Something to Chew On

W

Wildman

Guest
What Happened to Utah?s Mule Deer ?Hay Days??

Among Utah?s hunting community, there is nothing more discouraging than the decline of Utah?s mule deer herds over the last 30-40 years. There are many philosophies as to why this is the case: a loss of resources necessary for deer health, a lack of predator control, increased elk numbers, more sophisticated hunting technologies, changes in weather patterns and deer killed on the highways. I am in no way suggesting that any of these philosophies haven't contributed to the decline, but there is evidence to suggest that a loss of resources necessary for deer health may be the driving force behind the decline.

Sixty four percent of the land in the State of Utah is controlled by the federal government. The vast majority of the wildlife in the state live on federal land. Nothing has more impact on the health of wildlife in the state than the way these lands are managed.

In spite of the commonly held belief that before European settlement in the mid 1800?s the area which now makes up the State of Utah was a mule deer hunters paradise, the reality is mule deer were quite scarce at that time- particularly in the extremely arid central and southern parts of the state.

The lifestyles of the Native American peoples in these areas confirm this. Many of these tribes battled hunger constantly- often resorting to eating insects to stay alive. This fact suggests that there were not enough resources to sustain large deer herds which would have provided a relatively convenient source of nutrition.

The accounts of early European explorers further confirm that the area was lacking resources. Based on these reports, thousands of European settlers avoided the area preferring to travel several hundred more miles to the more fertile regions to the west and northwest.

When the Mormon settlers decided to settle in the region, they were widely criticized for poor judgment because of the harsh conditions of the area. These harsh conditions are evident in the history of Mormon settlement. Their battles with drought and insects are well documented.

Because there was barely enough wildlife to support even the small Native American tribes in the area, Mormon settlers introduced cattle to the region. These cattle quickly overwhelmed the scarce resources and lead to the well documented overgrazing of the vegetation of the region.

As it became increasingly obvious that the resources weren't keeping up to the demands placed upon them by the cattle, solutions were sought to resolve the problem. Since cattle were a vital part of the food supply, removing the cattle was not a consideration. The only solution that didn't involve people going hungry was to try to improve the productivity of the ranges.

Over the next several decades, the land management agencies in cooperation with agricultural producers implemented large scale range improvement practices directed at increasing the productivity of the ranges. These practices included burning, chaining, logging, reseeding and the development of water sources.

Over time, the ranges became more productive than they were before Mormon settlement. This increase in production benefited the cattle, but it also benefited the wildlife significantly. As the ranges became more productive, the number of mule deer began to increase. These practices culminated with the massive mule deer populations of the mid twentieth century.

Unfortunately, just as the benefits of productivity based range management were reaching their climax, a new range management philosophy was beginning to evolve. This range management philosophy is an adaptation of the ideas of Aldo Leopold.

Leopold was a native Iowan who grew up as a hunter and outdoorsman. His interest in the outdoors led him to pursue a college education at Yale University in Forestry. Upon graduation, he accepted a position with the U. S. Forest Service in New Mexico and Arizona.

As an avid outdoorsman, Leopold enjoyed hunting. Wolves were prevalent at the time, and Leopold took great pleasure in killing them. It was on one of these hunts that he had an epiphany.

After shooting a female wolf, he walked up to the wolf which had not yet died. The wolf raised its head and looked at him. The look in the wolf?s eyes caused him to question his justification for shooting her. This experience led Leopold to rethink his philosophy of natural resource management.

He wrote about his altered philosophies in a book published shortly after his death. In the book, ?A Sand County Almanac?, Leopold described his new philosophy as ?The Land Ethic?. He summarized this idea with the words, ?A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.?

Exactly what Leopold intended for the future of land management is open to interpretation. There is evidence that he believed this ethic had its limitations. In his book, he says, ?A land ethic of course cannot prevent the alteration, management, and use of these ?resources,? but it does affirm their right to continued existence, and, at least in spots, their continued existence in a natural state.?

Whatever Leopold?s intentions were, the end result was a complete reformation of natural resource management policies over the next several decades. These new policies were based on the idea that most human intervention in nature is bad and that any human intervention in nature should be directed toward restoring landscapes to their pre-European state.

Because of this new philosophy, the traditional range improvement projects that created the abundant deer herds of the mid twentieth century were gradually phased out. Chaining came to a virtual standstill. Reseeding projects were largely abandoned. The reseeding projects that continued focused on restoring pre-European plants rather than increasing productivity. Managed fires of any significance became a thing of the past even though naturally occurring fires continued to be suppressed. Timber production went to almost zero, and water improvements on the ranges were left in disrepair.

With the lack of traditional range improvements, the productivity of the lands decreased. As the productivity of the land decreased, the competition for remaining resources increased. Ranges which cattle and wildlife had shared to their mutual benefit could no longer support either. The addition of elk to the area compounded the problem.

This shortage of resources is often blamed on the ?poor management of the last 100 years?. It is insinuated that if cattle grazing hadn't been allowed for the last 100 years we would have thriving deer herds. The fallacy of that argument is that mule deer were not as abundant in the pre-European settlement era as they were in the 1960?s.

The reality is, if we want thriving deer herds, we have to realize they were created by a philosophy of improving range productivity through management.

If we want to hold on to the ?all natural? philosophy, we better be willing to let fires burn through subdivisions and get used to intense competition for limited resources.
 
