Mule Deer Fanatic

This is the mission statement of an organization called Western Wyoming Mule Deer Alliance ( www.muley.org ). Hopefully, they will re-think their solutions. It would be much better to reduce predators than to reduce hunters. They might as well join the anti-hunters. When an organization, no matter how insignificant, espouses what an agency wants to hear, policies get implemented as if they were the desire of the entire hunting community. Say what the agency doesn’t want to hear, and no matter how correct, you will be ignored.

I believe the Wyoming Game and Fish receives an annual operating budget from the state regardless of the amount of money that is generated by WGnF sales, fines, and fees.

——————————————-

Mission Statement

Our goal is to provide information to Wyoming sportsman regarding the overall health and viability of the states’ western deer herds. We hope through our efforts and with the help of supporters to enhance and improve both the quality and quantity of the mule deer herds in Western Wyoming. Whether it’s human population increase, oil and gas development, drought, loss of habitat or severe winters our deer herds are in serious jeopardy. While there may be disagreement as to the exact causes, we believe a change in management strategy is necessary. We believe management changes to address this issue are inevitable and should occur now rather than after it becomes an even more critical concern to Wyoming wildlife managers and sportsman. Therefore we are proposing a significant reduction in both resident and non-resident deer hunting licenses. To accomplish this, we need to begin a limited quota license for deer hunting in the western part of Wyoming. And to protect our hunting heritage we believe that resident youth should still be able to purchase a general deer hunting license over the counter. Also non- resident hunters should make up the larger percentage of the financial shortfall this would cause the Wyoming Game and Fish Department.

How we plan to accomplish our goal.

We propose the following changes be made in the hunt areas as follows:

(130, 138-142, 146, 149-156, 162, 135, 143-145, 132-134, and 168):

Reduce resident and non-resident deer licenses by 50%. Resident youth age 12-17 years old would be able to obtain a general license each year to hunt any and all of the included game areas.

Use the current game and fish system of preference points when applying for a deer license.

Keep the Wyoming Game and Fish Department revenue number the same by increasing non-resident license fees by approximately $100.00 and starting a Deer Management Permit costing approximately $10.00-$12 .00 for the included game hunt areas .

Organization name: Western Wyoming Mule Deer Alliance

Excerpts from Lance Frazier’s article in the Daily Harold — Newell Fredrickson doesn’t enjoy killing coyotes. It’s just something he does to earn a living.

In 40 years with Wildlife Services — the branch of the U.S. Department of Agriculture charged with removing problem predators — Fredrickson has trapped and shot all sorts of animals, crashed in helicopters half a dozen times, roped eagles and seen a lot of country. But the large majority of his job these days focuses on one thing: killing coyotes. Folks with Wildlife Services (formerly Animal Damage Control) tend to tiptoe when discussing their work. The Utah Wildlife Services Web page states that “Utah WS is uniquely positioned … to assist livestock producers, industries and our cooperating agency partners with wildlife damage issues. Professional wildlife biologists and trained technicians provide direct assistance (their emphasis) when wildlife damage requires special skills … .” Fredrickson, on the other hand, doesn’t trade in euphemisms.

“That old coyote supported me for 40 years and let me be as free as a bird on the wing,” Fredrickson says. “He’s my brother, but that don’t mean I won’t kill him.”

Which is not to say that he does it for fun or, as some people imagine, that he guns down every coyote he sees: “I ain’t going out there to see how many I can kill.”

The Hyrum resident targets offending animals in specific areas, answering calls from ranchers and sheepherders after they lose livestock to suspected wild predators. And he knows that his solutions, final as they may be for the targets, are a temporary fix at best, since coyotes reproduce rapidly.

“You take ’em out and maybe you’re OK for a couple of months,” he says.

Over the ensuing decades he’s been responding to complaints from operators, who agree not to take matters into their own hands with poison or bullet if the government will send someone to take care of their livestock depredation problems.

……. Those helicopter flights, as well as the fixed-wing flights the Service occasionally utilizes, are forays to look for coyotes, which are often shot from the air. It’s an image some find appalling, and Fredrickson can understand why. He doesn’t define his job as coyote-killing, but as saving mule deer and sage grouse.

