“Sustaining populations subjected to hunting pressure requires species capable of rapid and consistent reproduction. Deer qualify.“

The above quote comes from Dr. Scott Shalaway of West Virginia.

I am open to discussion or to contention in regards to what I am about to say, but here is what I believe:

First, the earth was created. The earth, mule deer, predators, people…. they didn’t just happen. I believe the creator had humans foremost in his mind and that humans are “factored in” to how the earth functions. Humans are “natural”. In fact, the primary purpose of the earth is for humans. What does this have to do with the price of cheese? It is a long story.

Secondly, there are prey and there are predators. Relative to mule deer – human hunters are part of the predator group. Hunting mule deer for food and/or for whatever other reason, has been happening for a long time. As humans, we can decide whether or not our needs, wants, and desires for mule deer consumption are a higher or lower priority than those of the other predators, i.e., lions, wolves, bears, coyotes.

I believe that the creation of the earth is such that, in the absence of human predators ( for whatever reason ) predators and prey have some pre-defined balances which keep prey populations from getting too large. This balancing act is not perfect in the sense that prey never exceed carrying capacity, but it serves the purpose overall without divine intervention. We humans both interfere with that balance and control it. To state this bluntly, we can have as many deer as we want, as long as we like the consequences.

When we humans decide that we need more prey ( such as mule deer ), then we simply reduce the other predator populations and wala population explosion. Then, we are the control instead of the other predators. This is how we provide for hunting. This is what game management is all about ( or supposed to be about ). Mule deer aren’t quite as prolific as rabbits, but almost. Overall, twins are the norm.

So without factoring in death, deer populations go like this: Adam and Eve buck and doe have two fawns, male and female. The next year, Adam and Eve have two more. The next year, Adam and Eve have their two, and daughter#1 has one. The next year Adam and Eve have two, daughter#1 has two, daughter#2 has one, and grand-daughter#1 has one. And so on and so forth. Assuming I am doing the math correctly: by year, the population looks like this: 2 -> 4 -> 7 ->13 ->24. This is not exactly linear and not exactly exponential, but you get the idea.

I don’t know how my dad figured it out, but in my youth he did not want me killing does, and told me that, if I killed a doe – I would be killing the equivalent of 25 deer in five years. He was about right.

Thirdly, if our game “managers” took the right actions, we could have mule deer ( or rabbits, quail, grouse, whatever ) coming out of our ears. We would control these populations by hunting ( as in the good ol’ days ) vs. by employing the other predators. Game managers are, more and more, moving toward putting human hunters last on their list of priorities, but it doesn’t have to be that way. The agencies need to hear from us loud and clear “we want and expect more game”, if in fact, that is what we want and expect. We are, after all, paying the bill.

This article came from Vindy.com in Youngstown, Ohio:

I am going to do a series of posts about this topic and use this article as a foundation for those posts

——————————————

Published: Saturday, November 17, 2007

Deer harvest is based on biological factors

Sustaining populations subjected to hunting pressure requires species capable of rapid and consistent reproduction. Deer qualify. Over the last century, studies of deer biology and its response to hunting pressure have resulted in thousands of research papers, books, symposia and countless graduate degrees in wildlife biology.

Two classic cases, familiar to every wildlife biologist, stand out as the foundation of deer management in North America.

From 1906 through 1923, government hunters and trappers removed predators from the Kaibab Plateau along the north rim of Arizona’s Grand Canyon. During that period, agents removed 781 mountain lions, 30 gray wolves, 4,889 coyotes and 354 bobcats.

The Kaibab mule deer population responded in spectacular fashion. When predator control began, the mule deer population was estimated to be 4,000. Under greatly reduced predator pressure, the deer herd exploded to more than 100,000 in less than 20 years. During the winter of 1924-25, the population crashed. Ever since, wildlife biologists consider “Kaibab Plateau” to be synonymous with the dangers of predator control as a way to protect game populations.

Rarely, however, is population biology so simple. In 1970, Graeme Caughley suggested that the mule deer population explosion on the Kaibab Plateau was due more to the recovery of the range than to the disappearance of predators. It turns out that while predators were being removed from the area, so were domestic livestock. At least 200,000 sheep and 20,000 cattle were removed at the same time the predators were being removed.