That was a pretty insightful and stimulting read.
Things are changing and depending upon personal views, can be for the good or bad.
I've always known that many factors affect mule deer but I suppose habitat is the biggest factor.
Thanks for posting,
Zeke
 
A lot of interesting stuff in your post. Leopold was an interesting
guy that had his heart in the right place, but many feel was miss guided in his later years.

No doubt even today many Mule Deer herds depend on the livestock industry to some extent. There seems to be a lot of dislike of the livestock industry in the hunting community now days for what ever reason.
 
Another example of how several different factors have lead to an increase and then decrease in mule deer. These chaining and "brush management" practices removed or reduced sage brush/bitter brush etc. And replaced them with grass. On summer and transitional ranges this could be a benefit to deer but on winter ranges it could be a detriment, especially on years with deep snow when the shrubs provided the only food above the snow. The large number of cattle had another effect - the areas they grazed provided a competitive advantage to the shrubs since the cows were clipping the grasses down. I've heard that there is 26% of the AUMs on public lands currently compared to the all time high. So maybe if we want sage & bitterbrush Back we need more cows?
So in summary, grazing and even overgrazing was good for the deer. In others chaining and brush removal was good, in others it was bad.
Thank you wildman for your thoughts and as sad as it, with all the factors leading to mule deer decline I can't see the haydays ever coming back.
 
Interesting how this article basically shows that the deer/elk can't live with or without cattle.

Deer/Elk are prevelant only because of the introduction of cattle
and they remain because of the habitat "improvements" made to sustain the cattle.


I thought this was a good read.
 
Very well reserched and articulated article. It is my own personal belief that mule deer were much more numerous out West then most biologists and historians suggest. I do not believe they were the target of most hunters as they seemed to be after the "royal elk" and buffalo. Therefore, they were very much less documented than any other animal and as result much more prolific than thought to be. Especially in the rugged mountainous areas where they migrated to higher elevations during summer. In these places, they were rarely seen by the early settlers. In times of Winter, snow prevented much large scale deer hunting and mass execution of deer as travel was more limited in these times and larger prey were sought out. Just my beliefs on the subject.
 
do the same improvements, with out the cattle, see what happens,,,,? its the tax payers money.
 
The question is: How can we go back to the "philosophy of improving range productivity through management"? Isn't that the way Deseret Land and Livestock is managing their lands?







________________________________________
I'm not one for telling my grandson how big of turd I had to pinch off from having to eat so much meat. I want to give him the antlers that hang from my wall and tell him the unforgettable experience that came with each and every one.
 
There were more elk in North America in the pre settlement days than there are now, many more , pronghorns also.
Mule deer numbers were hard to document because no one went to where they lived before the west was settled.
Plant succession because of cattle is where the large scale changes come from, and despite improvements in water sources, I don't think there is any doubt that wildlife productivity in the sagebrush rangelands have greatly declined over the last century.

The sage grouse populations alone should tell us that.
 
Although this is a good read and well thought out, comparing pre-settlement wildlife populations to present-day populations is comparing apples to oranges. So many things have changed since then there is no way you can attempt to make any comparison.

The "hay-days" of mule deer will never return.

There are so many factors contributing to mule deer decline. Habitat loss due to human encroachment; quaking aspen loss due to conifer encroachment and wildfire suppression; predator proliferation; elk proliferation; and many more, including feral horse proliferation. In my opinion predator proliferation may have the biggest effect of all. The banning of 1080( poison used for coyote control; banned in 1974 I believe). The shelf life of 1080 was about 15-25 years, depending on who you talk to. 1080 would be applied to cattle carcasses(mostly), which predators would feed on and then die; to be fed on by other predators. 1080 didn't just affect coyotes- it included eagles, foxes, and other scavenger bird species as well as other mammals. This cycle continued for many years, and as the shelf life of 1080 began to diminish, predators began to flourish.

I'm sure most of you guys are aware of the intense predator control that was done on the Kaibab during Teddy Roosevelt's term as president. Without predator populations present, mule deer populations rose to unprecedented levels; literally eating themselves out of house and home. Mulie populations subsequently crashed-big time. The predator/prey relationship is an important one; and must be kept in balance.

30 years ago, it was a rare sighting indeed to see a red fox here in Wyoming. Now, you often see them in town. Ravens were also rare. A recent study performed by Utah State University showed the increase in raven numbers to be the primary reason for the reduction in sage grouse numbers. Ravens and foxes both like eggs. Decline in duck populations can also be attributed to foxes; as they(foxes) tend to prefer riparian type habitats.

When you get right down to it, as a species the mule deer is somewhat of a wuss. They only thrive in certain habitats and situations, unlike whitetails and elk. This does not bode well for the future of the species. Where both species co-exist, mulies always lose. Whitetails are more aggressive breeders, and elk move mule deer into less desirable fawning areas, making them more susceptible to predation.

We will never see mule deer numbers like they once were; there are too many obstacles in the way nowdays.

What bothers me the most about the mule deer decline nationwide is the lack of participation in finding a solution to the problem by the vast majority of hunters.

Hunter apathy and inaction are the biggest threats to mule deer and hunting in general. JMO.
 
elkun,

I appreciate your sentiments. Unfortunately, the above mentioned practices are the only thing that has ever worked. I for one am tired of all the excuses. It worked. After forty years of failures trying "better" methods, maybe its time to scrap the utopians ideals and go with what worked.
 
piper,

I'll agree with you that pre-European settlement mule deer numbers are hard to document . I'll add to it that pre-European settlement documentation of any kind is far from absolutely scientific. We have a few journals and a few early pictures. From them, we have conjectured this "pristine native ecosystem" ideology. Any real scientist should have some real heartburn with the liberties that have been taken in doing so.

