Mule Deer Fanatic

The truth is – none of us may ever know what the DWR decision makers were or are really thinking.  Most of what they do defies logic.

Nevertheless, all of the LE areas were once open areas because the whole state was open.  Until the lions, coyotes, and bears took over, a person could buy licenses and tags over-the-counter, right up until the time when you decided if you wanted to go or not.  It was then a 10 day season and you could go where the deer were, or anywhere else for that matter.  Then predator populations began to boom.  They were protected from being poisoned. Trapping rules were implemented. Seasons and limits were set.   Predators were given priority over hunters. When the long-awaited time finally arrived that there were not enough deer for both humans and predators, then it became quite noticeable, particularly in those areas that are now limited entry, that there were no deer.

Whoah! What’s up with that?  Predators don’t affect deer populations, do they?  Let’s do a study to prove that predators have no negative impact on deer.  Outcome pre-detirmined.

OK, conclusion: predators have no negative impact on prey.  There are too many hunters.  Darn it anyway.  Let’s make regions and units to confine the hunters.  Let’s cut the number of hunters in half.  Let’s try and force the hunters to go where the deer aren’t.   Let’s shorten the seasons. Let’s implement a hunter lottery on the basis of the scarcity principle.  Let’s get the hunters to believe we need to “conserve” deer. Let’s make up stories about how many deer and how few predators there really are.  It’s all history now.

Utah now manages people for the predators while “conserving” deer. Today, predators kill almost ten times as many deer as people do, and that’s even if we include road kill.   It’s a little OUTABALANCE!  The limited entry units and especially the “premium” limited entry units came into existence after those areas were closed for “studies”.  Rather than just turn the deer hunters loose on those areas that hadn’t been hunted for a while, and go right back to no deer, it was evident that there had to be some “controls”.  None of the limited entry units was restored to its former glory even with no hunting – because of predators.  But, any of them were better than the rest, if only because hunting had ceased for a while.  Some of the LE units are now no better than the rest – even with almost no hunters.

No, they didn’t pick the areas with the most potential for limited entry.  They probably never will.

The DWR announced a long time ago – that it was their entention to divide the state into small units and make the whole state limited entry.  The time may well come when you have to check in and check out at the bottom of the mountain you want to hunt – fingerprints and the whole works.   Heaven forbid anyone should suggest it.

Many will argue that the real problem with declining mule deer populations is deteriorating winter habitat, and that National Parks are evidence that habitat, not predation, is the limiting factor in mule deer populations. If you broaden your view a little you will see that, in many areas, there is virtually unlimited winter range but limited summer range. Summer range, not winter range, controls the carrying capacity of the mule deer in those areas. It is almost always the case that the summer range in any area can support significantly more mule deer than are currently present. And still the deer are no longer able to increase to the level of the summer range capacity.

In those areas where the limiting factor is winter range, there are 3 different conditions that are typically cited as important: 1) quality of browse; 2) quantity of browse; or 3) scarcity of cover. It is difficult, at best, to assess the quality of the browse. It has been assumed that older plants such as sage brush, have lower quality than young plants. I have participated in reseeding projects, some of which have now had years to develop. I have observed areas where juniper have been removed. I have also observed numerous controlled burns. None of these, however wonderful they may be, have brought back the mule deer in the affected areas.

There are numerous areas where the quality of the browse has improved even in non-conventional ways – such as in subdivisions which are planted with lush, green, well-cared for browse. In some areas the quality of browse has degraded because of decreased use by domestic livestock. If livestock do not overgraze an area, they can actually improve the quality of the browse for mule deer.

Concerning the quantity of browse, there are probably as many areas where the quantity of browse has increased as there are areas where it has decreased. One reason for this is that far fewer deer are consuming the plants than was the case in the past. With few exceptions, there is in every area adequate quantity of browse for more mule deer than are present. In years when there is deep snow, the snow can effectively reduce the quantity of feed available to the mule deer.

Because of snowmobiles, atv’s, high numbers of domestic dogs, and such – mule deer are harassed in winter time more than they used to be. If their cover is not adequate, the stress from harassment is compounded by the lack of cover. There may end up being a greater distance separating cover from browse- increasing the likelihood of exposure. Mule deer are nervous creatures anyway and harassment during winter degrades their health with or without cover. Unbroken expanses of Juniper do not help deer much, but a mosaic of trees and browse is highly desirable.

For those who believe that predators don’t have any negative impact on mule deer, and that pristine vegation is better than manipulated vegetation, the National Parks should then have such an abundance of mule deer as to make the deer a nuisance. Such is not the case, there are fewer mule deer in National Parks than in the areas surrounding the Parks. The deer in the Parks are typically more visible, but are not more plentiful. Yellowstone is a classic example of the impact of predation in the presence of pristine habitat. The habitat has not saved the game from predators. Since the introduction of wolves in Yellowstone, the game animals have diminished drastically with no apparent change in habitat.

