ironramrod; Thanks for the great reply. I like Hidehunter's use of that term. When I was in high school I wanted to work for a Division of Wildlife agency, so the separation into catagories of game animal mortality makes perfect sense from an analitical standpoint.
Whether it's from the standpoint of p.c.ness or not I think the hunting industry uses the term to make the hunting/killing of animals by us legal hunter's look more palatible to the general public and the hunting community itself.
Speaking of coyotes and foxes, I used to be an avid coyote hunter when the fur prices were good and hunted them every chance I got. I had some of my best times solo hunting coyotes during the winter. As a result I gained a lot of respect for them and put them at a high level on the game animal list. I know I could kill more deer, antelope or elk during a winter than I could coyotes if you consider that males, females and young ones could be shot with no daily bag limit. I haven't hunted coyotes seriously for two years because the price is low and I don't know anybody that would even take them. Most would say go out anyway but I have enough respect for them that I don't want to kill and leave them.
With your experience as a biologist what is your take on the following story? Awhile back I read an article in the Denver Post newspaper that several employees with the Colorado DOW had a complaint with Colorado governor Owens. Among other things was an issue where there was a study done on the muledeer decline. The study found that while predation by coyotes was a small factor the biggest factor was habitat decline do to human population and building. According to the Wildlife people Governor Owens didn't like that outcome and wanted more emphasis placed on the coyote factor. I think it should be noted that while Colorado has a decent amount of open space that in the mountains only a small amount of that space is habitable year round. It's hard to make it at 10,000 ft or more in Jan. and if houses fill the valley's there isn't sufficient winter range. Just wondering what your take on the coyote vs. habitat issue is. Thanks.
The "harvest" term irritates me.
-
ironramrod
- Posts: 1364
- Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 1:12 pm
- Location: Dakota Territory
Pete,
I have to admit to being unfamiliar with the Colorado mule deer decline except I have heard of this, but if I can ask some questions perhaps we can put together at least a hypothesis. Additionally, the decline is not restricted to Colorado, but is also occuring in Idaho and possibly Utah.
Anyway, I agree that high mountains are not real great year around country for most wildlife species. Certainly big game migrate from winter to summer ranges and vice versa. This doesn't occur in the northern plains, because everything has about the same wind chill factor--damn cold, sometimes bordering on insane. Nevertheless, both deer and coyotes are highly adaptable, and can thrive quite nicely in highly developed neighborhoods if they have stuff to eat. For example, the area I live in is on the edge of Bismarck right up from the Missouri River. In the winter we have deer all over the neighborhood after about 10 pm or so, and they do just fine. Tonight the temp. is supposed to be -30 deg., and there will be a bunch of deer all over once it gets dark.
Re: the coyotes, they do just fine in developed neighborhoods. Certainly they kill a few deer, but they really vacuum up all the housecats and smaller dogs. They like chubby potlickers really well.
Now for the serious thinking. We would need to determine what the doe/fawn ratios are in the study area of interest. Normal mule deer doe/fawn ratios are generally from 1.0/1.0 to about 1.0/1.25 or so. If the doe/fawn ratios in the study area are really low (e.g. 1.0/0.40 or so), then the fawns are selectively dying at a higher rate than the adult female segment of the population. If hunter mortality is added onto this fawn survival rate, the population will almost certainly decline rather dramatically over a period of years; and maybe not all that many years.
