I looked at it last week,,,,,there is TONS OF FEED,,,,,,,but not much feeding on it...


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Well I guess they must of migrated because I am seeing more deer and elk through Spanish Fork Canyon than I have saw in a long time. :lol:


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

jahan said:


> Well I guess they must of migrated because I am seeing more deer and elk through Spanish Fork Canyon than I have saw in a long time. :lol:


DUDE, I've been driving Spanish Fork canyon almost every day for 35 years,,
And yes , there are still a few deer around and hang low on the
south slopes...But even compared to 5 years ago less than half..

LET A lone pre 1992-93,,,,,,I used to set on my back deck every day and see
a 100 of deer from my chair,,,,,,,,,,,now I may see a hand full a year in my feilds!!

Jahan, how many years you been watching SF canyon?


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> jahan said:
> 
> 
> > Well I guess they must of migrated because I am seeing more deer and elk through Spanish Fork Canyon than I have saw in a long time. :lol:
> ...


Well I have traveled that canyon all of my life, but in all fairness I really started paying attention for about the last 12 years ago. I travel that canyon at least once a month, sometimes 4+ times a month. This doesn't mean there are more or less deer, I was just making an observation that I am seeing more deer in that canyon this year.

What I found more encouraging than anything was it seemed like almost every doe had a least one fawn. Didn't see many bucks, but those does were impregnated somehow.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I just really have a hard time when I've seen how it can be. I hunted Billie's
Mountain in the mid 70's, believe me , there were deer then.

And honestly, I look some were EVERY DAY! spotter and camera in hand!
And frankly , I'm not seeing buck or bull numbers even close to what I saw
just last winter...

And some areas are definitely better than others,,,,,But overall, Waaay down.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

I traveled Spanish Fork Canyon to hit the DWR meeting in Price on Wednesday evening.....this is NO EXAGGERATION...I saw roughly 100 - 150 head of elk and 350 - 400 deer. I tried to count and it was laughable even trying. 

I didn't see near as many going down Price canyon. We did see a few nice bucks that got our attention but it's hard to tell how many have shed their antlers already.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Ya, that rights on the money..

Like I said , about half from a few years ago.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> And honestly, I look some were EVERY DAY! spotter and camera in hand!
> And frankly , I'm not seeing buck or bull numbers even close to what I saw
> just last winter...


I think age is causing problems with your eye sight. It does happen when you get older. :O•-:


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

You've actually got a point there SW,,,,,,

My kids laugh there butts off when I were my reading glasses now.. :shock:


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> Ya, that rights on the money..
> 
> Like I said , about half from a few years ago.


I don't travel it like Jahan does but I'm no stranger to that highway. I certainly wouldn't say that's half of what it was a few years ago IMO.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> So Yote, You FINALY figuring out how poor of shape the Nebo elk herd is in?
> 
> And deer, Just a couple years ago Doc Steeles place had 1000"s of deer and elk on it..
> 
> And I looked at it last week,,,,,there is TONS OF FEED,,,,,,,but not much feeding on it...


Goofy put on your reading glasses. No where in my message did I say the elk herds are struggling. I was refering to a piece of land which would benefit the elk a lot if it was used wisely.

Also the feed isn't very good on Doc Steeles because it a weed patch. Im not sure what you consider feed.

Feed for whom? The elk would be using it if there was good feed, but they don't because they know something that Goofy doesn't.


----------



## NHS (Sep 7, 2007)

I can't even begin to count the number of times I have been over that mountain either as a passenger or driver in my lifetime. I bet it is well over 1,000. I remember as a kid, in the 80's we would see all kinds of deer in the winter time along Hwy6. The stretch from the summit to Thistle was almost wall to wall deer. Like goofy says, it isn't like that today and has not been that way for a very long time.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

NHS said:


> I can't even begin to count the number of times I have been over that mountain either as a passenger or driver in my lifetime. I bet it is well over 1,000. I remember as a kid, in the 80's we would see all kinds of deer in the winter time along Hwy6. The stretch from the summit to Thistle was almost wall to wall deer. Like goofy says, it isn't like that today and has not been that way for a very long time.


Actually goofy said it was that way just a few years ago which I don't see it that way.....I believe it was that way back in the 80's.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Back on topic.......I like coyoteslayers thinking. The 'build and they will come' concept seems reasonable to me. Quality winter range is the single biggest limiting factor in herd populations. Trying to find ways to maximize quality winter range should be applauded.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Coyote brings up a valid issue. Lands need to made productive and beneficial to widlife. This WMA is close to town and would be a great place to do habitat work. I will bring it up to the Habitat Council and see if there are projects which can be done in the area. 

I doubt anyone is completely happy with the deer herd. It seems some believe the drop in herd numbers is due to bucks, while others think bucks are not the problem-- but other factors are. How much has the habitat changed along US 6 from 1985 to 2010? I'd guess the answer is substantially to deer, but not much to the human eye....


