<----- Sound Off

I've hear it all, read it all, and lived through the good old days to come up with my own conclusion of what has happened to the mule deer herds

Now, at the age of 53, I have seen the rise and fall of the best mule deer hunting in the west. I have read hundreds of stories and articles on mule deer and the hunters who have enjoyed the hunt and the scenery of their habitat. I have read in books, magazines, and newspapers the biologist’s message, the director’s message, the chairman’s message, the Fish and Game message, the environmentalist’s message, the editor’s message, and the wildlife specialist’s message. All of them have their ideas as to why there aren’t many mule deer around these days. (Just in case we hunters haven’t noticed!) They all come up with their own theories as to why mule deer have died off. Some of the reasons they have come up with.....I tell you, they are the best of the best! Two years ago (I still have the article) in the Garfield County News the DWR said that the main reason most hunters had poor success was because of the thick trees. With full bellies they didn’t need to stay out in the open so the hunters couldn’t find them in the daylight. Another year the reason was that it has been so dry that the deer have had to leave their normal areas and will be scattered all over the state and hard to find. So we expect a hard hunt this year. In 1983 the excuse was that we have had so much water this year that the deer don’t have to stay close to their few watering holes. They can go any place in the state so they will be scattered and, therefore, a poor hunt again.

I even had one avid writer for a popular hunting magazine a few years ago want me to give him a few pictures of some big bucks that I had killed in the past year or two, so he could write an article on "They Are Still Out There Just Like They Have Always Been If you Are Hunter Enough To Find Them".

How many articles have you read that talk about the elusive mule deer, the new mule deer, the adapted mule deer, the smarter mule deer, and the desert mule deer? What I believe they are trying to say is, "The big mulies are still out there, but they have changed their ways." So all of you who wish for success had better change too. I must be getting dumber and dumber instead of smarter and smarter in my old age because everywhere I hunt or go I am seeing nothing. The Fish and Game must have started a new breed of deer. They don’t leave tracks, they don’t crap on the ground, and they eat out of the top of trees because where I’m walking I’m seeing nothing.

Everywhere I go I find that most people I talk to are upset about the ways our deer herds in the west have been managed. They always ask me, "What do you think the main problems are and how would you manage it if you were in charge?" Time and time again the departments who manage our game are never able to come to any conclusion because all the problems are too

complicated and must be discussed in a new light and setting each year. We must spend more money and do more research on every subject to give the most up-to-date scientific information available in order to make the wisest and best programs for our day.

Our deer problems here in the west are a whole lot simpler than the "boys" want us to know. Two things in a nutshell would make a big difference in the comeback of the mule deer.

1. Make the deer more important than money

2. Manage wisely all things that are killing deer, no matter the social implications.

First, let’s discuss making deer more important than the money. I think most of these researchers, biologists, and SWR specialists don’t want to lose whatever money (grant money or otherwise) they are getting so they never come up with a definite conclusion. On television I have watched probably 20 different studies on the great white shark. Somebody puts up two million for the study and away a whole bunch of shark biologists go with nothing but the best equipment money can buy. Because, after all, we are studying the biggest and baddest of all sharks. Two million dollars later the report comes in. If you go where white sharks live, throw blood in the water and chum, a white shark will show up. Then, if you throw a big piece of meat tied to a rope overboard, the shark will proceed to bite the heck out of it allowing you to take some awesome pictures. And if you are in your wetsuit inside a steel cage, at that moment in time he will try to eat you too - awesome! The conclusion - we must get paid a whole lot of money and do this again and again for the next 50 years before we can come to any conclusions. I believe it is the same story with the mule deer researchers.

Let me give you another example. Back in the good old days here in Utah, the Fish and Game, as they were called then, would sell over 300,000 deer tags every year. It was a family tradition to go deer hunting. Then, one day that surplus of deer that Dad said had always been there since World War II was gone. By the early 70s a big change in hunter success was starting to show up and the ease of killing a big four point or better was starting to slip away. No longer could the average hunter take a day or two off work and kill the buck of his dreams.

