East Idaho fire tags

I just participated in a management hunt here in unit 69 for both deer and elk. The Idaho Fish & Game biologists came to the conclusion that 500 extra antlerless elk and 500 antlerless deer needed to be eliminated from the wintering range due to habitat loss. The Blackhawk Fire ignited near a subdivision above Idaho Falls and burned upwards of 54,000 acres. After seeing the loss of wintering feed in this area is am saddened by the decision to eliminate this many deer. I have personally witnessed the number of deer that use this area in the winter. In my opinion the elimination of 500 deer was irresponsible. I have a much easier time swallowing the 500 elk as their numbers are far greater in this wintering area. I would concede the elk do pose a threat to vehicles as they travel to find adequate foliage. However, I can't wrap my head around the necessity to eliminate the already drastically low deer numbers. Sadly I admit I did harvest a deer early in the hunt. It was only after exploring the burn in search of elk that I came to this conclusion. Which leads to my question. How did the Idaho Fish & Game come to the number of animals required to be eliminated?

Keep in mind 500 tags generally won't equal 500 less deer.

More or less an easy way for the IFG to sell some extra tags. Pretty common for a ridiculous amount of antler-less Deer tags to be sold in various units. They say it's a good opportunity to get youth involved.

- Joseph

6speed said:

Keep in mind 500 tags generally won't equal 500 less deer.

Click to expand...

HUh ???? im sure you mean 500 wont get killed, which is probably true, but lets say 300 get shot, that's 300 less doe's that will not be having twins or atleast 1 deer, so 300 turns into 600/700 really fast.

This is something that they cannot figure out here in good ole ND, units they say have hardly a deer around they still issue doe tags............................

After closely watching what has happened in the Bennett hills in the last 5years I'd have to agree with the op. Chasing the deer and elk around for half the winter is not the best way to handle deer that you are worried about winter kill due to malnourishment.

Want to get a good jump start on your post fire soil erosion?
Well then you should give 500-1000 people a reason to ride atv's around a burn area during the wet winter months!

I think these tags ended December 1 or maybe even in November. Also due to area closures there won't be a ton of pressure on the winter range from people.

The elk will recover fast, hunter harvest really drives those elk populations. Reducing elk numbers could also benefit the deer herd as well.

As to the deer, yeah its kind of a bummer to see some extras harvested, but deer pops in that part of the world are doing pretty well due to some recent light winters. That said no one was forced to buy a tag or fill one. I actually considered buying one of each with no intention of hunting at all.

Tag numbers were probably figured off looking at traditional success rates in the area and off of recent population survey numbers

elkmagnet said:

After closely watching what has happened in the Bennett hills in the last 5years I'd have to agree with the op. Chasing the deer and elk around for half the winter is not the best way to handle deer that you are worried about winter kill due to malnourishment.

Want to get a good jump start on your post fire soil erosion?
Well then you should give 500-1000 people a reason to ride atv's around a burn area during the wet winter months!

Click to expand...

The hunt closed Nov 30th and the WMA closed to motorized travel on Dec 1st and will stay closed throug April 15th.

Deer winter range takes longer to recover because of the browse species involved. Overutilization of these plants can be detrimental in the long run.

Westernglory said:

After seeing the loss of wintering feed in this area is am saddened by the decision to eliminate this many deer. I have personally witnessed the number of deer that use this area in the winter. In my opinion the elimination of 500 deer was irresponsible.

Click to expand...

What are your credentials as they relate to fire ecology and wildlife management?

Having read this, one can only hope that the fire will cause better nutrition for the big game after the winter/spring moisture. I've hunted burns before and the first couple of years is really good for the animals. Worst case it is wintering ground. Hope all turns out well for the deer population.

The brush species will take a while to recover and that can be a concern. A large amount of the burned land is winter range. Hopefully invasive species are able to be kept under some control and don't take over the landscape.

smarandr said:

The hunt closed Nov 30th and the WMA closed to motorized travel on Dec 1st and will stay closed throug April 15th.

Click to expand...

I was using my observations from other fire depredation hunts.
Oh and they were also close to motorized travel. Go ahead and ask me how that worked. Also you are welcome to ask in a dismissive way if I have a degree in wildlife biology.

JLS said:

Deer winter range takes longer to recover because of the browse species involved. Overutilization of these plants can be detrimental in the long run.

Click to expand...

Absolutely true and understandable why the department chooses to have these hunts. The problem is in the execution.
Does it matter if we remove deer and Elk if we turn around and leave cows on after the fire then put cattle on before fire recovery?
Is there any chance at all that it will recover to sagebrush and Forbes before the next fire anyway?
Without seeding brush and forbes over patches of sterilized ground how long should we expect before recovery?

Rampant ATV use after fires, more frequent fires and the spread of noxious weeds is a bigger threat to regrowth of the native vegetation than a few hundred deer.
Imueo(in my uneducated opinion)We need to enforce the laws we have to keep the atv's and cows off
Find a way to seed/plant brush effectively and leave the rest to nature.

TheTone said:

The brush species will take a while to recover and that can be a concern. A large amount of the burned land is winter range. Hopefully invasive species are able to be kept under some control and don't take over the landscape.

Click to expand...