----------



## Guest (Feb 19, 2011)

that land your talking about is used alot by wintering elk and deer herds. infact that whole flat sage area along the whole mountain is used by wintering animals. the problem is, with the elk, they get the **** shot out of them by cow hunters if they even come remotely close to the flats during day light hours. i know, ive witnessed it first hand several times  since the cow hunt has closed, if you drive near there and look right at first light you can see some herds of elk working their way back up to the hills. i wouldnt say the elk herd is struggling, but its nowhere what it use to be! the nebo sucks for deer, thats not a secret. everyone knows theres no deer up there, let alone anything worth shooting  but i have been impressed with the numbers ive seen this year. theres some nice bucks around too.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

So what if the con tag program was turned around? Instead of tags and money first, then habitat project proposals, what if habitat projects came first...then the money to pay for them?

It wouldn't be hard for the DWR to post a list of priority projects. Obviously, wildfires present an immediate habitat restoration opportunity. New land acquisitions would follow closely behind. Why not team with organizations like the Nature Conservancy?

http://www.nature.org/wherewework/north ... preserves/

Just saying that if you give an organization money, then require them to spend the money somewhere, the money doesn't necessarily get spent where it needs to be spent. The money gets spent as a requirement rather than a necessity. (Guzzlers, juniper or aspen removal, fences and new CWMU ATV trails aren't necessarily the best way to spend the money.)

On the other hand, if an organization that wants to auction tags was required to first gain approval for con tag funding of priority projects, we'd get better bang for the buck. For example, I want to burn and reseed the Steele ranch. Estimated cost is $10,000. That gets me two elk tags to auction, (and I **** well better get 10 grand for those tags). Too bad for SFW.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Finnegan said:


> So what if the con tag program was turned around? Instead of tags and money first, then habitat project proposals, what if habitat projects came first...then the money to pay for them?
> 
> It wouldn't be hard for the DWR to post a list of priority projects. Obviously, wildfires present an immediate habitat restoration opportunity. New land acquisitions would follow closely behind. Why not team with organizations like the Nature Conservancy?
> 
> ...


Marvelous concept! And workable! That's a good RAC/Wildlife Board proposal.

And if SFW/MDF/NAWSF/RMEF, etc. want to show the world that they are the organizations they claim to be, even they couldn't object, especially if they still had _some_ discretion of the use of any funds they get over the "price" of the tags. After all, we wouldn't want to shut down the Conventions now would we?


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

The DWR and the state have many parcels of land that should be used for this concept. Let’s start with the fact that a few of these properties such as the donated Doc Steel ranch were at one time was actively farmed for alfalfa. A second such ranch owed by the DWR exists in nine mile canyon on the green river corridor. The Wilcox ranch on the Range Creek is another example. The book cliffs have a couple of properties that come to mind and that just what comes to mind on the short list. It would seem that as soon as agricultural land is turned over to the DWR it become barren waste land.

The State has plenty of water rights that could be used to put the Steel ranch back into a productive agricultural/alfalfa ranch.

Big


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Finnegan said:


> On the other hand, if an organization that wants to auction tags was required to first gain approval for con tag funding of priority projects, we'd get better bang for the buck. For example, I want to burn and reseed the Steele ranch. Estimated cost is $10,000. That gets me two elk tags to auction, (and I **** well better get 10 grand for those tags).


This is a wonderful idea that I could get behind!


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

Why not have another ranch, or two? Coyote, I think your on to something.

Finn, looking out for the wildlife and making sure the funds are used for that purpose. Not to line someone else's pockets . What a concept.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I have a few minutes before I have to coach a basketball game so let me see if I can give you guys some info on how habitat projects are funded.

Funding sources for habitat projects-
1- Money genereated by Conservation Permit Sales: 90% of these funds are used on approved habitat projects. The Groups can submit their own projects or UDWR projects, but all projects are approved by the UDWR and/or the Habitat Council.
2- Money generated through license sales: Every hunting license sold has a specific portion to be used on habitat projects. The Habitat Money from license sales meets/exceeds Conservation Tag money.
3- WRI funds- These funds come from the Utah State Gov't to be used to improve watersheds. 
4- GIP- These are Federal Funds dedicated to improve rangelands and grazing.
5- Federal Agency funds- The Forest Service and BLM can contribute to habitat projects on their managed lands.
6- Private funds- these come from a private landowner or a grazing permittee. They contribute to a project which will benefit their land or the grazing allotment. They can also come in the form of donations in easements.
7-Pittman-Roberts funds- Taxes from hunting goods are returned to the state and may be used on certain projects.
8- Other- There are many other funding sources, but I don't have time to list them all, but it might be a group like The Chuckar Foundation, Trout Unlimited, or Water For Wildlife who donate to projects from their mambers with no tags to sell.

So a project might have 1-8+ contibuting partners. For example a $100,000 chaining project on BLM might receive funds:
-SFW $5,000 -MDF $10,000 -NWTF $2,000 -Habitat Council $20,000 -WRI $43,000 -BLM $20,000. The point is it takes many funding sources for most projects.

Habitat projects on WMAs- The Steele property falls into this category. These projects are usually funded by money generated through the habitat portion of the hunting licesnes. Sometimes Conservation Tag money or the WRI fund contribute also, but mainly the funding comes through that avenue and the pool of money to draw from is limited.