Caughley argues that deer flourished not because predators disappeared, but because the recovering range provided a virtually unlimited food source. We’ll probably never know which factor was more important, but a case can be made that both predator control and unlimited food can trigger a population explosion.

Just a few years after the Kaibab “experiment,” another classic field study unfolded. In the 1920s a Detroit industrialist, Col. Edwin S. George, purchased 12 adjoining farms, a total of 1,146 acres, in southern Michigan. In 1930 he donated the property to the University of Michigan for use as a natural laboratory, though he maintained one house and 40 acres for his personal use. After George’s death in 1940, his heirs gave complete ownership and control to the university.

In the 1920s there were virtually no deer in southern Michigan. In 1927 Colonel George erected a 7.5-foot-high fence around the entire site, and the following year, he released six white-tailed deer, two males and four females, inside what today is known as the George Reserve. The deer were trapped on Grand Island in Lake Superior, and the does were thought to be pregnant.

The George Reserve deer herd thrived. Six years later in 1933, biologists conducted the first annual deer drive census to assess the population. They counted 130 deer; in six years the population grew from six to 130, an astounding rate of population growth.

Since that initial deer drive census, this deer population has been intensively studied and manipulated. Various rates of hunting pressure enabled biologists to study and evaluate white-tailed deer population growth under a variety of conditions. Dale McCullough, a University of Michigan professor, published the results of decades of research in “The George Reserve Deer Herd” (1979, University of Michigan Press).

The results of the Kaibab and George Reserve field experiments demonstrated that deer populations, when provided with quality habitat and minimal predation, can grow explosively. Biologists call this exponential population growth. Theoretically, all species grow exponentially until they reach limits imposed by the environment (habitat quality, food availability, space, predator pressure, etc.). Reproductive characteristics such as gestation period, litter size, litters per year, and age at first breeding determine how quickly such a population explosion can occur.

The innate reproductive capacity of deer and other game species is the biological basis for annual harvests. By monitoring population numbers and habitat quality, biologists can adjust hunting pressure on game species annually as populations fluctuate.

Clearly, wildlife management is complicated. This is probably the best reason politicians, unschooled in population biology, should resist the urge to meddle and allow professional biologists to do their jobs.

Send questions and comments to Dr. Scott Shalaway, R.D. 5, Cameron, WV 26033 or via e-mail to sshalaway@aol.com.

Federal Firearms Legislation

Last Update/Review: August 12, 2002

The following is a summary interpretation of some of the federal firearms legislation as it pertains to sport hunting. For further information about federal firearms laws and regulations, contact your local police service, or the Canadian Firearms Centre — telephone toll free, 1-800-731-4000.

Federal regulations allow the use of firearms for specified activities that include hunting. The possession of a loaded firearm is lawful, however, only in a location where the firearm may be discharged in accordance with any applicable federal and provincial acts and regulations, and municipal bylaws.

Possession Licence for Minors

A person 12 to 17 years of age must obtain a Minor’s Licence to use non-restricted firearms, such as rifles and shotguns, for hunting, target practice, firearms instruction or taking part in an organized shooting competition. The parent or legal guardian of the minor must give consent to the issuing of the licence. Note: a minor’s licence does not permit the holder to acquire (buy, inherit, receive as a gift or take in trade) firearms.

A licence is not required if a person, lawfully in possession of a firearm, allows a minor to use the firearm, in the same manner as the person is allowed to use it, and the minor is under the person’s immediate supervision.

Transportation of Firearms

A person who is authorized to have a non-restricted firearm may transport the firearm in a vehicle if the firearm is unloaded. A person may transport a non-restricted firearm by other means of conveyance (e.g., on an off-highway vehicle) provided it is unloaded and it is not left unattended if the vehicle cannot be locked.

Bringing Firearms into Canada

All firearms must be declared upon entry into Canada. Canada Customs requires the declaration be made in writing and charges a fee of $50 Cdn. This declaration is valid for 60 days. All pistols, revolvers and automatic firearms are restricted or prohibited weapons and may not be brought into Canada for hunting purposes.

Storage of Non-restricted Firearms

If a firearm is left in an unattended vehicle, the firearm must be secured in a locked trunk or similar compartment. If the vehicle has no such compartment, the firearm must be stored in the vehicle out of sight (not visible from outside the vehicle), and the vehicle or compartment containing the firearm must be securely locked.