His approach is practical: Coyotes kill deer, so if you want more deer you have to reduce the number of coyotes, and livestock are in the mix too. Two years back he killed 66 coyotes that were right in the middle of a deer herd near Hardware Ranch. It was the sort of thing sportsmen, eager to see more and bigger bucks, clamor for.

“It’s not the world of Walt Disney,” Fredrickson says, “and that deer isn’t Bambi.”

Yet he believes that if you destroy wild things, “you destroy an important part of nature.” He’s even undergone a bit of an Aldo Leopold-like transformation, having given up hunting a few years back after a lifetime of venison steaks. When deer sneaked in last winter to munch on his haystack, Fredrickson declined to fence them out. “I lived off them long enough, now they can live off me,” he says.

Still there’s the job to do, so on a brisk December morning he drives to Brigham City, where a sheep owner has been losing lambs. At first Fredrickson figures dogs did the damage, but after investigating he decides it looks like the work of coyotes. Problem is, the property is smack on the highway, with houses in every direction. Not a safe place to fire a bullet, even if he could call the coyotes down from the foothills during daylight.

He decides to check out the Box Elder County side of the Wellsvilles, where the coyotes have been heard to howl. After a steep, half-hour scramble, he’s in position under a cedar tree, with a slight breeze in his face and a clear field of fire. He calls, using general yapping, distressed rabbit squeals and challenging barks to lure the coyotes. But only farm dogs and domestic geese respond, and after an hour he packs it in. The entire time is spent just above houses and highway, illustrating the proximity of urban and wild. Demand for his services is also slowly declining as fewer ranchers run sheep.

When he does make a successful shot with his coyote gun –the age-worn .243, with the black fabric on the barrel to block reflection, was given to him by his father’s only brother — Fredrickson pats the stock and says, “Guess we did it again, Uncle.” That doesn’t happen on this day, which ends at a greasy spoon on Brigham City’s main drag. The waitress greets Fredrickson, who’s wearing a dark Stetson adorned with a pin of a howling coyote, with a hug as she says to an observer, “I don’t like what he does.”

It’s an attitude Fredrickson understands and respects, even if it feels as foreign as the computer, cell phone and 4-wheeler that are his new-age tools of trade.

“I’m more scared of John Public” and political pressure than anything else, he says over a burger and a cup of black coffee. “I used to wear the white hat. Now I wear a black hat.”

In fact his job has become more difficult, and not only because of ever-increasing public disapproval. The coyotes themselves — agents also deal with cougars, bears and wolves, but around here it’s almost always coyotes — are becoming more canny. Thirty years ago, Fredrickson says, a guy could call them in without half trying. These days the animals are more wary, especially if they’ve been shot at before, making it that much harder for the next hunter.

He has no plans to retire, but the writing on the wall indicates that his job, like the coyote’s home ground, is becoming marginalized. As he ponders the future, he lapses into cowboy poetry.

“My race toward the sunset is a high and lonesome kind,” he says. “Like the coyote, I don’t leave no tracks.”
This story originally ran in The Herald Journal

Animal falls through ice and is rescued in Northern Utah.

Wolf re-introduction is certainly a hot topic, to put it mildly, and Mule Deer Fanatics have a stake in the outcome. In Wyoming and Idaho, wolves are beginning to take a heavy toll on game animals, not to mention livestock. Since there are already relatively few mule deer available (due to the effects of lions and coyotes), elk populations are suffering most, but wolves will make it impossible for mule deer to recover, even if lions, coyotes, and bears were controlled.

I am certain that some agency personnel have long awaited the time when elk populations could be regulated by grizzlies and wolves, as opposed to being regulated by hunters, as the predator approach seems to be their preference with mule deer.

Much of the human population in Wyoming is rural/ranchers. These poor folks are small in number, and battling the Federal Government takes a lot of moxie even when there is security in numbers. Nevertheless, Wyoming-ites are trying. Nearby states, where there are presently no wolves, have also been heavy-handed into drafting wolf management plans acceptable to the Feds, and will be expected to handle the wolves with care when they do arrive.

Not too far away, in Washington State, is a “non-profit” organization called Wolf Haven, where you can adopt a wolf. Just send money and you will recieve a photo of your very own wolf. There you may find tributes to deceased wolves, wolf and coyote tours, and articles such as “The coyote that refused to eat meat.”

