MT Mule Deer Symposium

[Straight Arrow]

Thank-you, Elk Parker. You have done a great job in clearly illustrating the fiscal upside of I-161. It has been generally expressed by others, but your research and analysis is important in clarifying by showing the NR license revenue through time.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Dead deer on the road side are not a common site in Eastern Montana anymore.

Right. Thanks to EHD.

Not predators.

 

[mtmiller]

EHD and winter 2011

 

[Ben Lamb]

EHD and winter 2011

And wolves!

Thanks. Not enough coffee yet.

 

[What Map]

Thank-you, Elk Parker. You have done a great job in clearly illustrating the fiscal upside of I-161. It has been generally expressed by others, but your research and analysis is important in clarifying by showing the NR license revenue through time.

+1 Elk Parker.

Welcome to the Forum. I'll need some time to digest your complete analysis. I appreciate the time and effort you put into it.

Is the increase money to BM after I-161 because I-161 set the price above what the OSL system did? The OSL system was designed to let prices go up and down depending on how many were wold. Right? Now the price is static. Right?

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Correct, the OSL price was set to fluctuate based on overselling or underselling of the licenses.

 

[Oak]

My feeling (and maybe this is not correct) is that, if you leave the population objectives where they were at, you are then beholden to sportsmen to do something about it. If you lower the population objectives to match where the population is at, then you can sit back and wait for someone else to fix the problems causing the decline. Granted, there is not much the CPW can do about many of the problems, but I have a concern with them lowering the objectives. Many land management decisions do take into consideration the condition of deer and elk herds, and the potential impacts to those herds. Saying that a herd is at objective or only 5% below objective sounds much better than saying a herd is 50-60% below objective. Thus, you lose the measure of cumulative effects over time.

From the newspaper yesterday:

Wildlife groups question deer numbers in BLM plan

By Dennis Webb
Saturday, February 2, 2013

Wildlife groups are questioning the Bureau of Land Management’s use of an outdated and highly inflated estimate of mule deer numbers in its proposed amendment of its oil and gas plan for the Meeker-based White River Field Office.

The draft amendment indicates an estimated 106,000 deer are in the White River herd, North America’s largest migratory mule deer herd, which lives in the Piceance Basin area covered by the proposal. However, Colorado Parks and Wildlife said that figure was 43,700 after the 2011 hunting season.

“The current herd is likely already smaller than the level deemed acceptable in the BLM’s preferred development option — about 47,250 deer, or 70 percent of the state’s objective population of 67,500 deer,” the National Wildlife Federation and Colorado Wildlife Federation said this week in a news release.

They say the draft plan should be scrapped partly due to its use of faulty data. The BLM anticipates that under its preferred draft alternative, another 15,000 wells would be drilled where some 2,000 active wells exist today.

BLM spokesman David Boyd said the 106,000 figure comes from a 2006 estimate. Parks and Wildlife has notified the BLM that the numbers have changed, and the new numbers can be incorporated into the final version of the plan amendment, Boyd said.

But he said the goal of the plan is to minimize impacts on deer and other wildlife, regardless of current population numbers, and to keep numbers above identified minimum targets.

The preferred alternative aims to limit wildlife impacts through means such as seasonal timing limitations on operations that would be applied even to existing oil and gas leases, but could be waived if a company agrees to limit the amount of overall acreage it impacts at any one time. The oil and gas industry has questioned the fairness and legality of such retroactive restrictions on existing leases.

Boyd said if deer numbers fall below the BLM’s target — in the case of its preferred alternative, a minimum of at least 70 percent of Parks and Wildlife’s objective — the agency can adjust oil and gas management to try to boost the population. He also noted that deer numbers can be cyclical and the population could rise by the time the new plan is in place.

Parks and Wildlife suspects factors such as winter kill, disease, drought and oil and gas development have contributed to the deer decline. In a letter to the BLM, the agency says it favors another BLM alternative that would allow less drilling. But it says even that one fails to support its management objectives, while the preferred alternative would significantly impact hunting and fishing revenues going to Parks and Wildlife and local economies.
http://www.gjsentinel.com/news/articles/wildlife-groups-question-deer-numbers-in-blm-plan

I find it interesting that the most recent data the BLM could find just happens to coincide with that peak right before the recent decline (2006). Go look at the 2006 and 2011 populations I posted in post #284, and the subsequent tag declines posted in #288.