Within five years most hunters had started to murmer on the poor deer success that their families were having. By 1979 the sale of deer tags had dropped way off and the out-of-state tag sales were way down as well. The mule deer were in big trouble. In short, there were more things killing them than the deer herds were able to replace. Now, for the first time in 40 years, the Fish and Game had a big deer problem. The bread and butter of this state, the mule deer, were starting to lose money.

If you were smart and wanted the deer herds brought back in line again you would manage those things that could bring their increase over and above what was being killed each year. Now there are things that we can manage and things that we can’t. We can manage how many hunters hunt and how many days they hunt. We can manage predators better than ever before and we can manage habitats. We can’t manage Mother Nature, most road kills, disease, and deer caught in fences. So, to manage deer and keep them on an increase you must deduct the losses each year from the things you can manage. To do this, however, would mean a loss in tag sales and a great cost to control predators. It would take away much "wanted" (not needed) money for those in our wildlife management programs for the first time in 40 years. The new trucks, coffee pots, buildings, health benefits, retirement funds, and cost of living increases would all have to take a cut back if this were to happen. In other words the deer have to be more important than the money.

The cry of the people was putting a lot of pressure on our wildlife management people so in 1980, they closed the Paunsaugant, San Juan, Elk Ridge, Pine Valley, Comanche, and Bumblebee units for five years. In 1985, they reopened these units on a limited entry that would cost more money to hunt (you see, they still needed their money). They made it legal for 14 year olds to hunt which meant more money, but more pressure on deer we don’t have. They sold lifetime tags for $500. Even if you move out of the state, they will send you a tag. More money for them! They upped the cost of all tags both hunting and fishing, and it will now cost you $5 to just put in for a hunt (called a handling fee); everything was moremoney!

Let me give you another example; the Crawford Mountain unit (in Utah) by Bear Lake is mostly Wyoming deer coming in for winter, and there are 31 tags that are let out on this unit. The money for the tags equals $1344 for residents and $1224 for non-residents for a total of $2568. However, there are 651 applicants who put in for the draw at $5 each, which equals $3255. That’s about $6000 in fees to permit hunters to harvest Wyoming’s deer. It wouldn’t be so bad if they ever used that money for the deer! You can add all the entry fees for the Utah deer herd. It is millions of dollars. What do they do to improve the herds? Do they have predator control programs? Will they feed the deer during bad winters like 1993? Do they purchase winter range for deer? Nope! In most cases they use that money to pay more officers and buy more new trucks, etc. They have closed fish hatcheries. They don’t plant any birds. They cut the number of fish and birds you can keep, but upped every tag and fee. Then, in 1995, the legislature put a cap on the whole state of Utah: 97,000 deer to be killed statewide. Wow! That’s a big drop from 300,000. Think of the money! But the DWR, as they are now called, (I wonder why they changed their name from Fish and Game?) had to have that money to keep all their new trucks, buildings, retirement funds, and cost of living no matter what the cost to our deer herds. The money was much more important than the deer. So, even though by law only 97,000 tags were to be sold, in 1995 through 1999 they sold over 70,000 more tags than was allocated by legislature. A profit to them of over two million. Have you ever wondered why our deer herds have never come back? They say it is because of loss of habitat and poaching and drought and...They never told you the rest of the story, did they?

In the past 10 years or so there has been a big change in the propaganda we all read on predators. The big shift from right to left has been slow and easy like melting wax from a burning candle: not too hot, and the flame can be seen or heard only at very close range. Some of the top men and women in the world with every degree that man can bestow on one another is in place. All of the latest knowledge in every scientific classroom agenda has been brought to the forefront on today’s predators. It’s no longer a good thing to tell your kids the story of Little Red Riding Hood and the big bad wolf. You see, in today’s world the odds are that a wolf wouldn’t be in granny’s house in her bed waiting for little Red Riding Hood.