As recently as 1988, mule deer herds were doing well -in fact, near an all-time population high. Since that time, mule deer have declined and have not recovered. The major cause for the original decline was rooted in the effects of weather. Mule deer herds have always been impacted by weather, but have typically been able to recover quickly from drought or severe winter. Possibly, the worst weather related situation affecting mule deer is when a drought is followed immediately by a severe winter. If there is ever a time to supplement or to call for an emergency hunt, that would be it.

In drought, usually associated with heat, mule deer do not forage well. It is essential to mule deer, in most areas, that they build up sufficient fat reserves to see them through winter. In drought conditions, the potential for gaining fat is diminished. During a severe winter, the time will certainly arrive when mule deer expend more calories eating than they derive from what they eat. Just maintaining essential body heat uses valuable calories. At such times, mule deer depend on fat reserves. When those fat reserves are not available, or are insufficient, mule deer get sick and die. When caloric output exceeds caloric intake, it is quite advantageous for mule deer to become sedate; to limit their movement. They will do this if not disturbed too much.

In most of the Western United States, mule deer suffered a difficult winter around 1983. They rebounded very well and very quickly reaching a long-term high around 1988. The intervening years had ample moisture, good forage, relatively mild winters, and limited predation. The winter of 1988 was devastating to mule deer with losses as high as 70% in some areas. It might have been expected that mule deer would have made a full recovery by now, but there are 3 factors that have prevented them from doing so.

First, the number of mule deer predators has steadily increased. Concurrently, the number of mule deer hunters and the percentage of hunter success has suffered tremendously, because there are few surplus deer remaining after predation. Mountain lions were reaching their maximum carrying capacity about the very time when the mule deer were hardest hit. Cougars were protected beginning in 1972 and steadily increased until 1988. Based on population modeling I have done, I believe mountain lion increases were exponential rather than linear. Even though the deer herd dropped quite suddenly by two-thirds, the mountain lion population did not and has not dropped. The single most important factor allowing mountain lions to be unaffected by the mule deer decline is the presence of alternative food sources, particularly the ever increasing elk herds. Another significant factor is the protection that lions have enjoyed. Modern hunting regulations generally do not allow more lions to be harvested than the annual population increase, thus keeping lions at a constant maximum. Lions have expanded to the point where there is scarcely room for more – since they are highly territorial.

Secondly, game managers have insisted on killing does since about 1990. In my estimation, there is no good reason for killing does until or unless herds have exceeded their carrying capacity. As of 2007, overall mule deer numbers are at less than half of carrying capacity. Also, a case can easily be made against killing does for genetic reasons, yet the doe slaughter continues even today. Hunters, not unlike predators, seek to kill the best and healthiest.

Thirdly, game managers have placed limits on the number of mule deer to be allowed. This fact is not always publicized, but is nevertheless true. There are three reasons for the limits: 1) Depredation payments. 2) The belief that mule deer herds had been maintained at artificially high numbers to support hunting, and 3) mule deer are harder to manage than elk – so preference has been given to elk.

Game managers prefer to have us all believe and accept that habitat and weather are the major issues causing mule deer decline because these two “causes” are basically unsolvable and take the focus away from poor management.

The future of mule deer is extremely dependent on what we decide to do with predators. After, or if, we reduce predation to the point where mule deer can again be allowed to increase, then it will be quite appropriate to see what we can do about weather and habitat.

If you’re really a Mule Deer Fanatic, you already know it.

If you aspire to be one, then you are a MDF wanabe, and that’s cool!!! All Mule Deer Fanatics start as wanabes.

Here is a Definition:

• you hunt mule deer in every state possible every year
• you read about mule deer from every source you can get your hands on
• during the off-season you dream about hunting mule deer
• you subscribe to several hunting magazines
• you have a mule deer calendar on the wall
• you have a collection of mule deer pictures and videos
• your wife, if you have one, thinks you like mule deer more than her
• your wife, again – if you have one, has a sign over the bed that says, “When I die, bury me in the woods so my husband will come hunting for me.”
• you have acquired some functional, if not expensive, equipment and know how to use it
• you have set a standard on the size/type of buck you will shoot (at)
• you have harvested one or more mule deer bucks which meet your standard
• you have one or more mule deer mounts on the wall
• you still get buck fever but try to control it
• on the night before the hunt, you have trouble sleeping
• when you hunt, you are never in camp during daylight hours
• you have gathered a pile of mule deer antlers
• you want to do something to improve the situation for mule deer

Enjoy your visit. If you are looking for something that pertains to MULE DEER, we hope you will find what you are looking for here.

If not, let us know.

Admin