Purchasing new property for wildlife is a tough accomplishment in today's world. Here is some background. A few decades ago, the UDWR had the foresight to purchase lands used for winter range by big game and other species. The UDWR had identified properties in areas of the State which would greatly benefit this cause. They started purchasing those properties in the late 70s-80s. Local governments started to question the purchase of private property by the State, feeling their tax base would decrease and they would loose economic developement and they questioned how the UDWR could fund the purchases. These local governments and individuals lobbied the State government and put a stop (making it extremely hard) to land aquisitions by the UDWR. Most of these lands were aquired in a time when range lands were inexpensive. Now there are more means to aquire lands for the UDWR, yet prices for range lands have sky-rocketed. I am certain the UDWR would enjoy someone buying specific properties and donating them to the UDWR-- any takers? 

That was lond-winded.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Thanks Packout! That's a ton of information to digest! Much appreciated... Have fun at the game!!


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

Packout, (Mike)

This is not a matter of purchasing more land. The general emphasis is in improving crucial winter habitat with a cash crop that can be used for the sole purpose of wildlife winter forage or food supplements on property that the DWR now has in its possession. In a few cases as I have already pointed out, the land was in private hands being used for alfalfa etc and then was either donated or acquired by the state to support wildlife. In the steel property the only thing missing is the water rights.

I believe that many conservation groups could find the funding to put these properties back in motion as agricultural projects designed to directly benefit deer and elk winter feeding supplements or to offset depredation crop damage on private property to avoid animal destruction. And the beauty of this is that the property does not necessarily have to be located in an area that is currently utilized as winter deer, elk or sheep winter range. Alfalfa can be transported to any critical site in either pellet of bail form. 

Coyote is on to a great idea that needs further investigation and consideration in my humble opinion…Big


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> I realize it would be dry farming so you couldnt get three crops.


By three crops, you must mean alfalfa. With some exceptions, you can't really dry farm alfalfa. Dry farming takes advantage of wet spring weather to grow annuals, like grains, that mature before the hot, dry summer weather takes hold. Alfalfa is a perennial legume that pretty much dies if it's not irrigated during July and August. In higher elevations, with more rain and cooler temperatures, it can make it through the summer, but that description doesn't fit the Steeles property that you were referring to.



coyoteslayer said:


> I know the DWR is against feeding elk because of sickness, but could they also medicate the elk?


There is no vaccine or medication for chronic wasting disease, and they're against widespread feeding operations for more reasons than disease.



bigbr said:


> The State has plenty of water rights that could be used to put the Steel ranch back into a productive agricultural/alfalfa ranch.


Alfalfa isn't a good substitute for winter browse. Alfalfa is a water-intensive agricultural livestock crop that must be mowed and baled just as it blossoms. Unbaled alfalfa loses all its leaves and basically turns into a pile of stems. Unharvested alfalfa does the same - the leaves drop off, and little but non-nutritious stems remain. It's also easily covered by the snow, and when the snow gets deep (when deer and elk need food the most), it's unavailable and smashed on the ground beneath the snow.

Sure, elk will congregate in farmers' alfalfa fields. They will even eat what they can find there, but the summer leftover stems aren't really optimum food. Former alfalfa fields could be put to much better use for big game animals by planting various kinds of browse that make better food, require less water and no expensive, manpower-intensive farming.



bigbr said:


> Alfalfa can be transported to any critical site in either pellet or bail form.


Here's what the DWR has to say about the wisdom of supplemental winter feeding: http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/deer-winter-feeding.html. The article is about deer, but much of what's said there would pertain to elk as well.

For example, both elk and deer become habituated to feeding grounds, then rely on them. Alfalfa feeding would require a very expensive, ongoing program that would essentially be a free-ranging elk and deer ranching operation. The DWR does this at Hardware Ranch, but that facility was brought about decades ago to keep the elk out of Cache Valley. I don't know how much that place costs the DWR to maintain, but my guess is hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. And much of that money, I believe, comes from ticket sales from their winter elk viewing rides. Duplicating this model around the state in dozens of locations just isn't practical or economically feasible.

I completely agree that various state (and federal properties) around the state could benefit from an infusion of cash to enable habitat improvements to take place. Planting bitterbrush, big sage, mountain mahogany, bunch grasses, etc., would be a much better and efficient use of that money, however, than engaging in a giant alfalfa farming and distribution operation.


----------



## toymanator (Dec 29, 2010)

HunterGeek said:


> I completely agree that various state (and federal properties) around the state could benefit from an infusion of cash to enable habitat improvements to take place. Planting bitterbrush, big sage, mountain mahogany, bunch grasses, etc., would be a much better and efficient use of that money, however, than engaging in a giant alfalfa farming and distribution operation.


Coming from someone who raises alfalfa hay as a hobby on the side, I agree with this!


----------



## hoghunter011583 (Jul 21, 2008)

I love this idea!!! I think improving habitat is so important. I think we should really get behind this and even if the usual methods of going to the dwr don't work maybe we could brainstorm some other ideas!!


