Buzz, wasn't region d in Wy cut back on tags partly due to high predation.I thought that's what I've read years back
No, it wasn't because of predation.
I guess to explain what happened in D may as well start at the start.
The GF was getting a ton of complaints about the deer numbers crashing in region D. So, mule deer working groups were formed to address the problem.
The first thing discovered, was that the GF was over-estimating mule deer numbers significantly with the model they were using. Because of that, the GF was issuing doe permits in some of region D as well as allowing doe harvest on general tags.
That was in the years prior to the PVMDI working groups and the outcry when it was discovered there weren't the deer everyone believed to be there...(doe tags and unlimited doe harvest on general tags, sound familiar?)
From that, the PVMDI was born. Now, I have no problem with citizen/hunter based advisory committees, but IMO, there needs to be some pretty strict side boards as well as the input of the biologists. Further, any course of action taken should be based on science and not necessarily emotional policy applied by the members of the advisory committees.
What the advisory committee came up with to help increase mule deer numbers was (not in order of importance):
1. Put some of the units in LQ status
2. Predator control
3. Habitat enhancement
4. Eliminate doe harvest
5. Start using a more accurate population model.
There are probably some others that I'm forgetting, but those were the main things.
There were a few people that were very adamant about killing predators...from Golden Eagles, to coyotes, to bears. In response to that, the GF did increase black bear quotas a tiny bit, lion quotas were not being met so left them alone, and they did spend some money on coyote control.
The LQ areas that were taken from General hunting and turned to LQ had the quotas determined/set by the 5 year average of hunter use. That was a major reason for the drop in region D tags, a big part of them went to the newly established LQ areas.
There was also some habitat assessments started and some habitat work started as well.
I talked with the biologist the few years after all the changes. Deer harvest stayed essentially unchanged, mainly because the quotas were set high to reflect general tag hunting pressure.
Deer populations did see a bump, but IMO, it wasn't a function of killing a few coyotes in the Platte Valley, a couple more bears, but more to do with cutting the doe tags to ZERO and stopping general tag hunting of does. That, and the fact the right population model was finally being used.
What I don't like about how this played out, is that even though there were many opportunities for public comment, the final decision came down to the advisory committee. The GF pretty much adopted everything but the most "out there" ideas of the committee. I also don't like that there was a clear LACK of habitat data/assessments to be had, migration corridors were ignored, and some base-line data just wasn't there.
Its great to see the public involvement, but I'm not aware that a single person on the a. committees are biologists. Plus, IMO, the biologists should be making the decisions on herd management, and basing those decisions on science. Not on the perceptions of the public on what's best for the deer herd. IMO, the cart was largely put square in front of the horse with some of the things implemented. I don't fault anyone for doing what they feel is best, but lots of times, that really isn't the solution to the problem.
I think the main thing that helped the herd, with the slight bump in population, had a lot more to do with stopping doe harvest than any other measures, and by a long shot. The last 3 years, there is NO question that doe/fawn numbers being at a 30+ year high is 100% due with favorable weather, timely precipitation, and excellent range conditions. Good range conditions equal high fawn survival...for all kinds of reasons. More to the point, high doe/fawn ratio's make predation even less of an issue.
That's the long version, of no, the cut backs were due to poor management, not predators...at least that's what I believe the data shows.
