Mule Deer need hunters' help

[double_a85]

I think MT is heading in the right direction with no m.d doe harvest for the next couple years. I also feel MT should start having more permitted areas for the buck tags... the large general area for our tags is nice for hunting but I think we can do better on the animals if we did more permitted areas.

My concern with the no doe harvest though is what kind of impact it will have on the age structure of the bucks. Will we see every spike and forkhorn in the state now in the back peoples pickups? Guys that harvest does now shooting the young bucks because they taste better?

 

[tjones]

You discredit yourself when you say the words climate change as a reason.

I say you discredit yourself when you say you discredit yourself when you say the words
climate change as a reason.

 

[BigRack]

I say you discredit yourself when you say you discredit yourself when you say the words
climate change as a reason.

Are you mad you can't discredit that graph?

 

[tjones]

Are you mad you can't discredit that graph?

Are you mad you can't prove the graph is accurate?

 

[BigRack]

Are you mad you can't prove the graph is accurate?

LOL. Go ahead and prove it wrong big guy.

 

[tjones]

LOL. Go ahead and prove it wrong big guy.

Looks like you made it in your basement.

Carry on.

 

[BigRack]

Looks like you made it in your basement.

Still waiting for you to prove it wrong.

Why do you need to insult people?

 

[Big Fin]

Randy,

There has been a decline in Mule Deer in very different habitats. That article was pretty much BS.

I know they didn't start farming Western SD to cause a decline.

Regardless of the many causes, the article points out something is happening on the landscape. Scientists will argue some of the causes, so I don't expect hunters to agree on the cause(s). Personally, I suspect it is multiple factors. And no, I'm not discounting the cyclical trends in temperatures could be contributing in some manner. If it was one simple silver bullet, the smart minds working on it would have figured it out by now.

Call it BS all you want. Fact is, mule deer are continuing to struggle and hunters not being willing to consider all possible contributing factors does nothing to solve the problem.

 

[BigRack]

Regardless of the many causes, the article points out something is happening on the landscape. Scientists will argue some of the causes, so I don't expect hunters to agree on the cause(s). Personally, I suspect it is multiple factors. And no, I'm not discounting the cyclical trends in temperatures could be contributing in some manner. If it was one simple silver bullet, the smart minds working on it would have figured it out by now.

Call it BS all you want. Fact is, mule deer are continuing to struggle and hunters not being willing to consider all possible contributing factors does nothing to solve the problem.

I called it BS because the author failed to mention the below.

When you have mule deer decline across all habitats including areas with no gas or oil exploration or habitat change, something else is going on and the author never mentioned those facts.

 

[BigHornRam]

A lot of reasons for the decline. I don't think you can single out any one factor. Most all the reasons have been brought up already. A couple Septembers ago, I was hiking in the Eastside of the Bitterroots, and came across rotting mule deer and sheep everywhere. Some sort of a diseases out break was my guess. Called FWP and they seemed to have little concern. One mule deer I shot several years ago in the Blackfoot was loaded with ticks. That can't be good for them.

On a positive note, I have seen some positive benefit from the fires of 2000 on some localized mule deer populations, particularly in the higher elevations.

Wish there was a magic bullet for mule deer.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Regardless of some deniers, climate change is negatively affecting mule deer.

http://www.nwf.org/~/media/PDFs/Glo...toRun-BigGameWildlife-LowResFinal_110613.ashx

Increased temps mean longer tick seasons, which in turn means more resilient disease strains that can wipe out herds. It also means poor forage production due to changing precipitation. YOu can point to 400,000 years ago, but I'm not sure you want to focus on a climate that had sabre-toothed tigers running around SD as a good reference point.

Furthermore, loss of CRP to ag conversion due to high commodity prices is eliminating habitat over the long term for mule deer across the west:

http://www.bigpictureagriculture.co...lion-acres-of-crp-land-in-five-years-334.html

Everybody in the wildlife world that actually works on Mule Deer ackowledges climate change as one of the leading causes in habitat changes and increased mortality. Glad to see Big Rack is smarter than them.

12 plus years of extended drought conditions, I'm sure, have nothing to do with climate change. Reminds me of a story a rancher friend told me. He was out on a Ranch tour w/ a bunch of Gov't types and the rancher says: We haven't had a normal hay year since 1982.

It was 2010. The new normal is a lot drier and less likely to support large numbers of ungulates because the groceries aren't always there.

But keep thinking it's coyotes. You'll be out of hunting opportunities before long.

 

[BigRack]

Regardless of some deniers, climate change is negatively affecting mule deer.

http://www.nwf.org/~/media/PDFs/Glo...toRun-BigGameWildlife-LowResFinal_110613.ashx

Increased temps mean longer tick seasons, which in turn means more resilient disease strains that can wipe out herds. It also means poor forage production due to changing precipitation. YOu can point to 400,000 years ago, but I'm not sure you want to focus on a climate that had sabre-toothed tigers running around SD as a good reference point.