Now the question then is why are the doe/fawn ratios this low? Certainly something is selectively killing the fawns; that's the easy part. The hard part is who or what, when are they doing it, and how many are they killing? We can rule out hunters here, because they don't selectively kill fawns. The coyotes, however, do. The reason they don't kill many adult deer is that it is very dangerous for a couple of coyotes to tangle with a fully manueverable adult deer with good footing and a full head of steam . The hooves are about like a rocket propelled ball pean hammer; they break bones, cave in ribs and smash skulls and generally don't treat coyotes well at all. Fawns, however, don't have the smarts or the horsepower to do this. Certainly, then, the coyotes are a prime suspect for selective fawn mortality, and there is ample data to demonstrate this can happen. For instance, there are published papers on coyote impacts on pronghorn mortality in Arizona and eastern Oregon, white-tailed deer in central Oklahoma, mule deer in Montana and others all of which demonstrated the serious predation was in the spring/summer on the fawn segment of the population. If this is also occuring in Colorado, examining doe/fawn ratios in the area of interest would likely point this out. This would likely be enough to formulate our hypothesis that predation may be the culprit or at least a major component of it especially if there are other areas where doe/fawn ratios are normal.
Then, we need to go to the experimental phase of the investigation. However, we don't really need to do this until we have a working hypothesis. To summarize, I suspect the governor's office may very well be correct or at least they may have access to some data that the Colorado DOW does not or chooses not to reference for whatever reason. Political correctness? Maybe.
Sorry about the length of this post, but your questions are excellent and need a thorough answer.
Regards
I have to admit to being unfamiliar with the Colorado mule deer decline except I have heard of this, but if I can ask some questions perhaps we can put together at least a hypothesis. Additionally, the decline is not restricted to Colorado, but is also occuring in Idaho and possibly Utah.
Anyway, I agree that high mountains are not real great year around country for most wildlife species. Certainly big game migrate from winter to summer ranges and vice versa. This doesn't occur in the northern plains, because everything has about the same wind chill factor--damn cold, sometimes bordering on insane. Nevertheless, both deer and coyotes are highly adaptable, and can thrive quite nicely in highly developed neighborhoods if they have stuff to eat. For example, the area I live in is on the edge of Bismarck right up from the Missouri River. In the winter we have deer all over the neighborhood after about 10 pm or so, and they do just fine. Tonight the temp. is supposed to be -30 deg., and there will be a bunch of deer all over once it gets dark.
Re: the coyotes, they do just fine in developed neighborhoods. Certainly they kill a few deer, but they really vacuum up all the housecats and smaller dogs. They like chubby potlickers really well.
Now for the serious thinking. We would need to determine what the doe/fawn ratios are in the study area of interest. Normal mule deer doe/fawn ratios are generally from 1.0/1.0 to about 1.0/1.25 or so. If the doe/fawn ratios in the study area are really low (e.g. 1.0/0.40 or so), then the fawns are selectively dying at a higher rate than the adult female segment of the population. If hunter mortality is added onto this fawn survival rate, the population will almost certainly decline rather dramatically over a period of years; and maybe not all that many years.
Now the question then is why are the doe/fawn ratios this low? Certainly something is selectively killing the fawns; that's the easy part. The hard part is who or what, when are they doing it, and how many are they killing? We can rule out hunters here, because they don't selectively kill fawns. The coyotes, however, do. The reason they don't kill many adult deer is that it is very dangerous for a couple of coyotes to tangle with a fully manueverable adult deer with good footing and a full head of steam . The hooves are about like a rocket propelled ball pean hammer; they break bones, cave in ribs and smash skulls and generally don't treat coyotes well at all. Fawns, however, don't have the smarts or the horsepower to do this. Certainly, then, the coyotes are a prime suspect for selective fawn mortality, and there is ample data to demonstrate this can happen. For instance, there are published papers on coyote impacts on pronghorn mortality in Arizona and eastern Oregon, white-tailed deer in central Oklahoma, mule deer in Montana and others all of which demonstrated the serious predation was in the spring/summer on the fawn segment of the population. If this is also occuring in Colorado, examining doe/fawn ratios in the area of interest would likely point this out. This would likely be enough to formulate our hypothesis that predation may be the culprit or at least a major component of it especially if there are other areas where doe/fawn ratios are normal.
Then, we need to go to the experimental phase of the investigation. However, we don't really need to do this until we have a working hypothesis. To summarize, I suspect the governor's office may very well be correct or at least they may have access to some data that the Colorado DOW does not or chooses not to reference for whatever reason. Political correctness? Maybe.