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

Huntergeek
I have read the studies also about feeding deer alfalfa and I have never seen a deer yet die of eating from a hay stack or a hay field. A large portion of the deer and elk in Utah are doing this very thing every winter, feeding on private property containing alfalfa. In fact the elk and deer have been so concentrated in the Duchesne area on private agricultural properties IE hay stacks, that hay drop sites have been place to draw the wildlife away from the agricultural areas. I believe that depredation hunting permits are being issued right now to try and cull the numbers of elk and to a lesser extent deer in Duchesne. To assume that deer and elk do not under so-called “normal” circumstances congregate on winter range is pure bs. According to the DWR Utah never has experienced a “normal “winter that has not impacted deer and elk numbers. To continue to assume that feeding programs kill deer and elk due to disease and malnutrition is the biggest myth perpetrated upon the public in general. I would agree that late term feedings may be harmful to deer with alfalfa, but long term feeding has never been a problem for deer or elk. Why do you think that Deseret Ranch has maintained such robust herds of both elk and to a lesser extent deer? Most of the CWMU’s are successful for this very reason, year round feeding!

We may argue the cost of such programs, but we are paying a high price to maintain the deer and elk we now have and statistically the past five years things are not improving. Winter range and water developments are crucial to maintaining the health of our herds. Utah has invested heavily in bitter brush and other habitat enhancement projects around the state and in my opinion we are still five to seven years out before many of these areas become productive. Why not supplement feeding programs in the mean time to give our deer herds a fighting chance? 

Coyote has come up with a darn good way of getting us over the hump….Big


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

bigbr said:


> To continue to assume that feeding programs kill deer and elk due to disease and malnutrition is the biggest myth perpetrated upon the public in general.


There are a half dozen other reasons that massive feeding operations are a poor use of limited resources except in emergencies - in addition to the disease issue.

Also, your reading of the studies must not be all that careful since nobody's claiming winter feeding as a cause for malnutrion. Colloquially, the condition that sudden feed changes cause in ruminants is known as bloat - the animals die from acute digestive issues characterized by gas buildup in the animals' rumens. More technically, its known as ruminal tympany. Sure you can feed deer and elk alfalfa in the winter, but it needs to start early and continue through the winter or constitute only a small percentage of their total diet. A sudden shift in the middle of the winter to an alfalfa-rich diet most definitely results in deer and elk deaths (cattle and sheep too, for that matter). Add to that the fact that its very expensive, and at best only reaches a few of the most visible herds of animals.

I guess Bigbr that I'm inclined to take seriously the nearly universal opinions of western professional big game biologists and the collective opinion of the Mule Deer Working Group of Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. If you, for whatever reason, feel that your supplemental feeding expertise and experience with habitat restoration exceeds the knowledge that professional biologists have gained through scientific studies and the methodical collection of data over the past 60 years, I'll certainly admire your self confidence even if I don't agree with your conclusions.

According to DWR figures over $70 million has been spent on Utah habitat restoration over the past few years. I don't think any of that went into farming operations. Why? Because the money is better spent on actual habitat restoration - not farming a water-intensive, non-native domesticated livestock crop under the mistaken impression that this money-draining undertaking would be what's most beneficial for our big game animals.

Again, the best use of limited habitat restoration funds is to plant self-sustaining communities of winter browse that these animals normally eat during the cold months - along with removal of pinyon-juniper infestations and the planting of more nutritious and fire/drought tolerant grasses and forbs that can disrupt the increased burn cycles caused by cheat grass infestations.


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

WOW what a bunch of B.S. I am reading. (please people don't take to heart everything you read or hear from BIOLOGISTS.) Winter of 08-09, I personally fed 500 head of elk and 40 head of deer with very hot alfafa hay out of Idaho. Started in January and fed till March. After the 2 1/2 month of feeding we had lost 4 elk and 6 fawns.(not bad for 540 animals) We occasionally supplemented the deer to a pellet for few days (SFW purchased these pellets threw the division, they were a mix of grass, sagebrush brows, pine needles etc.) Record Rack was the brand if you want to see all ingrediants. Sad that are Division couldn't even donate a single thing for their big game. This was not funded by the division this was funded by SFW, the public, and CWMU around here. We have been trying to get the division to set up a feed station like Hardware Ranch. We have offered the ground and equipment the only thing we need is the hay. But still no success after 2 years of fighting. All I can tell you is GOOD LUCK hope you can make it happen. If you make it happen give us some tips.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I think Pheaz has some good stuff, I also like how well he can throw BS back were it came from.

Pheaz, your welcome anytime in my camp...


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

lol...

I don't know if everyone is on the same page. Please read the below link below for what biologists say. On a side note I would not encourage anyone to IGNORE them. Notice that SOME of the problems with feeding deer don't happen right away. If they pass diseases to each other they may not die right there at the feeding spot.

If you are participating in a sponsored, approved program, then you are doing nothing wrong of course.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/news/42-ut ... -deer.html


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

pheaz said:
 

> WOW what a bunch of B.S. I am reading. (please people don't take to heart everything you read or hear from BIOLOGISTS.)