Quote: You can ‘adopt’ any of our wolves on-line for yourself or as a gift for a friend or loved-one. Proceeds from our symbolic wolf ‘adoption’ program provide the wolves with the very best of food, medical care, dietary supplements, habitat maintenance and enrichment.

The animal huggers are berserk, but are still taking in collections to support their cause.

———————————————

Anyway, here are some excerpts from Wyoming’s proposed plan (regulated to the nth degree):

• Section 4. Gray Wolves Designated as Trophy Game Animals.
  Gray wolves found in that portion of Wyoming described as the WTGMA are hereby designated as trophy game animals and managed under the authority of the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission.
• Section 5. Gray Wolves Designated as Predatory Animals. Gray wolves in Wyoming, excluding gray wolves located inside the WTGMA as set forth in this regulation, are hereby designated as predatory animals. Gray wolves taken within the area where gray wolves are classified as predatory animals shall be reported by the individual taking any gray wolf to a district game warden, district wildlife biologist or Department personnel at a Game and Fish Regional Office. The individual taking a gray wolf shall provide the sex, location to include section, township, range or UTM coordinates and date of kill within ten (10) days of their take.
• Section 6. Monitoring Gray Wolves. The Department shall institute and maintain a gray wolf population-monitoring program. Global Positioning System or VHF radio tracking collars may be placed on gray wolves handled by the Department for population monitoring, conflict resolution or nuisance management activities or any non-lethal control actions where gray wolves are captured or handled by the Department. The Department may enter into memoranda of agreement with other state or federal agencies to monitor gray wolf population levels and movements.
• Section 7. Lethal Control of Gray Wolves in the Wolf Trophy Game Management Area. The Department shall utilize aggressive management techniques including, but not limited to aerial hunting and hazing to protect private property including livestock and domesticated animals within the WTGMA. (a) Any owner who takes a gray wolf under the authority of Wyoming Statute §23-3-115(c) shall submit the entire carcass of each gray wolf taken to a district game warden, district wildlife biologist or Department personnel at a Game and Fish Department Regional Office within seventy-two (72) hours. The owner shall provide the location of the site of kill to include the section, township and range, or UTM coordinates and present the carcass for the collection of tissue and hair samples for DNA analysis. 21-2
  (b) Upon notification from any owner of chronic gray wolf predation to livestock or domesticated animals inside the WTGMA and with verification by the Department, the Department shall: (i) issue a gray wolf lethal take permit to the owner; (ii) authorize USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services personnel in accordance with a completed memorandum of understanding with the Commission to remove the offending gray wolf or wolves; and, (iii) initiate lethal removal of the offending gray wolf or wolves by Department personnel. (c) Gray wolves may be lethally removed when the Department determines a wild ungulate herd may be experiencing unacceptable impacts or when wolf-wild ungulate conflict occur at any State operated feedground. (d) The provisions of subsection (b) and (c) of this section shall not apply in the event the removal of gray wolves will result in the re-listing of wolves under the Endangered Species Act.
• Section 8. Issuance of Gray Wolf Lethal Take Permit. A lethal take permit shall only be issued when there are seven (7) or more breeding pairs of gray wolves in Wyoming primarily outside of Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton National Park and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway. The Department shall issue lethal take permits when requested by an owner in the designated WTGMA and upon documentation by Department personnel, or personnel from USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services, who are cooperating with the Commission through an approved memorandum of understanding, that wolves are, or have been recently present in the area and that chronic gray wolf predation to livestock or domesticated animals has occurred, or for the take of gray wolves in chronic wolf predation areas. Gray wolves may be taken in accordance with the following provisions: (a) Gray wolves shall only be taken by the use of legal firearms from the ground. (b) Gray Wolf Lethal Take Permits shall be issued for a specific number of gray wolves, shall state the name, address and phone number of the permittee, other authorized individuals, the specific area where gray wolves may be taken and be signed by the permittee and a Department representative. (c) Lethal Take Permits are subject to immediate suspension or cancellation upon determination by the Department that further lethal control could cause re-listing of gray wolves under the Endangered Species Act. Notification of suspension or cancellation of lethal take permits shall be provided via personal notification, first class mail or by telephone or facsimile to all current permittees.
  21-3
  (d) The permittee, or other authorized individuals listed on the permit shall notify Department personnel specifically named on the lethal take permit as soon as practicably possible by personal contact, or phone contact of the take of a gray wolf under the authority of a lethal take permit. (e) Failure by the permittee, or other authorized individuals listed on the permit to abide by all provisions and conditions stipulated in this section shall be cause for the Department to cancel the permit. (f) Lethal take permits shall expire on December 31 of the year issued unless the permit is canceled in accordance with the provisions of this section. (g) Gray Wolf Lethal Take permits shall not be issued outside the geographic area defined as the WTGMA. Gray wolves, which are classified as predatory animals can be taken without a license in any legal manner and at any time as provided by W.S. §23-2-303(d), §23-3-112, §23-3-304 (b), §23-3-305 and §23-3-307 and §23-3-103 (a).
• Section 9. Non-lethal Control of Gray Wolves in the Wolf Trophy Game Management Area. Non-lethal control shall be initiated when deemed appropriate by the Department or when requested by the owner, but may be discontinued at the discretion of, and upon determination by the Department that lethal control is necessary to mitigate continued harassment, injury, maiming or killing of livestock or domesticated animals.
• Section 10. Savings Clause. If any provision of this regulation is held to be illegal or unconstitutional, such a ruling shall not affect other provisions of this regulation that can be given effect without the illegal or unconstitutional provision; and, to this end, the provisions of this regulation are severable.