The reality is this pre-European infatuation is largely ideological- driven by the whimsical idea that at that point in time the earth was in some idealistic state simply because there were no Europeans present.

As far as wildlife productivity in the sagebrush rangelands, your point about a lack of scientifically dependable wildlife numbers 100 + years ago makes it difficult to say with certainty whether wildlife productivity in the sagebrush rangelands have declined over the last century, but there is indisputable evidence that it has declined over the past fifty years.
 
mickeymouseoutfitters,

You hit the nail on the head. Good production based management is alive and well on privately owned acreage. The problem is that 64% of the land in the state of Utah is federally managed.

The point that needs to be understood is that it is a choice. We have what we have because of the choices we are making. Granted, there are some very complicated issues- mostly legislation that has been passed in the last fifty years, but it is a choice none the less.

Those who tell you that it is impossible are essentially saying they believe it is impossible because they believe it is impossible to change the bureaucracy- not because it couldn't be done if the right decisions were made.

That is an important distinction, because, even though there are a lot of obstacles, it is not impossible from a natural resources perspective. The politics are what get in the way.

I understand that there are a lot of people who will never agree with me, but the thing that bothers me the most is when hunters start to "drink the Kool-Aid". It is a difficult battle even when hunters are on the same page.

I concede it will be impossible if people who should know better continue to convert to the "all natural" religion.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-30-13 AT 12:16PM (MST)[p]For a minute I thought the "all natural" was the way to go, and then I hunted the wilderness of Idaho. With no human presence, the animals were more curious than afraid. There is a vast amount of habitat, more than I have ever encountered. The big game populations were not only lower per square mile, but the nutritional value of the plant life was much lower. For larger antlers, next to private land is much more appealing than the high country. It is obvious to me that the state and federal lands need to be managed more aggressively. The last time I planted a garden, I am the one who had to make the ground more fertile. I am the one who planted the plants that would benefit me the most. And I am the one who watched over the plants so they would flourish.




________________________________________
I'm not one for telling my grandson how big of turd I had to pinch off from having to eat so much meat. I want to give him the antlers that hang from my wall and tell him the unforgettable experience that came with each and every one.
 
nontypical,

You bring up a lot of points. You sound like someone who may be involved in wildlife management professionally- can't say for sure.

Unfortunately, you also have the same "brow beaten" attitude that many in the wildlife management profession have. Believe it or not, that is not necessarily a criticism. The brow beaten attitude is often well earned. Who wouldn't be a little depressed having spent up to thirty or forty years in a profession where maintaining acceptable levels of wildlife is a basic expectation of your constituents, and over that period of time you have seen a massive decline in one of the most treasured species.

Furthermore, it has to be depressing to know that it doesn't have to be this way. Nothing like decades of beating your head against the wall of the bureaucracy to depress a guy.

I am in no way suggesting that these are not complicated and difficult issues, but I firmly reject the idea that the problems are a lack of natural resources to work with. The problems are largely political.

As per your points,

"comparing pre-settlement wildlife populations to present-day populations is comparing apples to oranges. So many things have changed since then there is no way you can attempt to make any comparison"

I actually agree with you from a scientific standpoint. The pre-settlement comparisons are much more conjecture than hard data. This is true for not just wildlife populations, but habitat as well. This idea that somehow we really know how things really were before European settlement should be taken with a grain of salt.

"The "hay-days" of mule deer will never return."

I respect your opinion. But it is an opinion, and an opinion only. From a science perspective, it is useless. We know some things from the past- not as much as we often claim to know, but the future will be the result of decisions that we make from here on out. Although the past can make the corrective course of the future more difficult than it could have been, I don't believe it condemns the future.

"There are so many factors contributing to mule deer decline. Habitat loss due to human encroachment; quaking aspen loss due to conifer encroachment and wildfire suppression; predator proliferation; elk proliferation; and many more, including feral horse proliferation"

There are many factors. As I mentioned in my original post, I believe all of these have played a role. I just don't think most of them have occurred on a scale equal to the scale of the decline. The one that has is the lack of land management- including "quaking aspen loss due to conifer encroachment". (The aspen issue is worthy of a post of its own- maybe next, but it isn't just wildfire suppression, it is a lack of prescribed burning.)

In saying this I don't mean to diminish the predator control issues. They are an issue and would be second on my list.

"I'm sure most of you guys are aware of the intense predator control that was done on the Kaibab during Teddy Roosevelt's term as president. Without predator populations present, mule deer populations rose to unprecedented levels; literally eating themselves out of house and home. Mulie populations subsequently crashed-big time. The predator/prey relationship is an important one; and must be kept in balance"

I totally agree. Predator/prey relationships have to be kept in balance. But this can be done with hunting. I think not having enough hunters to keep the predator/prey relationship in balance would be a problem mule deer managers would love to have.

"When you get right down to it, as a species the mule deer is somewhat of a wuss. They only thrive in certain habitats and situations, unlike whitetails and elk. This does not bode well for the future of the species. Where both species co-exist, mulies always lose. Whitetails are more aggressive breeders, and elk move mule deer into less desirable fawning areas, making them more susceptible to predation."