I always have to smile when I read today’s articles on predators written by scientific biologists. I love their big question. "Are predators really eating all our deer, elk and sheep?" Then they use the numbers to muddy the water. To us hunters, there is no question. The answer: heck yes! They’re eating anything and everything they can catch and kill 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, anytime and anyplace they can. When was the last time any one of these biologists, spending millions of dollars, has seen or has on film a pack of wolves grazing on grass along the ditch bank? Or fighting over a blueberry patch? I’ve always said, "You only have to look at those teeth and you can tell they’re not much of a grass grazer." Theysay wolves run the lowlands and not the mountains, therefore, mule deer are hardly ever affected like whitetail and elk are. Here’s a number to think about. Do you know that I have killed 98 percent of all my mule deer in the lowlands?

I love the title of one story. It reads "Return of the Native Wolf to America’s Mule Deer Country. Are Hunters Ready?" It should have been "Return of the Big Bad Wolf to America. Are the Deer, Elk, Sheep and Everything Else Ready to get Their Butts Eaten Off?" Mr. Ed Bangs, USFWS Wolf Recovery Coordinator, points out that elk and deer are strong, fast and smart - magnificent creatures and that they evolved from pressure exerted by predators. The slow and stupid ones are gone. So, I guess unless you are strong, fast, and smart you are not worth having around. I wonder how long the wolf will last in the states this time.

I read that after 50 years of absence, wolves are reclaiming their place in the west. Under the protection of the Endangered Species Act and the successful management of deer and elk herds, wolves are again killing everything they can in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho. If you were to take away all the laws, rules, money, and regulations on predators and especially wolves, how long would these strong, fast and smart boys last? Not long. Almost every article I read on predators has no up-to-date knowledge on the effect that predators are having on our big game. I read that we as humans should not be competing with our families, homes, and livelihoods when it comes to predators.

In many social circles today there is a renewed yearning to hear a wolf howl and see a grizzly’s track; that we need more and more wilderness for more and more predators and less and less people (man); and that man must have a better attitude and more tolerance to let these predators kill anything, anytime, anyplace 24 hours a day and 365 days a year. But you and your boys or family can’t hunt, fish, camp, run, jump, or play here at all. Just give us the money and we will fence you out and even use your money to buy the chains and locks.

One thing is for sure; all predators kill and eat meat to stay alive. So, something must die so they can live. Have you ever noticed that most films made of predators never show you the way it really is? - how they kill another animal to eat it? They hardly ever show the killing. Wow! That one died of old age, or he had a bad disease, or maybe he died of a heart attack and that’s why they were able to kill and eat that one. These "good" old boys are doing all the other animals a favor by killing and eating them since they were in such pain anyway.

Like melting wax from a burning candle they all have been made to look like heroes of honor. A lot of agencies that ignore the potential social implications of predator management stand to lose not only public credibility, but the authority to control all predators also. Look at California and the mountain lion; Arizona and the leg trap; the coyote and 1080 government trappers; Alaska killing wolves out of planes.

But, in the end, most biologists will say that predators have very little effect on our big game. Weather, habitat conditions, and man are the big factors on the decline of mule deer in western states. Funny that the mule deer should be so far down on the list when it comes to priorities and the predators so high. When sheep were planted on Mt. Nebo in Utah they all came up missing. Biologists had to kill 25-30 lions on Timp to save the sheep there. Places in Utah like the Paunsaugant, Elk Ridge, Henry Mountains, Book Cliffs, La Sal, West Desert, Thousand Lake, Dolores Triangle, Crawford Mountain, and Oak Creek all had to be put on a limited-entry buck hunt to save the deer populations there.

I guess each of us needs to answer this question, "Are predators killing and eating all our deer and other game?" If so, "How are they affecting each species? Can we, and will we, let man be the tender of the garden no matter the money or social implications?" For me, and most of the hunters I talk to, predators are one of the major causes of the mule deer decline in the west. Why the biologist would not come forward and declare this is a mystery. You ask yourself why? Could it be that it will affect their jobs? Interesting question, huh? Why do foundations, formed for the sole purpose of protecting mule deer, hide behind closed doors and not stand up for what needs to be done? Could it be the money and the fear of law suits, etc.? Yes, I know it is because I have talked to them. And until deer are more important than money and we wisely manage all things that are killing deer no matter the social implications, we will never see the return of the mule deer to where they were in the golden days!