And in those two short sentences, you've demonstrated 100% of the qualifications apparently needed for a seat on the current State Wildlife Board. :O•-:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Deer and elk will pass on diseases regardless if they are fed or not.

I see no problem feeding elk to keep them off farmers lands. I also said before the best solution for deer is to increase their winter habitat by planting sagebrush and bitterbrush in places that is crucial winter grounds. We need to increase the browse plants per acre instead of having a lot of land unused because of plants that deer do not eat.

Is Jackson Hole having major problems feeding elk? I think Wyoming has been able to increase there elk herds because of their feeding program in those areas.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

No disrespect pheaz, but you may be contributing to the issue of deer numbers declining. Read the information that is out there, listen to what Huntergeek is saying. Just because you are not seeing them die right there doesn't mean that there isn't an issue. Like bullsnot said, if they are spreading disease, you won't know it then. If they are malnourished or get ruminal tympany you may not see them wander off and die. I hate seeing animals suffer as much as the next guy, but I am going to leave it to the experts. There are deer that eat alfalfa year round, those are not the deer that will be effected by the change in diet. 

I was talking with one of the guides at Hardware Ranch and he pointed out that the hay they feed the elk has not nutritional value, but elk have a very complex stomach and can make it work, but they still get most of their nutrition to stay alive by eating the browse where they bed at night time. He also said this would not work for deer because their stomachs are not as good at digesting hay. 

I think the whole point to yotes post, which I agree with, is lets at least get some browse that can sustain deer and elk in the winter and keep them out of farmers crops and off the roads. That is the sole purpose of Hardware Ranch, to keep as many elk up there and away from the farmers haystacks.

I hate to keep coming back to Hardware Ranch, but it is a good example. They corral those elk and tag them and test them for diseases. They take the time to make sure what they are doing isn't harming the animals at the time or in the future.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

HunterGeek said:


> Colloquially, the condition that sudden feed changes cause in ruminants is known as bloat - the animals die from acute digestive issues characterized by gas buildup in the animals' rumens. More technically, its known as ruminal tympany. Sure you can feed deer and elk alfalfa in the winter, but it needs to start early and continue through the winter or constitute only a small percentage of their total diet. A sudden shift in the middle of the winter to an alfalfa-rich diet most definitely results in deer and elk deaths (cattle and sheep too, for that matter).
> 
> 
> bigbr said:
> ...


In 1912 the National Elk Refuge was established to try and save the last remaining viable herd of elk in the United States. The majority of rocky mountain elk alive today can be linked to the herd that was preserved in the Teton Yellowstone ecosystem. The feeding program that was instituted help to provide wildlife growth over the past one hundred years to not only elk, but deer, moose, bison, antelope etc.. Much has been learned from this experiment and although not perfect, the net effect has been a treasure to the economy of the surrounding area and the preservation of wildlife once at the brink of destruction.

From my perspective long term continual feeding in one area can have detrimental effects, however, we are not talking about feeding all of Utah's wildlife and only supplementing for a short time( a few years or emergancies) on a limited basis until other restoration projects come into production and be sustained. I am confident that intelligent people could do better with the lands that are in public trust and Coyote gives one perfect example. IMHO&#8230;.Big


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

AND AGAIN (please people don't take to heart everything you read or hear from BIOLOGISTS.) The feeding alfalfa yes I do admit it is not the best for deer (thats where the pellets came in handy.) The diseases are going to transfer from one to the other no matter what. If you are feeding them, or they are eating sagebrush brows next to each other. This particular feeding program was not a sponsored or approved program threw the division. Funny thing is, "THE DIVISION" whinned and cried, told me about the diseases when I done this. After all was done I received 1 thanks from 1 DNR officer. I followed the elk for 2 month after they left, checking to see if I had wiped the heard out from disease.(and gathering sheds of coarse) Few dead calfs and and 3 lion kills.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

bigbr said:


> HunterGeek said:
> 
> 
> > Colloquially, the condition that sudden feed changes cause in ruminants is known as bloat - the animals die from acute digestive issues characterized by gas buildup in the animals' rumens. More technically, its known as ruminal tympany. Sure you can feed deer and elk alfalfa in the winter, but it needs to start early and continue through the winter or constitute only a small percentage of their total diet. A sudden shift in the middle of the winter to an alfalfa-rich diet most definitely results in deer and elk deaths (cattle and sheep too, for that matter).
> ...


I agree with your last paragraph. Can we do better, absolutely! Also I think Huntergeek left the million off of the $70.  :lol:

IMO here is the difference between when farmers feed animals in the winter and when animals winter on their natural wintering grounds. When we feed the animals, we lay out a long pile of feed. Animals are shoulder to shoulder, fighting ect. When you have a natural arrangement of browse, they can spread out a little more and do not have to compete as hard for the food, plus they are getting much more nutritional food. Also at the same time the adult animals are teaching the young ones how to survive on their own. Once you feed an animal, they will come back almost every year. Once again this is just my opinion of the advantages of a planting a good sustainable browse vs feeding.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

pheaz said:


> AND AGAIN (please people don't take to heart everything you read or hear from BIOLOGISTS.) The feeding alfalfa yes I do admit it is not the best for deer (thats where the pellets came in handy.) The diseases are going to transfer from one to the other no matter what. If you are feeding them, or they are eating sagebrush brows next to each other. This particular feeding program was not a sponsored or approved program threw the division. Funny thing is, "THE DIVISION" whinned and cried, told me about the diseases when I done this. After all was done I received 1 thanks from 1 DNR officer. I followed the elk for 2 month after they left, checking to see if I had wiped the heard out from disease.(and gathering sheds of coarse) Few dead calfs and and 3 lion kills.