Sorry about the length of this post, but your questions are excellent and need a thorough answer.
Regards
-
buffalocannon
- Posts: 1584
- Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2003 2:03 pm
Dear Pete, Ironramrod et al
Isn't the mule deer decline due to the twin forces of habitat loss and drought? Also, in Arizona at least, we are losing our trophy antelope herd and bighorn sheep. They have tried to blame this on mountain lion (I admit that we do seem to have a lot of them) and coyote (ditto) predation. They have tried to control coyote numbers by shooting them by the dozens from airplanes. Hasn't helped. Mountain lion numbers are thinned regularly. Hasn't helped. I believe lions and coyotes eat more dogs and cats in Arizona than they do wild animals anyway. After all is said and done, I believe it is habitat loss and the sustained Western drought that is thinning out the herds. I for one wish they would quit killing the lions and coyotes. They are great animals. I love to watch coyotes in the wild, but I also love to hunt mule deer, and especially eat them. Oh, our trophy elk herd in Arizona is GROWING. But, aren't elk more or less just wild cattle. Elk seem to remain long after all the "lesser" animals are gone. As a matter of fact, we now have elk living out in the flats where antelope used to roam. Just my thoughts. I am no expert. I wish it would rain, and I wish so many people from California and the Midwest weren't moving to Arizona. The drought goes on and the wild country shrinks by square miles every day. Be warned, you folks in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Colorado etc. Arizona has now become California East, and they are heading your way.
Isn't the mule deer decline due to the twin forces of habitat loss and drought? Also, in Arizona at least, we are losing our trophy antelope herd and bighorn sheep. They have tried to blame this on mountain lion (I admit that we do seem to have a lot of them) and coyote (ditto) predation. They have tried to control coyote numbers by shooting them by the dozens from airplanes. Hasn't helped. Mountain lion numbers are thinned regularly. Hasn't helped. I believe lions and coyotes eat more dogs and cats in Arizona than they do wild animals anyway. After all is said and done, I believe it is habitat loss and the sustained Western drought that is thinning out the herds. I for one wish they would quit killing the lions and coyotes. They are great animals. I love to watch coyotes in the wild, but I also love to hunt mule deer, and especially eat them. Oh, our trophy elk herd in Arizona is GROWING. But, aren't elk more or less just wild cattle. Elk seem to remain long after all the "lesser" animals are gone. As a matter of fact, we now have elk living out in the flats where antelope used to roam. Just my thoughts. I am no expert. I wish it would rain, and I wish so many people from California and the Midwest weren't moving to Arizona. The drought goes on and the wild country shrinks by square miles every day. Be warned, you folks in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Colorado etc. Arizona has now become California East, and they are heading your way.
-
Kelley O.Roos
- Posts: 411
- Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2002 11:02 am
-
pete
- Posts: 2259
- Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 10:16 pm
- Location: Colorado
I tried finding a coyote predation article on the Colo. DOW site but couldn't find one so I looked through the Google site and found plenty of stuff. Un fortunately it's tough to sort through the special interest group stuff both pro and anti hunting. A couple that might be neutral was from a guy named Tom Poole who said that elk cows will take the best calving / fawning grounds and when their number's are high (which they are right now) that the deer are forced to take the more marginal terrain allowing coyotes to more easily find fawns. Another one named Kyle Van Why says that predator's only have a short time in which fawns are at their most vulnerable and easy to catch so their overall effect is uncertain.
ironramrod; You're obviously light years ahead of me on this but on the fawn/doe ratios wouldn't the fawn no's have to be known at a cerain time and then their remaning no's checked at a later date to verify a mortality rate? I guess what I'm thinking is that increased winter stress from elk, habitat loss or some other thing might cause doe's to give birth to fewer fawns in the first place causing lower ratio's. Just a stupid thought probably.