I don't deny that there is competition among species, but it is really a lack of resources. The more resources you have, the more AUMs you have. At that point, it is a management decision what percentage of different species to maintain.

"We will never see mule deer numbers like they once were; there are too many obstacles in the way nowdays"

I completely understand your pessimism, but until we all decide to hang up our hunting boots, let's keep working at it.

"What bothers me the most about the mule deer decline nationwide is the lack of participation in finding a solution to the problem by the vast majority of hunters."

There is no doubt that we as hunters- and really the populace in general- are not as involved in public policy as we should be.

"Hunter apathy and inaction are the biggest threats to mule deer and hunting in general"

Although hunter apathy and inaction are a problem, to say that they are "the biggest threats" is like saying that mule deer apathy is the problem when mountain lions eat them. The biggest threat to mule deer and hunting in general, in my opinion, is the wacko, radical environmentalist worldviews that have dominated the conversation for the last 30-40 years.
 
I agree with Mic 100%, We've hunted forest service and blm land where there are no livestock grazed, with very little to no elk or deer other than a few tracks passin through. As far as sage grouse go, get rid of the birds of prey, ravens and crows, you'll see chicken numbers rise pretty quick. Problem with that is it doesn't follow the enviros get rid of the livestock at any cost plan. If you want to find sage grouse to hunt go to the nearest alfalfa field.
 
If you read the diaries and the records kept by the first American-European traders/trapper/explorers-surveyors some areas had abundant big game, other areas had very little, if any. These men became some of the best and most capable hunters and self sufficient outdoors men the world ever produced. If there was an animal with in riding/walking distance these guys could find and kill it.

In the 1950's through the 1980's there were hundreds of thousands of mule deer in southern Utah, from Utah Lake to the Arizona border. When Jedediah Smith and his trappers traveled south from the 1826 rendezvous in Cache Valley, they nearly starved to death after they left the southern shores of Utah Lake. The could find very little game in what became Nebo, San Pete, Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron or Washington Counties. No sheep, deer, buffalo, antelope etc. The few Indians they encountered were living on small rodents, nuts and roots, and very few of those.

It wasn't just getting snow bound in the Rockies that caused these early travelers to eat their horses, mules and even their leather possibles bags. Nor was it because they were poor hunters. There was simply no wild game, nor had there been, since the Anasazi left the area 700 to 800 hundreds years earlier. We know that from archeological studies of the camps of the Piutes and Utes.

Yet, a hundred and thirty years later, after tens of thousands of sheep and cattle had over grazed every acre of Southern Utah, we had the hundreds of thousands of mule deer on the same ranges Jedediah nearly starved to death trying to cross in 1826 and again in 1827.

How can that be?

DC
 
I have to agree with nontypical 100% The days when Mule Deer flourished the very most was during the 1080 era. No question at all, And that has been well documented also. A while ago on here there was a documentary on Ted Riggs and how he trapped around northern Arizona. It basically said he never even saw a deer until a couple years of thinning out predators with the use of 1080 and also trapping. And after that deer sightings were more and more common every year. There is no doubt coyotes are the biggest problem especially on young fawns and does right after giving birth. And without 1080 or any other form of poisoning, there is really no way to ever get the predator problem under control again, not with any bounty or trapping or anything. You may kill a couple dogs in a pack, but your not going to put a real dent in the overall population. That and heavy fire suppression alone will result in an ever declining mule deer herd.
 
Wildman, it will work. with out the cows,the old ways worked' we just don't need to give livestock a free ride,,, like we have for a 100 years,,,,
 
stories about the lack of game in the past are laughable, middle summer down in the hot desert going to California and they almost starved? I wonder why.

There are animals that can thrive in todays habitat, look at elk in NE Nevada, they are doing great and could expand greatly, now whats stopping them?, why do they have all these excessive cow elk hunts?
Ranchers that graze their animals on public land, that's why, are more cows and poison the solution? yea right.
Why don't mule deer expand like the elk and antelope have?
Habitat is why.
Habitat has changed over the last 50 years, drought, invasive plants, Cheat grass especially, those are a couple of big factors.

Wildman, why does the majority of wildlife live on federal land in Utah? You do know that the most productive lands are all private, don't you?. that's why they became private in the first place.
Sounds to me like your hitting the antidepressants pretty hard, there is no reasonably possible way mule deer will return to the levels of the "good old days" and if that hurts your feelings? so be it.

Weather and plant succession are all but impossible for humans to control in anything but a very small scale. Bring cattle and domestic sheep levels to their historic highs in the arid west and your looking at an ecological disaster, it would be a warm welcome to the third world, thorns, weeds, and the end of our productive wildlife lands.
Bring in the poison and in a few decades and I bet you would beg to have it back like it is now.

Sorry but all these trained biologists probably aren't as stupid as you seem to think.
 
This is a complex situation with many, many variables. Western US population growth, human encroachment into the wildland/urban interface, climate and hydrologic cycle changes, fire cycle changes, overgrazing by livestock, invasive and non-native plants and animals, out of whack predator prey relations, competition with other wildlife and livestock, industry, old decedent stands of sagebrush with low nutritional value on winter ranges, forest succession and Aspen decline, OHV use and access, wilderness, bureaucracy (state and federal), and politicians have all had negative impacts on mule deer herds across the west.