Good points. Hot fires in winter range can leave the area susceptible to cheat grass invasion, which creates a self defeating fire cycle. The mountain mahogany, bitterbrush, ceanothus, and whatever other browse species take several years to get re-established post fire (or more depending on the intensity of the fire, and invasive weed proliferation). Overuse during this time can really hurt productivity down the road, and the reality is that IDFG has to hedge their bets against future weather patterns. That in and of itself is a losing proposition.

Responses in bold.

elkmagnet said:

Absolutely true and understandable why the department chooses to have these hunts. The problem is in the execution.
Does it matter if we remove deer and Elk if we turn around and leave cows on after the fire then put cattle on before fire recovery?

I don't know who the administering agency is for the land. Is it an option to NOT graze it? If IDFG doesn't have that option, it's kind of a moot point.

Is there any chance at all that it will recover to sagebrush and Forbes before the next fire anyway?

Simply impossible to say. Depends on weather patterns and weed invasion.

Without seeding brush and forbes over patches of sterilized ground how long should we expect before recovery?

1 pointer is more qualified than me to answer this, but without reseeding efforts I would think you would be looking at 5-10 years with favorable weather patterns.

Rampant ATV use after fires, more frequent fires and the spread of noxious weeds is a bigger threat to regrowth of the native vegetation than a few hundred deer.

As I said, it's a gamble and IDFG has to hedge bets. If they do nothing, and the winter range doesn't recover, leading to a large scale die off what have they accomplished? I think that reducing the deer herd in the interim while the winter range recovers is the most likely long term solution.

Imueo(in my uneducated opinion)We need to enforce the laws we have to keep the atv's and cows off
Find a way to seed/plant brush effectively and leave the rest to nature.

Click to expand...

If I remember correctly IDFG does not graze the lands they own in this area; additionally ATV use is restricted to established roadways (those capable of travel by full size); so grazing and ATV's should not be an issue in these areas.

It really is a cool area and I hope it recovers well. Lot of critters rely on those spots to make it through winter and with the development (housing and agriculture) around it, the protected areas become more and more important.

JLS said:

I don't know who the administering agency is for the land. Is it an option to NOT graze it? If IDFG doesn't have that option, it's kind of a moot point.

Click to expand...

Most of Tex creek is Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Reclamation. While its not first hand knowledge I was told that there were cows on it from right after the fire through October.
Hopefully it will be easier to limit illegal ATV use with a lot of the fire scar being on WMA.
The ATV use after a fire is out of control in my area and I'm ashamed to say that a lot of it is fellow shed hunters who will literally grid the entire area via atv's.
Mass planting of bunch grass is a start but it's not the solution and does very little for mule deer it actually seems to draw elk like a magnet and gets the cows back quickly. We need to do more to encourage the growth of Forbes and brush.
I think I understand your points and don't fault idf&g for using best available science. I just think it won't help unless more is done.

SMARANDR .Thank you for the question. I stated it was my opinion. Before choosing my profession I did take college classes to become a conservation officer. This in no way qualifies me for anything. I know basics. Nothing more. I further asked how those that have the education came to that conclusion. I am interested to know exactly the "why?" So if you know please enlighten me. Thanks

elkmagnet said:

Mass planting of bunch grass is a start but it's not the solution and does very little for mule deer it actually seems to draw elk like a magnet and gets the cows back quickly. We need to do more to encourage the growth of Forbes and brush.

Click to expand...

Bunchgrasses are seeded for more than a couple reasons. Historically, they are the colonizers after a fire as often times the crowns of the plants are not killed and they can will resprout. Secondly, the establish better/easier/more cost effectively from seeding than do many forb/shrub species. Restoring the function of the ecosystem is very important if you want it to follow the natural succession pathway. That relates to the first sentence. Some shrubs can and do resprout, such as serviceberry and the rabbitbrushes, but as noted above most of the others have to recolonize from seed. Shrub seed is expensive and IME the success rate is pretty low. It's not much better if seedlings are used.

Stabilization and recovery if nothing is done is totally dependent on the seedbank and weather. Lots of seeds and favorable conditions can have very good results. If the burned area has cheatgrass or other invasive non-native species in it, you best do all you can to increase the amount of desirable species. Drill seeding, where possible, is preferred over aerial seeding, but the latter can be successful if the weather cooperates. Though folks disagree with me, but if cheatgrass is an issue, I'd have no problem with putting a bunch of non-native crested wheatgrass on the site. Not the best for livestock or wildlife, but it is easy to establish and a better competitor with cheatgrass. Some research has shown that later seedings of native species, to include shrubs, do better into stands of crested wheatgrass than multiple seedings of native species after a fire.

Part of the issue, at least on BLM lands, is there are two programs for dealing with post-burn landscapes. Stabilization and rehabilitation are not one in the same, nor is the approval for each of them the same. Money/NEPA/Approval is easier for stabilization, which is mostly concerned with erosion and thus why bunchgrasses are usually a large component of the seedings. Rehabilitation has more hurdles/red tape and is harder to get money for, but this is the program that should be used after a site is stabilized to improve the species diversity/richness of the site to what's more desired.

I am not familiar with the area in question, but here's a pic one year post fire of a relatively high elevation area. You can see ID from here. The site was mostly drill seeded and a few erosion control structures constructed in the drainageways. The seeding, IMO, really helped improve the forb diversity/richness. I killed my last two UT sagegrouse off the edge of this burn later that fall.