WYOMING GAME AND FISH COMMISSION

This Monster Muley buck was apparently shot right off the road. The hunter didn’t bother to go after it, but after talking to his friend, they decided it might be worth going back to look for it. According to folklore a number of people knew about this buck and planned on killing it, including some holders of Arizona Governer’s tags.

According to the Denver Post, the Colorado DOW has decided to feed 21,000 mule deer wintering in the Gunnison Basin. The DOW claims that this is Colorado’s largest mule deer herd. Deep snow and extreme cold are making life difficult for the mule deer in 2008.

There are good reasons not to feed deer, such as increased predation and disease due to crowding. But, there are two other reasons that are even more significant: 1) Feeding develops a dependency; and 2) Often the deer die anyway because their digestive systems cannot adapt fast enough. Very often, a lot of money is spent in administrative expense and the deer get too little, too late.

In order to feed the deer, the elk wintering in the same area will need to be coaxed away with hay. So, both mule deer and elk will need to be fed in order to feed the deer.

The Colorado DOW apparently believes that, if the mule deer aren’t fed, half of them may die and it could take up to eight years for them to recover from a massive die-off. In the absence of predators, though, the deer herd could recover much quicker.

Hal Sawyer of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department claims this is the largest mule deer herd anywhere. Do you believe it?

The largest herd of mule deer in the U.S. is at the Green River Valley in Wyoming. There are some 30,000 deer there.

Using GPS collars, biologist Hall Sawyer has tracked the movements of the deer herd. He’s examined how the population has performed for the past five years. His research showed that much of the herd migrates more than 50 miles between winter and summer ranges, and that drought and severe winters have claimed an estimated 20 percent of the herd.

Preserving migratory bottlenecks, minimizing habitat loss, and building wildlife-friendly fences are some ways that Sawyer said might help conserve Wyoming mule deer.

Road kill woes

State takes a closer look at animal-vehicle collisions

By Matt Christensen
 

It’s a question that, surprisingly, comes up every year.

“If I hit a deer with my truck,” someone inevitably asks the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, “can I take it home with me?”

The answer is no, which means hundreds of animals struck by vehicles are left to rot in Idaho’s roadside ditches each year. Neither Fish and Game nor the Idaho Transportation Department routinely remove road kill.

“In many cases with a dead critter, we merely drag it into the barrow pit,” said Randy Smith, a regional wildlife manager with Fish and Game’s Magic Valley office. “Scavengers typically clean them up in short order.”

State agencies also don’t track how many animals are struck by vehicles each year, though that’s changing, said Nathan Jerke, an ITD spokesman.

Blaine County and ITD have partnered with Montana State University in a $64,000 study to find out how many animals are being killed along 26-miles of Idaho Highway 75, a stretch of roadway some suspect is road kill central.

The study could help elected officials and transportation experts better manage roadways to keep drivers and animals safer.