I just got back from a week long antelope hunt where the BLM has literally planted tens of thousands of acres of non-native cultivar plants (Forage Kochia and Crested wheatgrass) all over the place on traditional deer winter ranges. This is a practice that has been going on for decades and has not increased deer numbers by any means. I'm sure it doesn't help that the range was littered with cattle that seemed to be taking more than their fair share.

In theory, most land managers manage land for healthy and stable plant and animal populations. The pre-European (white people) ?reference state? gives information what landscapes looked like before being riddled with anthropogenic impacts. Managing an ecosystem for a reference state is virtually impossible in most situations and isn't a common practice in modern range management.
 
Wildman- Nope, not a wildlife professional by any stretch. Just a guy that is passionate about mule deer and participates in whatever activity I think will help the mule deer. I wouldn't describe myself as "brow-beaten", either. Maybe just somewhat frustrated; but for sure a realist. While I appreciate your optimism about the future of mule deer, I just don't see how we will ever return to the glory days of mule deer hunting. I agree with everything you have said so far, except for that.

My reasons for calling out hunters for our apathy is because I have been and still am actively involved in any group that is actively doing work on the ground to try to stave off the dwindling resource that is the mule deer. I see hunter involvement(or lack thereof, I should say) as a major IMPEDIMENT to the recovery of mule deer as a species across the west. As a group, hunters would rather complain about something after the fact than to try to prevent it from happening in the first place. I know first-hand how many hunters involve themselves actively, and the numbers are very discouraging to say the least.

Further, I would add that perhaps the environmentalists you speak of are not only more organized, but are more passionate about their cause, and tend to stay more involved. It's shameful how hunters as a group stand back and let these people dictate policy. Again, I say hunter apathy and inaction are the biggest threat to hunting today. We are our own worst enemy because of this. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

I stick by what I said about predators. Maybe mule deer numbers became artificially inflated when 1080 was in use; probably so.

Piper says habitat is the key; and that is true. But as long as predators are not kept in check, deer numbers will not rise because the over-abundance of predators will keep deer numbers from rebounding and their populations in check. The greatest habitat in the world will not support a non-existent population.
 
"That was a pretty insightful and stimulating read."

Thanks, Zeke. There is no question that there is a correlation between the range improvement projects of the mid twentieth century and the thriving deer herds of the same period.
 
Castnshoot,

"There seems to be a lot of dislike of the livestock industry in the hunting community now days for what ever reason."

There is. I think a lot of it goes back to this fallacy that there were tons of deer until the cattlemen overgrazed the area. There weren't. Yes, the area was badly overgrazed, but it was very unproductive to start with which is part of the reason why the overgrazing was so bad- there just wasn't much there.

Many have pushed the idea that cattlemen are the reason why our deer herds are suffering, and they have convinced many hunters that that is the case. But the numbers say otherwise.
 
mtnrunner260,

"I've heard that there is 26% of the AUMs on public lands currently compared to the all time high."

When you start looking at all the work that was done 50-60 years ago and how little has been done the last 30-40 years, those numbers are the predictable result.
 
piper,

"Wildman, why does the majority of wildlife live on federal land in Utah? You do know that the most productive lands are all private, don't you?. that's why they became private in the first place"

The majority of wildlife live on federal lands because 64% of the land in the State of Utah is federal land.

"Sorry but all these trained biologists probably aren't as stupid as you seem to think."

Actually many biologists support more actively managed federal lands- managed fire to stimulate aspen regeneration for instance.
 
mickeymouseoutfitters,

"For a minute I thought the "all natural" was the way to go, and then I hunted the wilderness of Idaho. With no human presence, the animals were more curious than afraid. There is a vast amount of habitat, more than I have ever encountered. The big game populations were not only lower per square mile, but the nutritional value of the plant life was much lower. For larger antlers, next to private land is much more appealing than the high country. It is obvious to me that the state and federal lands need to be managed more aggressively. The last time I planted a garden, I am the one who had to make the ground more fertile. I am the one who planted the plants that would benefit me the most. And I am the one who watched over the plants so they would flourish."

Exactly!!!
 
I understand the frustration of the last forty years, and I understand that these frustrations make many people pessimistic about the future. But I don't understand people are so adamant with their declarations of "We will never see the "hay days" again. Period. End of Story."

Even if you believe it, something like "I wish it could, but I just don't see how it can ever happen" would be a more honest response. It is almost like some people would be offended if we did manage to change course.

I realize the challenges we are up against, but I definitely wouldn't be offended if we somehow managed to find a way to make things better.
 
2lumpy,

" If you read the diaries and the records kept by the first American-European traders/trapper/explorers-surveyors some areas had abundant big game, other areas had very little, if any. These men became some of the best and most capable hunters and self sufficient outdoors men the world ever produced. If there was an animal with in riding/walking distance these guys could find and kill it.

In the 1950's through the 1980's there were hundreds of thousands of mule deer in southern Utah, from Utah Lake to the Arizona border. When Jedediah Smith and his trappers traveled south from the 1826 rendezvous in Cache Valley, they nearly starved to death after they left the southern shores of Utah Lake. The could find very little game in what became Nebo, San Pete, Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron or Washington Counties. No sheep, deer, buffalo, antelope etc. The few Indians they encountered were living on small rodents, nuts and roots, and very few of those.