What has more nutritional value, alfalfa or a natural browse. I agree there is always going to be congregation of animals in wintering grounds. I don't believe everything biologists say, but I tend to listen to those that know more than I do and what they do for a living. So pheaz what do you do for a living?


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Not being a biologist or botanist for that matter, I do believe there is a difference between the "grass" hay being fed the elk both at Hardware Ranch at the Elk Refuge than what most people refer to as alfalfa.

It would seem that the "grass" hay would be a more natural diet to elk than alfalfa. As for deer, I think if you are going to feed, it should be done long term, not as a quick fix in bad snow years.

Carry on.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I believe as Pheaz has indicated, The Heber valley is a place were short term feeding
areas for wildlife could be greatly beneficial. BUT instead the DWR hands out depredation tags?

Pheaz has indicated land and equipment being offered. On hard winters, This should be 
an option instead of shooting elk in February.


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

jahan said:


> pheaz said:
> 
> 
> > AND AGAIN (please people don't take to heart everything you read or hear from BIOLOGISTS.) The feeding alfalfa yes I do admit it is not the best for deer (thats where the pellets came in handy.) The diseases are going to transfer from one to the other no matter what. If you are feeding them, or they are eating sagebrush brows next to each other. This particular feeding program was not a sponsored or approved program threw the division. Funny thing is, "THE DIVISION" whinned and cried, told me about the diseases when I done this. After all was done I received 1 thanks from 1 DNR officer. I followed the elk for 2 month after they left, checking to see if I had wiped the heard out from disease.(and gathering sheds of coarse) Few dead calfs and and 3 lion kills.
> ...


I can't agree more that natural browse has more nutrition. But when there is no other option alfalfa seems to work. The only other option is getting the natural pellets from the state. BTW hope you got deep pockets cause they charge alot. This is only a option while replanting an area for winter ground. Problem though alot of the wintering ground around here is gone. So yes this would be a every year thing around here.(like Hardware Ranch) And for the record the alfalfa makes the deer get the shizts and they cant get the nutrition they need.(thats where the pellets came in) Did I miss something wasn't this about ELK to start with. Coyote you wont be able to convince alot on this site. It is just something you need to run with. P.M. maybe I can give you some thoughts and comments on the side. To many PROFESSIONAL researchers online.


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> Is Jackson Hole having major problems feeding elk? I think Wyoming has been able to increase there elk herds because of their feeding program in those areas.


Yes, they _are_ having major disease transmission problems with that feeding program, and the Wyoming Game & Fish Dept. is altering procedures and reducing feeding stations in an effort to mitigate them.

The feeding areas in northwest Wyoming are being increasingly recognized as major epicenters for brucellosis transmission.

From a May 2010 press release from the Wyoming Game and Fish Dept.

[blockquote:29gla7nc]"Much of this reduced feeding was made possible by the relatively mild winter, but it is also the result of a new program being implemented by the WGFD, called the Target Feedground Program. The agency is well aware of the disease implications that come along with congregating elk at feedgrounds and continually tries to find ways to limit or modify elk feeding strategies to reduce the transmission of diseases, such as brucellosis.

The Target Feedground Project is a relatively new program, which emphasizes altering elk feeding practices. As such, WGFD has identified, or targeted, certain elk feedgrounds where they have the ability to feed less, shortening the feeding period by ending earlier or, as was the case this year, not feeding at all. Another part of the program calls for low-density feeding whereby managers spread out the feeding over a larger area.

To test whether spreading the animals out could reduce brucellosis transmission among elk, the department's Brucellosis Feedground Habitat (BFH) biologists used a combination of video cameras and elk fitted with proximity collars to see how many elk would come in contact with an elk fetus (not infected with brucellosis) that was placed on feedlines. Brucellosis is primarily spread by elk sniffing and/or licking an aborted fetus infected with the bacteria.

BFH biologists observed the pseudo-aborted elk fetus under different feeding strategies and densities of elk, and found that contact rates with a fetus were far less when elk were spread out on multiple adjoining feedlines as opposed to a long single feedline, which has been the traditional way of feeding elk."[/blockquote:29gla7nc]

A short excerpt from the High Country News. I suggest reading the entire article.

[blockquote:29gla7nc]"In time, the Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, Wyoming Wildlife Federation, Greater Yellowstone Coalition and Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative would like to phase out more of the 23 feedgrounds clustered in northwest Wyoming.

They see the feedgrounds as expensive breeding grounds for disease, and potential triggers for catastrophe.

