Mule Deer Population trends

[Benfromalbuquerque]

That's because the forest fringe/Boreal Forest starts there. The mule deer population there is negligible and there is no mule deer hunting season to collect samples from.

As for predators such as bears and wolves, they stick to the limits of the forest fringe for the most part. Very rarely will you get a pack of wolves go down South and no thank you very much in terms of bringing some down there.

I’m sorry that I said the “W” word.

 

[squirrel]

If you keep reducing your objective you’ve gotta keep shooting them.

True but it gets a little more complex when locked in by post hunt buck/doe ratios in addition to herd # objectives. They tried hard to get the B/D ratios lower when the local politics said no they just shoot more does, presto better B/D ratios. Need more deer just fly the better quadrants and do your data extrapolation from those cooked numbers... Take those record setting population #'s and print yet more tags.

When busted about it at the public input meetings just tell the people that their eyes did not see what they did indeed see ( "you lay people just do not understand" )

The spiral ends when there are no deer left, enter from stage left the wolf, the perfect scapegoat.

We (locally) have not changed the goal (objective) we just changed the count. Gov't math is, if nothing else, flexible. Guess all those(internal) meetings they have come up with results after all. The one thing of commonality is more tags are printed and more $ is made, all tributaries lead to the same stream.

 

[antlerradar]

at least Texas has implomented age and antlEr restrictions
“”

SPECIAL ANTLER RESTRICTION​

An experimental antler restriction for mule deer bucks :

• a legal buck deer is defined as a buck with an outside antler spread of the main beams of 20 inches or greater.
• any buck for which the outside spread of the main beams is less than 20 inches is NOT legal to harvest

This buck is probably not legal in Texas. Wouldn't that be a colorful conversation with the game warden when he put the tape on the outside of the main beams and it read 19 4/8 inches.

 

[S-3 Ranch]

This buck is probably not legal in Texas. Wouldn't that be a colorful conversation with the game warden when he put the tape on the outside of the main beams and it read 19 4/8 inches.View attachment 227649

Happens all the time, some giant bucks walking because of antler restrictions, and quite a few people getting tickets after rolling the dice

 

[antlerradar]

Happens all the time, some giant bucks walking because of antler restrictions, and quite a few people getting tickets after rolling the dice

Also happens in the other direction. Some bucks with very poor antlers never qualify even if they live to be senior citizens.

 

[Oak]

True but it gets a little more complex when locked in by post hunt buck/doe ratios in addition to herd # objectives. They tried hard to get the B/D ratios lower when the local politics said no they just shoot more does, presto better B/D ratios. Need more deer just fly the better quadrants and do your data extrapolation from those cooked numbers... Take those record setting population #'s and print yet more tags.

When busted about it at the public input meetings just tell the people that their eyes did not see what they did indeed see ( "you lay people just do not understand" )

The spiral ends when there are no deer left, enter from stage left the wolf, the perfect scapegoat.

We (locally) have not changed the goal (objective) we just changed the count. Gov't math is, if nothing else, flexible. Guess all those(internal) meetings they have come up with results after all. The one thing of commonality is more tags are printed and more $ is made, all tributaries lead to the same stream.

Took a quick look at your local numbers. Your objective is 12,500-14,000. The current estimate is 14,000. They are issuing 2,785 doe tags, 4,125 buck tags, and 1,320 ES tags this year, for a total of 8,230 tags. Seems reasonable.....

Lead poisoning, indeed. Galaxy brain...if you don't have any deer you can't have any CWD.

 

[Sasquatchewan]

View attachment 227645
I’m sorry that I said the “W” word.

I'm not saying you're wrong and that bringing in wolves couldn't slow/reduce the spread of CWD.

The issue is for any Provincial government to bring in wolves would be political suicide in the Province. It just won't happen.

Our farmland moose would probably take a huge hit from re-introducing wolves. The government is actually making efforts towards understanding/controlling CWD, I just don't think wolves are the solution here.