 

[Elk Parker]

OSLs and I-161

+1 Elk Parker.

Welcome to the Forum. I'll need some time to digest your complete analysis. I appreciate the time and effort you put into it.

Is the increase money to BM after I-161 because I-161 set the price above what the OSL system did? The OSL system was designed to let prices go up and down depending on how many were wold. Right? Now the price is static. Right?

\

What Map.

THe OSL system had 2 prices. One for the OSLs which fluctuated according to how many licenses outfitters needed to sell to reach the 5 year average of 5,500 big game combo licenses in the coming season. The second price was for the general hunter who didn't want to hunt with an outfitter. It was considerably less. I have forgotten exactly how much but somewhere in the mid $600 range is close. I-161 generated the additional revenue from selling all 17,500 licenses at the new price of about I think $927. My memory seems to be getting worse quickly.

Spreading the funding for BM and HM anfd the general license fund over 17,500 licenses rather than only 5,500 greatly reduced the volatility of funding.

Pre I-161, NRs like my family only drew a license once every 2 or 3 years because there was so much demand while outfitter clients were guaranteed a license at (usually) a higher price. The price difference went to Block Management.

Deer Combos were even worse with a 1 in 5 year or 20% chance of drawing. Our Montana licenses were also the cheapest for comparable licenses in 10 Western states. This was a deer, elk, upland bird, fishing license valid for both archery and rifle season. Montana provides 11 months of opportunity. No other state is even close. There was obviously a huge demand. As Ted Turner's outfitter bragged at a combative signature gathering event, "Montana is the cheap date". We were leaving a bunch of money on the table.

Even after a $270 price increase for the big game combo in the drawing, we only moved from 10th on the list to 9th most expensive out of 10 states. It had been 8 or 10 years since we had increased our license fee for NR drawing tags. In spite of the tanking economy and the big price hike, in 2011 we sold out all 17,500 licenses.

Outfitter clients got a big price break although if I-161 had not passed, the proposed price decrease required under OSLs may have been about the same or possibly more meaning the price of a license would have been comparable or less than what it currently is and revenue would have really dropped.

Remember there were only 5,500 OSLs available vs 17,500 under I-161. At approximately the same price, OSLs would have generated about 1/3 as much revenue as under I-161 assuming all the licenses sold which they did in 2011. It is very doubtful outfitters could have sold all the 5,500 because the license prices was a much smaller cost than the price of the hunt.

The kicker is HB 607 and its significant impacts to revenue and especially to Block Management and Habitat Montana by allowing NR to return the elk portion. In spite of this BM still had a big revenue increase. I have not seen the figures for 2012 yet but it sounds like HB 607 hit much harder due in part to outfitters encouraging clients to game the system at the expense of BM and HM funding.

Regarding your question on prices, I-161 tied the price of the NR licenses to a consumer price index. The price will vary according to the impacts of inflation. No more going back to the legislature to get a price increase for NR licenses. I can't remember exactly what the 2012 price was but it was a higher than 2011.

Sorry about the format of the table. It looks good on my computer but doesn't translate well.

EP

 

[What Map]

EP, thanks for the extensive analysis. I thought I was kinda up to speed about the history and impacts of OSL versus I-161 but I have a lot to learn. It's like taking a sip from a fire hydrant! Could we make it any more complex? It is very difficult to determine the consequences and impacts BEFORE the laws, initiatives and regulations are passed. We just have to wait and watch how it all works out. I appreciate you staying on top of the situation and sharing your information.

 

[kansasdad]

Could we make it any more complex? It is very difficult to determine the consequences and impacts BEFORE the laws, initiatives and regulations are passed. We just have to wait and watch how it all works out. I appreciate you staying on top of the situation and sharing your information.

Now you are starting to sound like Nancy Pelosi and her comments about the "Affordable Care Act"

 

[Eric Albus]

well....elk parker...you got things about half right w/ the pricing and cause/effect.

With 607 the recommendtation as to where the monies went was made by the Dept...and the Dept. only. ...