Preliminary results of the study, which ends in March, show animals are struck in some areas more than others. For example, more elk have been killed at one point between reference post 118.5 and 119 than any other. More live elk are also spotted at that point than other reference posts, which may indicate it’s a popular spot for animals to cross the road.

“This is a pretty substantial issue,” Smith said.

Besides high insurance costs to drivers, animal-vehicle collisions dent the populations of struggling species, especially mule deer.

Fish and Game urges motorists to resist the temptation to harvest car-killed big game, and call their regional Fish and Game office or sheriff’s department to report the kill.

“An animal thumped by a car may look pretty good on the outside,” Smith said. “But when you get to skinning it, you’ll notice the meat isn’t very good for eating.”

ITD has its own advice: Pull your car off the road, drag the carcass off the highway and contact the police.

Dave Strege, Orange County Register:

——————————————-

Hundreds of deer and elk will be needlessly killed on Santa Rosa Island over the next four years.

Why?

A law that gave the animals a stay of execution last year was overturned by Congress on Monday, paving the way for the unconscionable slaughter of 1,100 Kaibab Mule Deer and Roosevelt Elk.

Leading the charge to exterminate the animals were Senators Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, who apparently do not believe the public deserves to enjoy these majestic creatures.

If they did, they would have allowed the public a voice on the fate of the animals. They would have closely examined the facts and sought ways to save the animals.

Instead, they patted themselves on the back and erroneously claimed to have put an end to big-game hunting on the island and to have given the public full, year-round access to the island.

Their “victory” was a last-minute repeal of Rep. Duncan Hunter’s provision of 2006 that would have saved the animals from extermination.

This repeal was a legislative rider added to the FY08 Omnibus Appropriations Bill that President Bush is expected to sign in January.

The problem with the spin from the senators is, the hunting concession was already set to close at the end of 2011 and the public was going to enjoy 100 percent, year-round access from then on anyway.

The only thing Feinstein and Boxer succeeded in doing was to ensure the destruction of the deer and elk herds that have inhabited the island since the 1920s.

The Vail and Vickers families bought the island in 1901 and operated a cattle ranch. They imported deer and elk in the mid-1920s. In 1978, they began a big-game hunting concession to manage the population and increase revenue for the ranch.

The families reluctantly sold the island to the National Park Service in 1986 so it could be included in the Channel Islands National Park. But the park service agreed to allow the hunting operation and cattle ranch to continue for 25 years.

The hunting concession uses 90 percent of the 55,000-acre island from August to early December, though the guides inform park rangers where the hunts will take place so the public can access the remainder of the island.

An environmental lawsuit put an end to the cattle ranching in 1997 and in the settlement, the families agreed to start removing elk and deer in 2008 and have them all off the island by the end of 2011.

The families’ heirs, who weren’t a part of and didn’t approve of that agreement, have subsequently attempted to save the animals from being destroyed.

Timothy Vail appeared before a Congressional subcommittee in May to make a plea on behalf of the animals and to introduce scientific evidence that disputed claims that the non-native herds were destroying endangered habitat and threatening native animals.

Last year, unbeknownst to the families, Hunter introduced a provision that would make Santa Rosa Island a place where military members could hunt, but that got shot down. However, one simple provision remained and became law: “The Secretary of Interior shall cease the plan…to exterminate the deer and elk on Santa Rosa Island.”

Then, along came Feinstein and Boxer.

It’s hard to believe that folks in Helena, Montana have retrogressed to this point, but they want someone to kill the wintering deer that are hanging around town. At first, the squeaky wheel residents were pushing for the state/city to hire sharpshooters to do the dirty work. At-least one resident is claiming that the deer aren’t that much of a nuisance, but he is being ignored.

In a dangerous, precedent-setting measure, the city has decided to employ police officers to rid the city of 50 dangerous deer. This measure is supported by the Montana DFWP. Using hunters is considered a dangerous risk, but police will be authorized to kill animals at night using special heat-sensing equipment and silencers, so the deadly deed will go unnoticed by those prudent souls that are ordering the slaughter. All consciences thus protected.

If you can believe it, the current proposal is to net the deer, take them to public lands, and then have them executed by police. Need I say more?

Another foot in the door for the so-called animal huggers?