A person must store a firearm unloaded and in a secured manner to ensure that it will not be readily available for use in a careless manner.

Unloaded Firearm

Unloaded, as it relates to a firearm, means that any propellant powder, projectile or cartridge that is capable of being discharged from the firearm is not contained in the breech or firing chamber or in a cartridge magazine attached to or inserted into the firearm.

The only exemptions are muzzle-loading, non-restricted firearms (e.g., a muzzle-loading rifle or muzzle-loading shotgun that is lawful for hunting under the Wildlife Act) which may be transported loaded between hunting sites provided that the firing cap or flint is removed.  —————————–

If you live in the United States, you may be surprised about the manner in which  mule deer hunting is handled in Alberta, Canada.  Alberta is divided into five big game zones: the mountain zone in the west, the foothill zone to the east of the mountain zone, the parkland zone to the east of the foothill zone, the boreal zone in the north,  and the small southern plains zone.

It may surprise you to know that there are some real bruisers in the southern plains.  In Alberta, outfitters may control 10% of the available tags.  Tags aren’t abundant anywhere, but especially on the southern plains, consequently Muley bucks can grow to trophy class.

Another surprise for you, may be the fact that the prarie hunting season is four weeks long, but you may only hunt from Thursday through Saturday of each week.  Now, that’s interesting, don’t you think?  The deer get a breather, and they may not know if it’s hunting season or not.

This year, 2007, both Alberta and Montana are having unusually warm weather which is impacting the deer harvest in a negative way. If the mild weather continues through the winter though, it should make for better hunting next year.

Mule deer are found throughout the province, but are most plentiful in southern and western Alberta. They are more common in mountainous areas than white-tailed deer. The Fish and Wildlife Division estimates the provincial population (in Sept.) to be about 133,000 animals. This estimate is based on population counts in selected areas and hunter harvest information.

Seasons

Mild weather in Montana is being blamed for a low mule deer harvest in 2007.  Without snow in the high country, mule deer are not aggregating in the low, more accessible, country.  Because Montana hunters can, and do, hunt multiple species at one time, it is difficult to assess mule deer success in and of itself. For example, this year, in west central Montana, it took over 11,000 hunters to come up with about 240 mule deer.  In the northwest it took 12,000 hunters to harvest only 130 mule deer.  In the southwest, the numbers are 2700 hunters to bag 125 mule deer.

One possible bright spot is that next years’ harvest could improve.  If winter doesn’t take too much of a toll, there will be more animals for next year.

Mule deer around the Big Horn basin in Wyoming have been hurt by a mig-borne virus.  Lesions seen in the current outbreak include inflammation of the feet, crusting around the nose and mouth, and swollen lips. Bluetongue’s distinctive name is due to blue discoloration of the mouth and lips of infected animals.

Once an animal is infected, they tend not to eat due to soreness of the mouth. The no-see-um gnats that carry the disease live in and around stagnant water, therefore, drought or hot conditions aggrevate the spread of the disease.  Fortunately, frost kills the little buggars.

According to several news articles, the North Dakota Mule Deer hunt starts at noon on November 9 and ends at dark on November 25.  Last year, deer hunters in North Dakota set an all time harvest record at 100,000 deer. There are 5050 additional tags this year. Mild winters are getting the credit for increased deer numbers.  In North and South Dakota and in Eastern Colorado, plains mule deer numbers are up significantly.  The size of bucks is up as well.

Mule deer in North Dakota were hard hit by the winter of 1996-7, but have made a steady recovery since that time, progressing to 9.6 mule deer per square mile.  The buck/doe ratio is estimated at 42/100.  Units 4a through 4f are apparently the places to go.

It has been rumored that Arizona will cease selling over-the-counter mule deer archery tags and, instead, issue tags via drawing. For me, this is bad news – one more loss that will probably never return. The general trend here is to take from hunters and give to the predators. The solution to the mule deer problem is never viewed by wildlife (mis)managers as a need for more deer, but instead, less hunting and/or less harvest.

Some hunters will even welcome this change because they are caught up in the scarcity mentality. They will say to themselves – Self, I would rather hunt every 10 years, and have only a hand-full of hunters to contend with than hunt every year with a whole bunch of hunters and no deer. They will mistakenly believe that going to a draw will mean more big bucks. Sadly, this will not be the case – as history has proven.