"It's a ticking time bomb," says Tory Taylor, an executive board member of the Wyoming Wildlife Federation. "We've always characterized feedlots as living petri dishes. They spread any disease that gets into them."

This corner of Wyoming has become the nation's main reservoir of brucellosis. The disease causes pregnant elk, cattle and bison - including bison in Yellowstone National Park - to abort calves. And the feedgrounds seem to promote the disease among the animals that use them.

The conservation groups also believe the feedgrounds could cause an outbreak of chronic wasting disease, which increasingly shows up in elk and deer in surrounding states, and is often linked to game farms. Feedgrounds encourage conditions of animal crowding that are similar to game farms, but without fences."[/blockquote:29gla7nc]

From a broader perspective than just Jackson Hole, like the Utah DWR, Wyoming Game & Fish is an active member of the Western Association of Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA). Here's what WAFWA has to say about supplemental winter feeding in an article on their website titled: "Supplemental Feeding - Just Say No." For what it's worth, three biologists from Wyoming Game & Fish were participants in the writing and review of this official position from WAFWA.


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

bigbr said:


> HunterGeek said:
> 
> 
> > According to DWR figures over $70 has been spent on Utah habitat restoration over the past few years. I don't think any of that went into farming operations.  We have spent much more than $70 on habitat restoration.


I believe that's $70 million bigbr. Thanks for the correction.

To pick up on what you said later in your post, yes, I agree. There's a place for winter feeding in emergencies when the benefits of doing so outweigh the risks. I too liked Coyoteslayer's ideas of planting more browse on DWR-owned property (and elsewhere). I just don't think that farming alfalfa is a good solution.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Emergency feeding is a lot like emergency bailouts. They both are supposed to be short term help, but more often than not they end up causing far more damage than if nothing were done and nature was allowed to take its course. Artificially propping up deer/elk populations without increasing carrying capacity is a recipe for disaster and a huge waste of resources.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Supplemental feeding via pellets/bales is akin to welfare from the state. Once in place, its **** hard to get rid of the dependence for the handouts.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

[quote="jahan]
IMO here is the difference between when farmers feed animals in the winter and when animals winter on their natural wintering grounds. When we feed the animals, we lay out a long pile of feed. Animals are shoulder to shoulder, fighting ect. When you have a natural arrangement of browse, they can spread out a little more and do not have to compete as hard for the food, plus they are getting much more nutritional food. Also at the same time the adult animals are teaching the young ones how to survive on their own. Once you feed an animal, they will come back almost every year. Once again this is just my opinion of the advantages of a planting a good sustainable browse vs feeding.[/quote]
jahan,

Here in lies the problem with not only wildlife but America. The family farm and ranch has been abandoned as the backbone of our nation. It is no longer profitable to farm or ranch and far too speculative, so the majority of small and midsized operations have either lost or gotten out of the business. Housing developments, business parks and summer homes now frequent much of the crucial agricultural areas of our nation. Wildlife decline is the obvious result; however our ability to be self-sustaining as community has also suffered and will rear its ugly head sooner than most of us are prepared to except. Farmers and ranchers are not the enemies as they have been made out to be, they have been providing for the welfare of both people and wildlife for centuries&#8230;.Big


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Emergency feeding is a lot like emergency bailouts. They both are supposed to be short term help, but more often than not they end up causing far more damage than if nothing were done and nature was allowed to take its course. Artificially propping up deer/elk populations without increasing carrying capacity is a recipe for disaster and a huge waste of resources.


Pro,
Unlike illegal's and welfare recipients, Deer and elk do not have social security numbers. According to the state management plan of both deer and elk, Utah has the habitat to support an increase in herd numbers. My only insertion is that most of our habitat projects are less than ten years into planting and cannot sustain the pressure that they have been subjected too by wildlife foraging IE elk mainly. 
Big


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

HunterGeek said:


> bigbr said:
> 
> 
> > HunterGeek said:
> ...


Huntergeek,

I think that The DWR Director said that we have spent 140 million on projects over the past ten years. Both numbers is alot and one could question the economics of the expenditures.
I think that we are all arguing for an improvement and semantics are causing some confusion in this debate. I am not disagreeing just pointing out that the DWR could make better use of the property they hold in trust for the benefit of wildlife or to offset cost to other projects underway...Big


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

jahan said:


> I hate to keep coming back to Hardware Ranch, but it is a good example. They corral those elk and tag them and test them for diseases. They take the time to make sure what they are doing isn't harming the animals at the time or in the future.


Speaking of Hardware Ranch... This is entirely my own speculation, but I'd be willing to wager that if a few cases of chronic wasting disease were found in the Monte Cristo area or in the mountains east of Cache Valley, we'd see a radical change in the feeding operations at Hardware Ranch.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

bigbr said:


> Pro,
> Unlike illegal's and welfare recipients, Deer and elk do not have social security numbers. According to the state management plan of both deer and elk, Utah has the habitat to support an increase in herd numbers. My only insertion is that most of our habitat projects are less than ten years into planting and cannot sustain the pressure that they have been subjected too by wildlife foraging IE elk mainly.
> Big


I don't disagree with you on this. I am merely saying that spending precious resources artificially propping up deer/elk populations without having the carrying capacity in place to sustain them is nonsensical. I understand the emotional desires of "doing something", but in most cases supplemental feeding takes the resources away from where they would actually help long-term. Just think, if the millions spent feeding deer/elk was put into such areas as the one mentioned by coyoteslayer. Feeding gets short term benefits, along with as often as not long term liabilities. Planting/clearing has few short term benefits, but has long term SUSTAINED benefits. You can't cheat Mother Nature, even if attempting to do so makes you feel good.