Furthermore, loss of CRP to ag conversion due to high commodity prices is eliminating habitat over the long term for mule deer across the west:

http://www.bigpictureagriculture.co...lion-acres-of-crp-land-in-five-years-334.html

Everybody in the wildlife world that actually works on Mule Deer ackowledges climate change as one of the leading causes in habitat changes and increased mortality. Glad to see Big Rack is smarter than them.

12 plus years of extended drought conditions, I'm sure, have nothing to do with climate change. Reminds me of a story a rancher friend told me. He was out on a Ranch tour w/ a bunch of Gov't types and the rancher says: We haven't had a normal hay year since 1982.

It was 2010. The new normal is a lot drier and less likely to support large numbers of ungulates because the groceries aren't always there.

But keep thinking it's coyotes. You'll be out of hunting opportunities before long.

Who is denying climate change? I stated the climate has been changing since day one.

What was the habitat change in Western SD that caused the decline in Mule deer?

Are you denying the graph I posted?

The only major droughts I can remember in the past decade have been in Texas and California except for one year.

There is not much cropland in Western SD where the Mule deer are so your CRP argument doesn't work for mule deer.

 

[JMG]

It's a dynamic ecosystem we live in and share with wildlife. There are many variables that influence the outcome, some more so than others . . . at times. Man certainly has an impact, whether it is good or bad. Some could argue (with good reasoning) that is mainly is bad. It seems whenever man gets involved, man "screws it up".

I am huge believer in that everything happens in cycles as the graph indicates, but you also have to recognize man's influence Whether it be oil production, "managing" the wildlife through permits, the man made production of the "green house" gases, predators, etc.. There is probably a direct impact on Mule deer and their habitat as Ben noted. I think Ben is spot on and so is BigRack. I can't speak for what happened in western S. Dakota, but to say, "You discredit yourself when you say the words climate change as a reason. The climate has been changing since day one.", that statement is insulting. It is a combination of these things (as Shoots states), in some instances one varialble may have a more direct impact on the outcome than the other variables. That doesn't mean the other variables still don't play a role.

We cannot change the cyclic patterns of our world, but we can recognize and potentially change the things man has done, is doing, or may do that impact the world around us. Man is motivated by money. Money means power, power mean influence, influence means politics, etc. I'm not saying no oil production, factory production, hunting . . . I'm trying to say that there needs to be a balance. We need to be proactive and not reactive. All the article points out is that Mule deer numbers are and have been declining and wildlife biologist don't know exactly what is causing it (scambling). State officials have to be careful, because oil and gas brings in money and so does Mule deer hunting. The drought (remember when Colorado was on fire a few years back and I hear it is still pretty dry (even with the flooding - short term). Again., it a combination of these things. But, you can't change the wheather, but you can change the influence man is and has had on the wildlife and their habitat.

 

[BigRack]

Fact is, mule deer are continuing to struggle and hunters not being willing to consider all possible contributing factors does nothing to solve the problem.

This is a better article.

http://missoulian.com/news/state-an...cle_e7b84102-3737-11e3-9830-0019bb2963f4.html

There is not much you can do about precipitation.

 

[BigRack]

Case Study in Utah

Our situation in Utah provides a case in point. The state’s mule deer population was highest in the mid-1950s, with numbers likely greater than 500,000 mule deer, based on harvest data. The population declined slightly in the late 1970s, peaked again in the mid-1980s, then suffered a catastrophic crash caused by extreme winter conditions in 1992 93. Post die-off estimates showed fewer than 250,000 animals. Statewide, the population rose slowly to an estimated 300,000 animals and has hovered around that number, with weather related fluctuations, until today.

http://news.wildlife.org/twp/2012-winter/working-group-takes-on-mule-deer/

 

[Oak]

This is a better article.

http://missoulian.com/news/state-an...cle_e7b84102-3737-11e3-9830-0019bb2963f4.html

There is not much you can do about precipitation.

You do realize don't you that precipitation is an integral part of "climate?"

Climate change has been around since day one. How long have mule deer been around? About 7,000-14,000 years? What does the last 14,000 years look like on your graph? That would be more relevant.

 

[BigRack]

You do realize don't you that precipitation is an integral part of "climate?"

Climate change has been around since day one. How long have mule deer been around? About 7,000-14,000 years? What does the last 14,000 years look like on your graph? That would be more relevant.

Precipitation is very local. The graph just shows that the Climate is not controlled by man.

What was the Mule Deer population like during the dust bowl?

 

[Oak]

The graph just shows that the Climate is not controlled by man.

Whether or not climate change is controlled by man is irrelevant to the mule deer issue.

 

[BigRack]

Whether or not climate change is controlled by man is irrelevant to the mule deer issue.

It is relevant when you have people who think they can control the climate.

 

[BigRack]

This study will be interesting.

http://www.theoutdoorforum.net/feat...cle_34b0b638-a688-511e-adf3-90226f629d99.html