buffalocannon; I think you're right in the drought having something to do with it too. I can't help but think though that for who know's how long coyotes and deer and antelope haved lived together without us around and only lately has there been so much trouble. I don't know.
ironramrod; You're obviously light years ahead of me on this but on the fawn/doe ratios wouldn't the fawn no's have to be known at a cerain time and then their remaning no's checked at a later date to verify a mortality rate? I guess what I'm thinking is that increased winter stress from elk, habitat loss or some other thing might cause doe's to give birth to fewer fawns in the first place causing lower ratio's. Just a stupid thought probably.
buffalocannon; I think you're right in the drought having something to do with it too. I can't help but think though that for who know's how long coyotes and deer and antelope haved lived together without us around and only lately has there been so much trouble. I don't know.
-
ironramrod
- Posts: 1364
- Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 1:12 pm
- Location: Dakota Territory
Gentlemen,
A few more comments. I certainly can't speak re: the impact of drought on big game birth rates or fawn survival rates in other areas, but here in the northern plains we haven't seen any real differences between doe/fawn ratios in wet cycles v. dry cycles. The place we see some declines in fawn production in this country is after we have a really hard winter. You can't imagine winter until you've been in one of those strong 3 day blizzards we get in this country. Makes one wonder how anything can survive. Amazing.
I know even less about elk than I do about deer, but elk are certainly not oversize cattle. They are really spooky around people, generally very smart and alert, and don't put up with civilization nearly as well as deer. When deer are scared they will easily run a mile or so, but elk are liable to run to the next zip code.
Pete: you asked an excellent question. I almost addressed it in the last post, but it would have been really long. Anyway, actual birth rates of deer are really tough to determine. One can examine uteri in the fall harvest and get some indication of birth rates the previous spring, but it is not super accurate. Doe/fawn ratios in the summer are tough to get, because of the hiding behavior exhibited by the fawns. Thus, the big game people often use pre-season aerial surveys to determine these ratios, but they have some accuracy problems. The normal doe/fawn ratios I discussed previously were determined by aerial surveys in ND. What the big game people generally do is to compare ratios between management units at a given time (e.g. pre-harvest) rather than compare ratios within one unit over a time interval. This, then, eliminates the very problem you point out.
If ratios are significantly higher or lower than normal, then they attempt to determine the reasons. Sometimes they do really good at determining the reason, and other times they can't even hit the ground with their hats. Such is life for a field biologist. We always have way more questions than answers or the money needed to determine the answers.
Certainly I'm not always right, but having worked with the predators for an entire career I immediately suspect them as part or maybe all of the problem, whenever anyone talks about declining big game populations and really low doe/fawn ratios.
Regards
A few more comments. I certainly can't speak re: the impact of drought on big game birth rates or fawn survival rates in other areas, but here in the northern plains we haven't seen any real differences between doe/fawn ratios in wet cycles v. dry cycles. The place we see some declines in fawn production in this country is after we have a really hard winter. You can't imagine winter until you've been in one of those strong 3 day blizzards we get in this country. Makes one wonder how anything can survive. Amazing.
I know even less about elk than I do about deer, but elk are certainly not oversize cattle. They are really spooky around people, generally very smart and alert, and don't put up with civilization nearly as well as deer. When deer are scared they will easily run a mile or so, but elk are liable to run to the next zip code.
Pete: you asked an excellent question. I almost addressed it in the last post, but it would have been really long. Anyway, actual birth rates of deer are really tough to determine. One can examine uteri in the fall harvest and get some indication of birth rates the previous spring, but it is not super accurate. Doe/fawn ratios in the summer are tough to get, because of the hiding behavior exhibited by the fawns. Thus, the big game people often use pre-season aerial surveys to determine these ratios, but they have some accuracy problems. The normal doe/fawn ratios I discussed previously were determined by aerial surveys in ND. What the big game people generally do is to compare ratios between management units at a given time (e.g. pre-harvest) rather than compare ratios within one unit over a time interval. This, then, eliminates the very problem you point out.