It wasn't just getting snow bound in the Rockies that caused these early travelers to eat their horses, mules and even their leather possibles bags. Nor was it because they were poor hunters. There was simply no wild game, nor had there been, since the Anasazi left the area 700 to 800 hundreds years earlier. We know that from archeological studies of the camps of the Piutes and Utes.

Yet, a hundred and thirty years later, after tens of thousands of sheep and cattle had over grazed every acre of Southern Utah, we had the hundreds of thousands of mule deer on the same ranges Jedediah nearly starved to death trying to cross in 1826 and again in 1827."

Exactly!!!
 
desertbonehunter,

I'm not arguing the predator issue. It is definitely a piece of the puzzle.
 
kittykiller,

"I just got back from a week long antelope hunt where the BLM has literally planted tens of thousands of acres of non-native cultivar plants (Forage Kochia and Crested wheatgrass) all over the place on traditional deer winter ranges. This is a practice that has been going on for decades and has not increased deer numbers by any means. I'm sure it doesn't help that the range was littered with cattle that seemed to be taking more than their fair share."

I would be interested in knowing exactly where your antelope hunt was?

"In theory, most land managers manage land for healthy and stable plant and animal populations. The pre-European (white people) ?reference state? gives information what landscapes looked like before being riddled with anthropogenic impacts. Managing an ecosystem for a reference state is virtually impossible in most situations and isn't a common practice in modern range management."

You bring up a good point. I am not bashing the average federal employee with land management responsibilities. Many of them know what needs to be done, but their hands are often tied by policy.

If you are suggesting that the pre-European reference state hasn't played a huge role in public land management policy for the last forty years, I think that is misleading.
 
nontypical,

"While I appreciate your optimism about the future of mule deer, I just don't see how we will ever return to the glory days of mule deer hunting. I agree with everything you have said so far, except for that."

I completely respect your opinion. By the way, I wasn't referring to you when I said some people seem like they would be offended if we were able to change things.

"My reasons for calling out hunters for our apathy is because I have been and still am actively involved in any group that is actively doing work on the ground to try to stave off the dwindling resource that is the mule deer. I see hunter involvement(or lack thereof, I should say) as a major IMPEDIMENT to the recovery of mule deer as a species across the west. As a group, hunters would rather complain about something after the fact than to try to prevent it from happening in the first place. I know first-hand how many hunters involve themselves actively, and the numbers are very discouraging to say the least.

Further, I would add that perhaps the environmentalists you speak of are not only more organized, but are more passionate about their cause, and tend to stay more involved. It's shameful how hunters as a group stand back and let these people dictate policy. Again, I say hunter apathy and inaction are the biggest threat to hunting today. We are our own worst enemy because of this. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem."

I understand your frustration with the lack of hunter involvement, but I think it is important to stay focused on who the real enemy is.

I would compare it to World War II. The Nazis were more organized and more proactive about their cause than the Americans were, and because of it, they got way ahead of the game. But that doesn't mean the Americans were the problem.

It is important to differentiate the two. Hunter apathy is a problem- a huge problem, but the wacko environmentalists are the biggest problem.

If we get that confused, we end up fighting among ourselves instead of fighting the real battle.

I'm not saying don't call out our fellow hunters. Sometimes we all need our manhood questioned to make us step up, but do it like you would a brother- not your worst enemy.
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-03-13 AT 08:57PM (MST)[p]I was hunting in area 67/68 in Nevada. Planting non-native plants by federal and state agencies is widespread in most semi-arid regions across the west and has been going on since the Soil Conservation Service was formed after the passage of the Taylor Grazing Act.

I agree that the reference state has definitely been used in public (and private) land management during the past 40 years. However, the reference state doesn't really mean much. An ecosystem could be a complete departure from the reference state and still be in excellent ecological condition. It really just depends on what the area is being managed for. The reference state is really nothing more than a reference and should be used as such.

I'm really not sure which policy you are referring to? I am fairly familiar with federal environmental laws/policy and don't know of any that say agencies should be using ecological site descriptions (reference states) for managing lands. Most federal agencies are directed to manage lands according to Regional Advisory Council standards and guidelines. I am yet to see any standards and guidelines that are associated with reference states.
 
Seems like in the "Hay Days" there was 250,000 hunters too.









"The future is large scale auction tags.
The majority of the tags should go up
for auction anually. It MIGHT even be
good to allow second sales of auction
tags as in outfitters purchasing tags
and then re-selling them to the public."
TRISTATE 8/17/2012
 
There were a lot of hunters in the golden days of muley hunting, but the hightec modern hunters of today are a whole different breed, and that's where the real damage to quality comes from.
 
>There were a lot of hunters
>in the golden days of
>muley hunting, but the
>hightec modern hunters of today
>are a whole different breed,
>and that's where the real
>damage to quality comes from.
>

Could you be more specific?

I know that the mentality regarding trophies has changed and that technology has changed and that the herd numbers are down, but how do you think they are related?
 
kittykiller,

You sound like you may be employed by one of the agencies- can't say for sure. If so, believe it or not, my beef is not with agency employees. Many of them are hard working, decent people who are doing their best in a very difficult situation. Many of them want to manage the lands more productively, but their hands are tied.

"Planting non-native plants by federal and state agencies is widespread in most semi-arid regions across the west and has been going on since the Soil Conservation Service was formed after the passage of the Taylor Grazing Act."

You statement is partially correct, but misleading. Planting non-native plants by federal and state agencies has been going on for a long time, but to insinuate that it is happening at the same levels today as it was in the 50s and 60s is misleading. It is not.