As mule deer become increasingly more scarce due to predators, it will become more prevalent for the relatively few remaining hunters to crowd in upon the small pockets of deer that will only exist in core areas. And, so the crowding will not be alleviated nor will there be more large bucks. There will be a few places that still have deer while large areas, void of deer, will not be hunted.

The North Kaibab is a perfect example of this phenomenon. This year, I managed to squeeze in a few days at the end of the North Kaibab archery hunt. From the looks of the roads, it was evident there had been a lot of prior traffic. I didn’t find any bucks other than a two point until the last day of the hunt, when, I finally found a pair of large bucks. Unfortunately, I spooked them into some other hunters who promptly shot one of them about 10 yards off the road.

I spoke to some California hunters my first day there. All of them had hunted the Kaibab for quite a few years. They had witnessed the crowd that was present on the opener and surmised that there were about 10,000 bowhunters. They commented that the large number of hunters was due to the liklihood that tags would be issued by drawing next year. This was my first exposure to the fact that the archery draw might be more than just a rumor. I do not know if there were really 10,000 bowhunters, but it is possible.

All of these people are crowding into an area where there are a few deer left and where they can get a tag while the rest of Arizona has few muleys and sparse bowhunters. The North Kaibab could support 10 times the mule deer that are currently available there. I, and everyone I spoke to, saw and heard plenty of coyotes. I know there are many lions there by the number of tracks I have seen.

Unless the AGnF is bombarded with unhappy hunters voicing opposition to this change, you may anticipate it becoming a reality. As long as this downward trend continues, the next change will also take away from hunters and give to predators rather than the other way around.

Make your wishes known.

Garth Goodrich of http://arizonahuntingtoday.com also has this to say about the upcoming archery mule deer hunt changes for 2008:

Well, I got a little more information about the new archery deer draw that will start in 2008 in Arizona.
Units going to a draw and # of tags (+/-): 1 – 200 tags, 3A/3C – 150 tags, 3B – 75 tags, 7 – 500 tags, 12A – 1850 tags, 13A – 120 tags, 13B – 120 tags. The number of tags is preliminary and will most assuredly be adjusted before the time of draw.
Also, the following are units that will no longer have an archery deer season in December. Units 17A, 20A, 22, 23, 35A, 37A & 42.
On the bright side, all the archery deer hunters that draw a permit for 12A, 13A & 13B can also buy over the counter buffalo and elk tags like the rifle hunts in these units.
What baffles me, is unit 37A…..it only has a December and January hunt and, every year has leftover rifle tags. So, this is a unit that is not in high demand but, we as bowhunters, lost a hunting opportunity for no logical reason.
The Game and Fish Commission voted, approving these changes, without listening to fact. The recommendations were based partially on educated guesswork, and was done in the name of hunter recruitment and retention, at the expense of bowhunting.
Some of us feel that it will only be a matter of time before all archery deer will be in the draw process, making it difficult to draw a tag, and also making hunters choose to apply for either a rifle or archery tag. There will be no 2 season hunters anymore.

Garth Goodrich of http://arizonahuntingtoday.com has this to say about proposed Arizona bowhunt changes:

The end to what we, as Arizona bowhunters, once knew, is coming to an end.
Earlier, I wrote a blog titled, “bowhunters under attack”. Today, the Commissioners of the Az Game and Fish Department passed the hunt recommendations for archery deer.
This means that units 1, 3ABC, 7 12A, 13A will go to a draw, meaning we have to apply for a tag to hunt these units. All other units in AZ will be monitored and, if the bowhunters achieve more than a 20% success rate, based on rifle hunters success, that particular unit will also go to a draw. If the success continues to climb, then that unit will be removed from the archery deer hunt in January of each year.
The sad thing is, the decision was based on partially guesswork as, rifle hunters do not have to report their success, but Game and Fish somehow came up with success numbers per unit for gun hunters, then based bowhunters’ success rates from gun hunters’ success rates.
This was done so the game and fish department could follow the new trend, “hunter retention and recruitment”. But, as it seems game and fish will actually push resident hunters to other states, in their quest to hunt.
Just so you know, this decision was contested by members of the Az Bowhunters Association, Mojave Sportsmen Club and, the Az Deer Association, plus several individuals. But, all of their commitment and perseverance fell on deaf ears.
Times are changing and , it does not appear to be for the better for bowhunters in Arizona.