If ratios are significantly higher or lower than normal, then they attempt to determine the reasons. Sometimes they do really good at determining the reason, and other times they can't even hit the ground with their hats. Such is life for a field biologist. We always have way more questions than answers or the money needed to determine the answers.
Certainly I'm not always right, but having worked with the predators for an entire career I immediately suspect them as part or maybe all of the problem, whenever anyone talks about declining big game populations and really low doe/fawn ratios.
Regards
-
Omaha Poke
- Posts: 972
- Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2003 6:52 pm
- Location: Edmonds, WA
Randy-
Hidehunter
- Posts: 214
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 1:26 pm
- Location: Wisconsin
During 2003 I killed an even 80 deer (mostly ag-damage control permits) the last one was on New Year's Eve. Also killed an elk. I'm in withdrawl for the next week and a half - then I head to New Mexico for a cow elk hunt. Hopefully after that more permits will be issued.
I'm no Jim White or O.P. Hanna. But at least I've had the chance to at least sample what it must have been like to be a 19th century market hunter.
I'm no Jim White or O.P. Hanna. But at least I've had the chance to at least sample what it must have been like to be a 19th century market hunter.
-
MudChild
- Posts: 81
- Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 8:29 pm
- Location: Beautiful MO Ozarks
ironramrod:
I lusted after a job with MDC for all my life. Just when I finally get to where I'm accepting the fact that I'm going to be stuck on the hamster wheel that is Wal-Mart, Inc., I read something that a wildlife biologist writes and it starts all over again. I'm held down by the fact that to get a job, I'd most likely have to move and I can't do that (stepkids).
As far as the use of the word "harvest," I've never really had a problem with it. I think it better suits the palates of the general public. Good PR is something hunters and shooters alike could use. After all, the general public is still who votes in our legislators, and, in my experience, the rights of gun owners and hunters fall pretty low on the list of political priorities of many people.
I lusted after a job with MDC for all my life. Just when I finally get to where I'm accepting the fact that I'm going to be stuck on the hamster wheel that is Wal-Mart, Inc., I read something that a wildlife biologist writes and it starts all over again. I'm held down by the fact that to get a job, I'd most likely have to move and I can't do that (stepkids).
As far as the use of the word "harvest," I've never really had a problem with it. I think it better suits the palates of the general public. Good PR is something hunters and shooters alike could use. After all, the general public is still who votes in our legislators, and, in my experience, the rights of gun owners and hunters fall pretty low on the list of political priorities of many people.
-
pete
- Posts: 2259
- Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 10:16 pm
- Location: Colorado
ironramrod; You seem like you're being abjective on this predator issue and since you worked with them I'll trust your judgement. I used to check the stomach contents of the ones I shot and there was anything and everything in there including orange surveyer's tape in one. Once in a while I'd find antelope hair but not often but this was during the winter and not the spring fawning time. I was telling my wife the other day that since deer and antelope get hunted the coyotes might as well too. I just hate to let them lay there unused. By the way I have eaten coyote and it's got a real distinctive taste. Not great and not terrible but distinctive. I shot two one morning and had made an arrangement with another guy that if I shot any he would cook it up. So I gave him a hind quarter from each and he crock potted one with barbeque sauce and broiled the other and brought it to work. We got some weird looks but acouple of other guys tried it too. I haven't eaten it again but what the hey.
On the elk vs. deer issue, elk are skittish in the wild that's true but I've got to wonder why elk and whitetail adapt so well to game ranches and muledeer don't. I read an article once that said you can buy a huge elk and whitetail through a guided hunt but nobody can guarantee a huge muledeer.
I bet those northern plains blizzards are intense they're bad enough here on the Colorado plains. I don't like 'em at all.
Hidehunter; That's quite a tally. You better go to Hunter's Anonymous :wink: . Just joking Did you get any of them with your Sharps?