#VeryTriggered

 

[squirrel]

Took a quick look at your local numbers. Your objective is 12,500-14,000. The current estimate is 14,000. They are issuing 2,785 doe tags, 4,125 buck tags, and 1,320 ES tags this year, for a total of 8,230 tags. Seems reasonable.....

Lead poisoning, indeed. Galaxy brain...if you don't have any deer you can't have any CWD.

When we had these, running everywhere with does like flies on a buffalo carcass our herd estimate was running 10K-13K.
Then when new mgmt took over we had 18K (same objective though). But to those who actually spend time on hills with glass??? 70-90% reduction between the two time periods. The difference is in who counts the running deer out of the helo... and who transforms those numbers into what makes the official report.

The people who cash the checks and print the tags should not be the same entity that counts the deer, it is an inherent conflict of interest, and they consistently fail the test.

 

[Oak]

When we had these, running everywhere with does like flies on a buffalo carcass our herd estimate was running 10K-13K.
Then when new mgmt took over we had 18K (same objective though). But to those who actually spend time on hills with glass??? 70-90% reduction between the two time periods. The difference is in who counts the running deer out of the helo... and who transforms those numbers into what makes the official report.

The people who cash the checks and print the tags should not be the same entity that counts the deer, it is an inherent conflict of interest, and they consistently fail the test.
View attachment 227654

You can feel comfortable knowing that they classified 592 deer this winter to come up with that 14,000 estimate.
Pg. 14: https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Commission/2022/May/Item.12-Ch_W-2.pdf

 

[squirrel]

You can feel comfortable knowing that they classified 592 deer this winter to come up with that 14,000 estimate.
Pg. 14: https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Commission/2022/May/Item.12-Ch_W-2.pdf

That is quite a buffet of info there. I am much better suited to sitting on a knob and dissecting sage but will spend some time chewing on all that, maybe I'll print it out and do both at the same time, since there is a distinct lack of antlers to glass up these days.

 

[Benfromalbuquerque]

I'm not saying you're wrong and that bringing in wolves couldn't slow/reduce the spread of CWD.

The issue is for any Provincial government to bring in wolves would be political suicide in the Province. It just won't happen.

Our farmland moose would probably take a huge hit from re-introducing wolves. The government is actually making efforts towards understanding/controlling CWD, I just don't think wolves are the solution here.

#VeryTriggered

Political suicide anywhere to be so brazen. But we’ll just see how it goes with Yellowstone. CWD is encroaching from all around yet infections in the park are light. Your province could leave well enough alone at Meadow Lake and kill wolves everywhere else, see how that turns out.

 

[Huntin' Fool]

All habitat areas and big games herds have a level of carrying capacity.

There is a theory that long term healthy big game herds are best kept at just below carrying capacity of the habitat.

If the habitat is good with adequate security habitat, it is hard to over harvest.

Higher harvest levels do lower the average age of the herd often with higher productivity.

Additive or compensatory?

 

[MTTW]

Political suicide anywhere to be so brazen. But we’ll just see how it goes with Yellowstone. CWD is encroaching from all around yet infections in the park are light. Your province could leave well enough alone at Meadow Lake and kill wolves everywhere else, see how that turns out.

Yellowstone Park has so few mule deer nowadays that your statement is laughable. As was said above...no deer no Cwd. This even though elk populations within the park are a fraction of what they once were.

 

[Benfromalbuquerque]

Yellowstone Park has so few mule deer nowadays that your statement is laughable. As was said above...no deer no Cwd. This even though elk populations within the park are a fraction of what they once were.

YNP was the first area that came to mind and now I know. NPS says there are no surveys done within the park and that the data reflects estimates of the Northern section courtesy of MT. Not even 2,000 mulies during summertime.

Mule Deer - Yellowstone National Park (U.S. National Park Service)

Mule deer and white-tailed deer occur in Yellowstone National Park.

www.nps.gov

Yet here is something taken from the Billings Gazette and published in the Idaho Stateman that suggests YNP may be the area to study predators affecting CWD infections.

https://amp.idahostatesman.com/outdoors/article260312245.html

 

[MTTW]

They have no clue how many mule deer are in Yellowstone Park. They don't/ can't count them in summer, and there are 60 in winter 6 years ago. LOL
The Yellowstone Valley in Yellowstone park is about 6500 feet. I find mule deer sheds above 8000 feet north of the park.