"I agree that the reference state has definitely been used in public (and private) land management during the past 40 years. However, the reference state doesn't really mean much. An ecosystem could be a complete departure from the reference state and still be in excellent ecological condition. It really just depends on what the area is being managed for. The reference state is really nothing more than a reference and should be used as such.

I'm really not sure which policy you are referring to? I am fairly familiar with federal environmental laws/policy and don't know of any that say agencies should be using ecological site descriptions (reference states) for managing lands. Most federal agencies are directed to manage lands according to Regional Advisory Council standards and guidelines. I am yet to see any standards and guidelines that are associated with reference states."

Once again, your statement is partially correct, but somewhat misleading. You say the reference state doesn't really mean much because lands are managed according to Regional Advisory Council standards and guidelines. Although agencies may be directed to follow the Regional Advisory Council recommendations, you know and I know that there are very powerful groups represented on those Regional Advisory Councils whose main goal is to see the land returned to this reference state.

If you have yet to see any standards and guidelines that are influenced by the reference state ideology, you are living in a different world than I am.

One again, I don't have a beef with you personally, but you seem to be trying really hard to deny that this pre-European ideology has had a huge influence on public land management. If your just trying to defend the agencies, I get that. They have taken a lot of slack for some things which are out of their control. But if you're trying to deny the influence of pre-European ideology on how the land is managed, that doesn't add up.
 
wileywapati,

"Seems like in the "Hay Days" there was 250,000 hunters too."

There were definitely a lot more than there are now.
 
Good points, by many posting here today. Whether or not we agree on the causes of the rise and fall of the mule deer and possible solutions, one fact seems clear--if we hope to improve their status we hunters will need to play a more active role in management, and this entails regaining the public trust in hunters as conservationists.
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-04-13 AT 09:42PM (MST)[p]Wildman- that's a funny name for a guy with your obvious personal bias.
I have a great idea for you to think about, move to Texas, There you can manage deer' feed deer, make big antlers, everything you seem to want, and if you think its only whitetail deer, think again.
You don't have to worry about what others wish to see in land management, there is very little wilderness in Texas, you don't have to think anything at all about a reference state.

Another option is to move to Elko Nevada and run for county commissioner, there are at least two like minded ones there right now, and for years they have been passing around the same exact BS half truth essay as your first post on this thread.

Wildman, I hunted the Bitterroot range once also, 28 days and all I killed was a small whitetail buck, I can see why the Lewis and Clark expedition had a hard time there, but then again I hunted a Colorado wilderness area in 2005 and my god you should have seen the nice mule deer bucks, damn tree huggers anyway.

I guess its complicated.
 
Nope, I am not a fed. Just an informed hunter. Can you please provide some real world examples of agencies managing for the reference state? Examples like EA's, EIS's, IM's, IB's and so on. Also, can you please provide examples of RAC standards that suggest managing for the reference state? Website addresses will work.
 
Elkfromabove, I don't know if overall muley numbers are effected by modern technology much, but the quality of the animals and the experience surely has suffered in my opinion.
Its hard to explain, but I killed my first muley in 1970, and enjoyed a lot of hunting in the eightys.
Its just my opinion, and if you like technology and competition in you hunting experiences, it may be the good old days right now.
 
Spot on Piper. Those politicians in Elko County are some pretty greedy bastards. They are following close suit to their Mormon brethren in Utardia. For some reason they think they are entitled to land that isn't rightfully theirs. I wish people like them would find themselves outside of the United States, so the rest of us could get things done without them getting in the way.
 
>Elkfromabove, I don't know if overall
>muley numbers are effected
>by modern technology much, but
>the quality of the animals
>and the experience surely has
>suffered in my opinion.
>Its hard to explain, but
>I killed my first muley
>in 1970, and enjoyed
>a lot of hunting
>in the eightys.
>Its just my opinion, and if
>you like technology and competition
>in you hunting experiences, it
>may be the good old
>days right now.

Piper,
It's much, much more than just technology. The biggest issue with trophy quality is the fact that we've become such a trophy-conscious damn bunch thus creating the competition.
We are using that technology to put tons of competetive pressure on the bigger bucks only. There are even those who go so far as to say nobody should shoot a 2 pt buck! We've created hunters who will hold out for a baby 4 pt just so they can brag about shooting one. It's still a damn meat buck but the habitat has been use-up for a couple aditional year just to shoot it long before the buck reaches trophy quality.
It's been the last 20 years or so since we've become so obsessed with the antler and caring so little about the animal and the romance of the hunt.

Zeke
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-05-13 AT 11:28PM (MST)[p]>>Elkfromabove, I don't know if overall
>>muley numbers are effected
>>by modern technology much, but
>>the quality of the animals
>>and the experience surely has
>>suffered in my opinion.
>>Its hard to explain, but
>>I killed my first muley
>>in 1970, and enjoyed
>>a lot of hunting
>>in the eightys.
>>Its just my opinion, and if
>>you like technology and competition
>>in you hunting experiences, it
>>may be the good old
>>days right now.
>
>Piper,
>It's much, much more than just
>technology. The biggest issue with
>trophy quality is the fact
>that we've become such a
>trophy-conscious damn bunch thus creating
>the competition.
>We are using that technology to
>put tons of competetive pressure
>on the bigger bucks only.
>There are even those who
>go so far as to
>say nobody should shoot a
>2 pt buck! We've created
>hunters who will hold out
>for a baby 4 pt
>just so they can brag
>about shooting one. It's still
>a damn meat buck but
>the habitat has been use-up
>for a couple aditional year
>just to shoot it long
>before the buck reaches trophy
>quality.
>It's been the last 20 years
>or so since we've become
>so obsessed with the antler
>and caring so little about
>the animal and the romance
>of the hunt.
>
>Zeke

FWIW, I was not challenging your view, Piper. I actually agree with you. I just wanted your perspective and, thanks to you and Zeke, I got a double!