MudChild; I don't think the general public is fooled by the term though.
On the elk vs. deer issue, elk are skittish in the wild that's true but I've got to wonder why elk and whitetail adapt so well to game ranches and muledeer don't. I read an article once that said you can buy a huge elk and whitetail through a guided hunt but nobody can guarantee a huge muledeer.
I bet those northern plains blizzards are intense they're bad enough here on the Colorado plains. I don't like 'em at all.
Hidehunter; That's quite a tally. You better go to Hunter's Anonymous :wink: . Just joking Did you get any of them with your Sharps?
MudChild; I don't think the general public is fooled by the term though.
-
Bearbait2
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 11:22 am
- Location: Sawmill Creek, Alaska
-
Hidehunter
- Posts: 214
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 1:26 pm
- Location: Wisconsin
pete - Unfortunatly I haven't used my Sharps on deer as of yet. There are some issues with the sights that need to be worked out. M.O.B. (Minute Of Buffalo.) accuracy won't work on runty deer. The Sharps would serve well for these hunts - fixed ground blind, deer coming from a known direction to feed in crops. And I'm sure the .45 cal slug would leave a better blood trail and do less meat damage than the .270. Plus it would be fun to see the look on the farmer's face when I show up for "duty" with a fully loaded cartridge belt and cross sticks.
-
Hidehunter
- Posts: 214
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 1:26 pm
- Location: Wisconsin
I've been studying the animal rights movement for some time. The use of the term 'harvest' isn't fooling anyone. Those who oppose hunting point to this usage as "proof" that we hunters know in our own minds that we're in a dirty business and have something to hide.
I have yet to hear any non-hunter who finds the use of the word "kill" objectionable. Maybe the "soft sell" usage of 'harvest' isn't working any more.
I have yet to hear any non-hunter who finds the use of the word "kill" objectionable. Maybe the "soft sell" usage of 'harvest' isn't working any more.
-
MudChild
- Posts: 81
- Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 8:29 pm
- Location: Beautiful MO Ozarks
pete,
You may be right about the public not being fooled about the word. But if using the word "harvest" seperates what I do from some idiot who simply "kills," then I'd rather "harvest" deer. The guy two hollows over from me simply kills. He shoots the deer, usually from his truck, then leaves them where they lie. Rumor is, he bragged about killing over 200 deer last fall alone. He "kills." I hunt within legal bounds and use the meat. I definitely want to be counted in a seperate group from him.
You may be right about the public not being fooled about the word. But if using the word "harvest" seperates what I do from some idiot who simply "kills," then I'd rather "harvest" deer. The guy two hollows over from me simply kills. He shoots the deer, usually from his truck, then leaves them where they lie. Rumor is, he bragged about killing over 200 deer last fall alone. He "kills." I hunt within legal bounds and use the meat. I definitely want to be counted in a seperate group from him.
-
The Montanan
- Posts: 215
- Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2002 11:13 pm
- Location: Kalispell, Mt
Even the "Greenies" have gotten into the action on the use of certain words. They say, "Your killing the tree's" and the industry says, "We are harvesting the tree's" and the industry has employed "Harvesters" to seek out and sell certain stands of tree's that will be cut down and marketed for use.
So I guess this will go on long after you and I are gone.
The farmer kills his crops, but harvest them for market and consumption. I kill a deer (many) or an elk (few), bison (none yet) but will harvest the meat to my freezer for later consumption.
Think I will go have me some venison pepper stick from the doe that I harvested
So I guess this will go on long after you and I are gone.
The farmer kills his crops, but harvest them for market and consumption. I kill a deer (many) or an elk (few), bison (none yet) but will harvest the meat to my freezer for later consumption.
Think I will go have me some venison pepper stick from the doe that I harvested
The Montanan
"I don't care what a person shoots, as long as he shoots it well"
"I don't care what a person shoots, as long as he shoots it well"