What Happened and What is Being Done

A retired state wildlife agent, or game protector, as they were then called, recalled the early days in Pend Oreille County. In an interview published in the Game Bulletin, forerunner to Washington Wildlife, he said:

"People talk about all the deer we used to have over here, back around 1915. I hunted deer half the winter some of those years. Riding around on a saddle horse I’d see two, maybe three deer. They never heard of anyone seeing five deer in one day."

The 1930s probably saw the greatest increase in deer of any time in the state’s history. The Game Department conservatively estimates that deer numbers tripled during this time. The greatest increases during the decade were in eastern Washington, with the greatest growth on the west side of the Cascades coming a few years later - from about 1935 to 1945. In 1936, hunters reported a take of only 6,000 buck deer statewide, while in 1942, the total kill was close to 30,000 animals.

Mule Deer numbers probably bottomed out around the turn of the century, with an estimated 40,000 animals statewide in 1900. Mule Deer populations climbed to approximately 150,000 by 1938, reached 250,000 in 1950 and peaked at 301,000 or more in the mid-1960s. As land management and wildlife management practices changed in the 1960s and 70s, the deer population began to decline from its historical high.

Today, New Mexico’s mule deer population may be as high as 140,000 and dropping. To address the problems that mule deer face, New Mexico will address five key areas: habitat, law enforcement, aerial surveys and harvest data, predator management and public relations. These action items have been designed to improve deer habitat, decrease poaching, gather more accurate data, increase fawn survival, and increase public awareness of the Department’s ongoing efforts to improve deer populations throughout the state.

The Colorado Division of Wildlife has been asked why it took so long to detect and react to declining mule deer numbers. In part the delay was due to the necessity of collecting several years of data before a statistically reliable trend could be established. In general it takes at least five years before a trend in these kinds of data can be detected with any degree of statistical reliability.

Nonetheless, some of the blame for failing to detect the mule deer decline sooner lies with the processes used to gather and analyze mule deer population data. Hunters and other publics interested in deer expect the Division of Wildlife to know the size and trends of mule deer herds throughout the state. To meet these demands, the Division attempted to inventory vital statistics of Colorado’s important deer herds every year. However, estimating numbers, birth rates and mortality rates of a deer herd is expensive. It is not unusual to spend $50,000 per herd per year to gather the minimum amount of data needed to reliably track deer trends. With nearly 100 important deer herd units in the state, estimating vital statistics of each deer herd every year could require annual expenditures in excess of five million in inventories. Two strategies were adopted to control costs and still conduct the necessary inventories: 1) grouping ecologically similar herd units into larger inventory units called Data Analysis Units and 2) conducting inventories in Data Analysis Units in alternate years. The result was fewer estimates of mule deer population statistics and longer time spans required before reliable trends could be established.

Currently, counts of key deer herds are scheduled to be made annually; and efforts are underway to upgrade deer inventory procedures, data analysis methodologies, and evaluations of hunting season and regulatory strategies through the use of management experiments

Rapid increases in the human population are causing substantial changes in the landscapes of Colorado. Two separate analysis revealed that about 4000 square miles of habitat will be developed during 1960-2020, roughly 60-70 square miles per year. By far the greatest share of this development will be in low-density (10-40 acres per house) categories. This implies that developing strategies to make such development "friendly" to wildlife will pay large dividends in meeting the habitat needs for Colorado’s people and Colorado’s wildlife.

The hey-days of the 1950s and 1960s, when deer numbers seemed to have outgrown habitat, are more and more seen as an aberration brought on by early century logging and free fire that opened the forest floor to sunlight and a "megaton" production of forage.

Mule deer populations for the Devil’s Garden winter range have declined drastically from over 30,000 in the 1950s to less than 5,000 today. The migration of this once highly abundant deer herd was once witnessed during a severe snow storm in 1938 by wildlife researcher Allan C. Randle who was inspired to write "...it was a brief but spectacular thing to see, and the suddenness with which these deer appeared and disappeared is almost unbelievable." The decline of this deer population has had major impacts on hunting opportunities, as tag quotas for this zone have declined from 1,600 bucks in 1983 to a low of 80 in 1996 and 1997. Tag quotas for this area were up to 150 in 1999 and 2000.