Same deal with elk, they count them in winter and consider any elk outside the park to be ( migrated) elk. When they count the park they might find 1500 elk in the park and then proceed to count elk north of the park, many of which have never seen the park, until they get their number. Then they say that the elk are moving further north than they used to, and that a much higher percentage of Yellowstone elk are migrating than in the past.
Bottom line is they don't / can't count them. They assume, and hypothesize, and wish, and flat out bullshit themselves and us.
So basically it is like Mtfwp game management but with a stronger political influence.

 

[Benfromalbuquerque]

They have no clue how many mule deer are in Yellowstone Park. They don't/ can't count them in summer, and there are 60 in winter 6 years ago. LOL
The Yellowstone Valley in Yellowstone park is about 6500 feet. I find mule deer sheds above 8000 feet north of the park.

Same deal with elk, they count them in winter and consider any elk outside the park to be ( migrated) elk. When they count the park they might find 1500 elk in the park and then proceed to count elk north of the park, many of which have never seen the park, until they get their number. Then they say that the elk are moving further north than they used to, and that a much higher percentage of Yellowstone elk are migrating than in the past.
Bottom line is they don't / can't count them. They assume, and hypothesize, and wish, and flat out bullshit themselves and us.
So basically it is like Mtfwp game management but with a stronger political influence.

Yes, it is presumptive BS and the transparency of NPS stating “we don’t survey, but extrapolate from MT” DOES NOT make the population report more palatable. So scratch YNP pending some actual park-specific survey. Maybe we could reintroduce the grizzly to Northern CA, add wolves and then see if mule deer/blacktail populations improve in herd health.

 

[Elkmagnet]

Imo Idaho data needs to start in the 60s or 70s to show a long term trend that is probably worse than it looks.

 

[Eliasb]

Our fearless leader (@Big Fin ) made a comment in another thread that spurred my interest.

"It takes our eye of the fact that we have let mule deer numbers crash across most of the west and rather than launch a full on effort to change management and improve habitat, we collectively accept that we should just fight over the ever-shrinking mule deer herds..."

I too feel like they're tanking.

But that's not what Mr. Heffelfinger and the Mule Deer Working Group keep saying. https://wafwa.org/wp-content/upload...atus-of-Black-tailed-and-Mule-Deer_Linked.pdf

Per that status report (2021), mule deer populations are increasing in 6 States, stable in 10 States, and declining in 7 States ("States" includes CA provinces). At quick glance OR and WY appear to be the only states seeing substantial declines in mule deer populations (maybe NM as well).

View attachment 227374
View attachment 227375

While states like MT and ID seem to be fairing ok.
View attachment 227381
View attachment 227382

I'm not entirely sure what the point of this post is, other than I generally agree with BF and can't seem to reconcile my observations with the data.

Im glad that these numbers are being talked about. Personally I think that all hunters would love there to be more mule deer but as another comment said referring to Jim Heffelfinger talking about the high mule deer numbers not being sustainable. I think we have to look at it from a conservation perspective and not as hunters sometimes and make sure the numbers we want are healthy for the mule deer and not just for our own hunter success. I’m not exactly sure what that number is though and if we are above or below it at least in Nevada.

 

[beginnerhunter]

Idk looked pretty gloomy to me! The Oregon and Wyoming data are scary and you're talking about a loss of 350k from those 2 states alone. And I haven't really looked into it but there seems to be agreement that the mid-late 1900s mule deer hunting was easy and there were giant bucks everywhere. But idk what the population estimates are for that time period.

 

[wytex]

For starters I vote we stop killing does. IDK why we find that acceptable. If the consensus among hunters is that there are fewer mule deer then we need to stop killing the breeding females. That decision needs to be made at the State level by wildlife managers, we can't rely on joe schmo to stop killing does when it's legal to do so.

What about the barren doe that do not reproduce ? I say take them from the population so more forage for breeding deer.