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

bigbr said:


> I think that The DWR Director said that we have spent 140 million on projects over the past ten years. Both numbers is alot and one could question the economics of the expenditures.


I had to look it up myself yesterday. Here's the $70 million quote from the DWR website: http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/helping-deer-herds.html. I don't know, maybe if you went back ten years instead of five, the figure might double.

[blockquote:1cp3znjr]Over the past five years, the DWR and its many partners have improved mule deer habitat on more than 600,000 acres, at a cost of more than $70 million.[/blockquote:1cp3znjr]
And yeah, it's a huge chunk of money. Most of it, I assume, are federal dollars, but even so, it's taxpayer money (with licensing fees and donations thrown in). I know that habitat improvement benefits all wildlife and not just big game animals, but I'm wondering just what the non-hunting general public would think about all that money being spent on what might be construed as effort to improve mule deer and elk habitat for us hunters. :O•-:



bigbr said:


> I think that we are all arguing for an improvement and semantics are causing some confusion in this debate.


I agree. Despite some disagreements and misunderstandings, we all want the same results.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> I believe as Pheaz has indicated, The Heber valley is a place were short term feeding
> areas for wildlife could be greatly beneficial. BUT instead the DWR hands out depredation tags?
> 
> Pheaz has indicated land and equipment being offered. On hard winters, This should be
> an option instead of shooting elk in February.


Fair question...has anyone asked the division specifically about this situation? Just curious what all the factors are that contribute to this decision.

Typically in these types of situations there are many factors that are considered that affect the outcome. Most of the time most people don't see/understand the big picture.

As a hunter I would love to see all the deer and elk fed, no depredation permits, etc. But we know there is a lot more than goes into wildlife policies than just the hunters point of view.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

proutdoors said:


> I am merely saying that spending precious resources artificially propping up deer/elk populations without having the carrying capacity in place to sustain them is nonsensical. I understand the emotional desires of "doing something", but in most cases supplemental feeding takes the resources away from where they would actually help long-term.


This is an excellent point. Feeding should be done in particularly harsh conditions....not as a regular process.

Guys seriously we are one step away from high fencing the state....we are this close (imagine my thumb and index finger being an inch apart) to raising WILD game species like cattle. There has to be some natural cycles and processes if we want to be able to consider these species "wild" IMHO.


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

Fair question...has anyone asked the division specifically about this situation? Just curious what all the factors are that contribute to this decision

Yes and still working on it around here. The factors that mostly contribute to the decision are. Most of these elk either come from or off 3 specific areas but the rest off the forest. 1-Wolf Creek Ranches-private community where no hunting is allowed. 2-Coyote-Little Pole CWMU. 3-Three C CWMU. The biggest issue here is that we lost the majority of the wintering ground for these animals to Red Ledges Golf. At the point we have hit with the Division, is that they see no benefit, because of private land. And yes I do agree that Wolf Creek and the CWMU's should be responsible if they want the elk. So I cant totally blame the state for not stepping in. The CWMU's profit alot off these animals and Wolf Creek ranches also based there lot sales off the wildlife. My feeding experience was funded by SFW, Coyote-Little Pole and the general public. I did not see a single dollar from Three C's, but he was the first to stop and get FREE pellets for the deer. Like you posted Coyote build it they will come. Yes and faster than you think. If your goin go after this you better have your ducks in a row. Know where the elk come from, why they are there, who benefits. Are there any PHU or CWMU around that area? Cause if there is I would probably start there and not the state.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Good info...thanks pheaz.


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

So where exactly is the Doc Steeles property? I'm just curious because on the drive back from Fillmore monday, I stopped and took pictures of hundreds of deer on the west face of the Nebo unit, just north of the second Nephi exit. It looked like they were using the sage flats there all the way up until you hit the DWR's Santaquin WMA. Surprisingly there wasnt a single deer anywehre near the WMA signs but hundreds all the way up I-15 until you actually reached the WMA.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

WasatchOutdoors said:


> So where exactly is the Doc Steeles property? I'm just curious because on the drive back from Fillmore monday, I stopped and took pictures of hundreds of deer on the west face of the Nebo unit, just north of the second Nephi exit. It looked like they were using the sage flats there all the way up until you hit the DWR's Santaquin WMA. Surprisingly there wasnt a single deer anywehre near the WMA signs but hundreds all the way up I-15 until you actually reached the WMA.


The place where you quit seeing deer is the Doc Steeles property because nothing is growing there that will benefit the deer. North and South of there is great for deer as you can see.


----------