Do explain to me the "game the system" at the expense of BM, HM" comment.

 

[shoots-straight]

well....elk parker...you got things about half right w/ the pricing and cause/effect.

With 607 the recommendtation as to where the monies went was made by the Dept...and the Dept. only. ...

Do explain to me the "game the system" at the expense of BM, HM" comment.

Do tell us the "OTHER" half Eric!

HB 607 dictated were the money was to go. BM and HM money can't come from that fund. This isn't a recommendation, it's the law.

 

[Eric Albus]

shoots...the Dept. made the deal on 607...and it is law, no arguement.

 

[Eric Albus]

the other half is that the license under current system goes up 3% ...so my best guess is that we will continue to see fewer and fewer license sold...until our game populations become viable once again in the majority of the state.

ben, EHD for the whitetail....did it kill all the mule deer fawns too?

 

[Ben Lamb]

the other half is that the license under current system goes up 3% ...so my best guess is that we will continue to see fewer and fewer license sold...until our game populations become viable once again in the majority of the state.

ben, EHD for the whitetail....did it kill all the mule deer fawns too?

I think we can look at the winter of 2011 with some certainty as a major mortality factor.

 

[Eric Albus]

The winter of 10'-'11 certainly played a significant roll in reducing wildlife populations here in Reg. 6. I give you an honest estimate of winter mortality(this counts the deer dieing after green up) 50% on whitetail, and approx. 35-40% on mule deer. Antelope 85-95%(depending on the area). EHD wiped out the other 48% of the whitetail on most of the Milk River.

That said, Reg. 7 where I hunt had very little winter mortality, I would call it normal winter/rut stress death loss, maybe 15%... Coyotes are at all time high numbers, and mule deer fawns at all time low numbers....coincidence? 1 other variable, no aggressive Gov't trapper...

I called our local gov't employed "coyote killing machine" to ask his thoughts on coyotes and fawn recruitment.... I can not repeat what he said about people who think high coyote populations do not directly affect fawn recruitment....I can repeat what he said about finding a mule deer doe or antelope doe in the spring that has no fawn/fawns w/ her...."i just start a grid w/ the chopper, and within a mile will find a coyote den".....coincidence? Ask him. By the way, fawn recruitment here in 6 is really good, in comparision, coyote numbers lower, again I ask, coincidence?

Part of the problem is there are no other prey animals for the coyotes to dine on..like rabbits, all time lows, mouse numbers are lower than normal...forcing canis latrans to dine upon deer and antelope. I do not wish to see the last coyote, mountain lion, bear, or wolf eradicated from the face of the earth...but I do think that deer/elk/antelope take precidence over predators.

 

[Ben Lamb]

If we're going to seriously make attempts to manage wildlife biologically, then let's start by realizing that

1.) Coyotes eat things

2.) Wildlife populations are cyclical

3.) 99.9% of all peer reviewed science shows that coyotes are not a limiting factor in mule deer populations.

Science is the basis of biological management.

 

[sweetnectar]

I had a professor (wildlife biologist) in college that did a study on coyote and mule deer interactions. I remember him saying how he got really good at following coyote tracks in snow of coyotes pursuing mule deer. He said he saw it so many times he got really good at predicting how far away from the first drop of blood it would be before he would find a carcass. I seem to remember his point being that the snow conditions created the opportunity for mule deer death but the coyotes did the killing. In other words snow looked like a big killer but without the coyotes it wasn't as deadly as most thought. Now he would be a good source to get a feel from of the effect of coyote predation on mule deer. If what we was saying has Marat it could be helpful.
Too bad a lot of decisions are made without consulting a biologist.

 

[Big Shooter]

A few days ago while I was fueling up, there was a guy at the pump across from me that had snares, traps and so on in the back of his pickup. Of course we go to BS'ing for quite some time. He is a Government trapper, so I asked him his opinion on the fact of coyotes killing deer. He basically told me that someone that doesn't think that coyotes have a HUGE influence on deer/antelope fawn recruitment "is a f&@$ing idiot"! Enough said.

 

[mtmiller]

So you asked a guy if his job was valid, he agreed? Not picking sides, just sayin'.