Let me add a couple of more perspectives. I killed my first buck in 1957, a young two-point. I don't remember the year I killed my first 4 point, but I still have the rack mounted on a home-made shield. I scored it many years later and it's about 150 gross. I've killed several since then with rifles and the ones I've kept all score about the same. Like most hunters, I still hope for a monster every time I go out (I'm still looking for a P&Y mule deer buck.), but I've never and will never eat my tag waiting for it, not if I can help it! And I only "need" one.

Zeke, I think the trophy mentality goes beyond killing a baby 4 point just to say you got one. It's one EVERY YEAR (or now, 1 every 3 to 20 years). I don't know how many times I've seen on this and other forums, hunters who boast about refusing to fill a tag with anything less than a "worthy trophy". That never happened much in the "good old days". No wonder trophies are now getting hammered.

And, unfortunately, that's the mentality that now drives policy and has for the past couple of decades (or more).

Technology also certainly has been part of the decline of the herds, but it isn't the hunting technology we should be so concerned about. The success rates are about the same as they've always been. (In fact the archery success rate has dropped since the invention of the compound bow in 1966.) Transportation, construction, farming, automobile, mining, drilling and communication technologies, equipment and methods are creating far more problems for mule deer and other game animals than the relatively few humans who confront them one on one for a few months. We need to realize that those other issues need much more attention than the measily little part hunting may play in the drama.
 
kittykiller,

As I mentioned in my previous response, I am not blaming the agencies. Many of the people in the agencies are trying to do the right thing.

The challenge they face is that there are very powerful environmental wacko groups whose beliefs are very much founded in the concept of a reference state.

These wacko groups utilize the complexity of federal land management policy to exercise their will- largely through litigation.

Usually what happens is the federal agencies try to manage the land for whatever the management plan is. This usually involves following the NEPA process. Then, if the agency's recommended management plan isn't what the wackos think it should be (usually because they don't think it is returning the land to a reference state), they sue the agencies based upon technicalities of the NEPA process. Because the NEPA process is so complicated, they usually find something they can use to get the management plan axed resulting in nothing getting done.

This litigation has tied up 50% or more of the budgets of the federal land management agencies stealing valuable funds that could go a long way toward getting more work done.

I don't know why you are trying to defend these people. If you are as involved in land management issues as you claim to be, it would be impossible to not know what is going on.
 
bullskin,

"Good points, by many posting here today. Whether or not we agree on the causes of the rise and fall of the mule deer and possible solutions, one fact seems clear--if we hope to improve their status we hunters will need to play a more active role in management, and this entails regaining the public trust in hunters as conservationists."

No doubt hunters need to become more involved.
 
Wildman,

I have not defended anyone. You made the implication that agencies are ecocentric and are managing for the reference state and I simply do not think that is true. In fact, I know it isn't true. Sure environmental wackos want landscapes returned to the reference state, but that doesn't really mean anything. If an environmental extremist group wins a lawsuit, do you think agencies automatically have to do what the environmental group wants? That is not how it works. The management of the area in question simply returns back to what it was before the NEPA analysis was done. In some instances where environmental degradation is an issue, a judge may issue an order to cease all activities in the area until a new NEPA analysis can be completed.

And when you say environmental wackos, you mean the Utah state legislature as well right?
 
I wish you guys would keep your posts in order. I've got carpal-tunnel now. I realize I spelled it wrong, too.
 
kittykiller,

"You made the implication that agencies are ecocentric and are managing for the reference state and I simply do not think that is true"

I believe I have explicitly stated numerous times that I am not slamming on the agencies. They are in a very tough spot and are often doing the best they can.

"Sure environmental wackos want landscapes returned to the reference state, but that doesn't really mean anything. If an environmental extremist group wins a lawsuit, do you think agencies automatically have to do what the environmental group wants? That is not how it works. The management of the area in question simply returns back to what it was before the NEPA analysis was done. In some instances where environmental degradation is an issue, a judge may issue an order to cease all activities in the area until a new NEPA analysis can be completed."

Are you really trying to argue that there are as many range improvement projects today as there were in the 50-60s?
 
nontypical,

"I wish you guys would keep your posts in order. I've got carpal-tunnel now. I realize I spelled it wrong, too."

Sorry to inflict pain and suffering. I'm really just a wacko environmentalist trying to end hunting one carpal tunnel victim at a time.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

0D726564-5A20-4A4D-BD27-FFC491E27A0A.jpeg
Big Bull
160 copy copy.jpg
A15D39F5-EE8D-43BC-BE1B-D7A60D803E0D.jpeg
Wow
20180912_173504.jpeg
Packing Out a Monster
Screenshot_20230115-092008_Facebook.jpg
IMG_2837.jpeg
Great Looking Bull!
Sheldoni Desert Mule Deer in Tiburon Island, Mexico
20210817_143910.jpg
Back
Top Bottom