I

[WRO]

Yeah, I agree wholeheartedly. The units are at carrying capacity for deer. But that capacity is diminished by the grazing that happens on every inch of national forest.

This will show you the allotments: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=3f449b10713748eb90f2dd386751d28a


Take this AOI for example, 3,700 sheep on prime mule deer habitat...
View attachment 541687

The sheep grazing may not reduce the carrying capacity of deer on a 1:1 basis, but they greatly reduce the population quantity and quality of fat reserves.

Secondly - these AOI's allow for up to 45% of the winter range to be grazed. Grazing is incompatible with mule deer.

Horse shit..

We've been grazing public lands for a 150 years + at much higher rates than we currently do, our population crashes have only been in the last 30 years.

 

[WRO]

Feels like you only know one tool to fix things with so you're going to use your hammer no matter what the problem is.

The point that you're missing is that until you fix the root of the problem not killing deer isn't going to make the deer herd healthier. You may get a short-term bump in deer numbers but if animals are already coming in underweight Fawn production will come in lower and you won't really add anything substantive.

Feels like you have the typical Idaho resident mentality, god forbid we give anything up to help the population.

I've been a part of management of private lands for mule deer for the last 2 decades. There isn't one golden ticket, but to blame it all on habitat or any one issue is myopic. We have many areas where there has been no significant change in habitat or wintering grounds declining and other area's where nothing has changed but limiting tags, even with winter range encroachment, that have consistently improved.

 

[brn2hnt]

Feels like you have the typical Idaho resident mentality, god forbid we give anything up to help the population.

I've been a part of management of private lands for mule deer for the last 2 decades. There isn't one golden ticket, but to blame it all on habitat or anyone issue is myopic. We have many areas where there has been no significant change in habitat or wintering grounds declining and other area's where nothing has changed but limiting tags, even with winter range encroachment, that have consistently improved.

My man.... could you point me to the area in Idaho where there has been no "significant change" to the winter range?

 

[WRO]

My man.... could you point me to the area in Idaho where there has been no "significant change" to the winter range?

40-42 for starters, not much has changed down there, both the Oregon and se Idaho side are devoid of significant development. The willow creek corridor in 32 has had very limited encroachment.

Compare that to like 78, where there’s a ton of public use, the winter range is loaded with utards mansions etc, yet from observation there’s way more deer there (not after this winter I’m guessing) but their winter range has had 2 feet of snow in it for 5 months.

Only significant difference from IDFG management standpoint is that one has 200 tags and the other’s kill every 2 point, and then limit the mature buck harvest.

I don’t claim to know the whole state, just what I’ve observed.

 

[S.Clancy]

Horse shit..

We've been grazing public lands for a 150 years + at much higher rates than we currently do, our population crashes have only been in the last 30 years.

Hmm, I would say that isn't technically true. Stocking rates may have been higher but grazing was likely more "intensive" style grazing back 60-100+ year ago. Grazing was likely more cowboys pushing entire herds around on public lands creating a more intensive graze with longer rest periods. This style of intensive grazing has been shown in research and practice to positively benefit habitat and production. Most of the problem with current public land grazing is too uniform of intensity with insufficient rest periods, you get long term habitat degradation, generally, with those practices.

Also, herd number for mule deer in all western states peaked around the same time 60's-70's. There is a lot of argument for why that is. Development (housing mostly and some energy) is a big part, because people tend to live in the winter range in the west because it is reasonably nice even in winter. Another big part is there was a huge amount of disturbance on the landscape from the 40's-70's; more fires, much more logging, different grazing practices (not because of knowledge but because of technology). Disturbance tends to favor the successional habitat that mule deer prefer. There is a reason why elk numbers are so much higher now and mule deer are low, those early stage habitats that mule deer prefer have aged into the later stage (forests and grasslands vs shrub dominated) that elk prefer.

 

[Customweld]

40-42 for starters, not much has changed down there, both the Oregon and se Idaho side are devoid of significant development. The willow creek corridor in 32 has had very limited encroachment.

Compare that to like 78, where there’s a ton of public use, the winter range is loaded with utards mansions etc, yet from observation there’s way more deer there (not after this winter I’m guessing) but their winter range has had 2 feet of snow in it for 5 months.

Only significant difference from IDFG management standpoint is that one has 200 tags and the other’s kill every 2 point, and then limit the mature buck harvest.

I don’t claim to know the whole state, just what I’ve observed.

Maybe not human encroachment, but Willow Creek had a pretty decent burn late last summer. A lot of that winter range has been torched, last summer's fires eliminated even more of the native bitter brush stands. I planted bitter brush in there 20 years ago after one of the fires , some of those burned again last year.

 

[WRO]

Hmm, I would say that isn't technically true. Stocking rates may have been higher but grazing was likely more "intensive" style grazing back 60-100+ year ago. Grazing was likely more cowboys pushing entire herds around on public lands creating a more intensive graze with longer rest periods. This style of intensive grazing has been shown in research and practice to positively benefit habitat and production. Most of the problem with current public land grazing is too uniform of intensity with insufficient rest periods, you get long term habitat degradation, generally, with those practices.

Also, herd number for mule deer in all western states peaked around the same time 60's-70's. There is a lot of argument for why that is. Development (housing mostly and some energy) is a big part, because people tend to live in the winter range in the west because it is reasonably nice even in winter. Another big part is there was a huge amount of disturbance on the landscape from the 40's-70's; more fires, much more logging, different grazing practices (not because of knowledge but because of technology). Disturbance tends to favor the successional habitat that mule deer prefer. There is a reason why elk numbers are so much higher now and mule deer are low, those early stage habitats that mule deer prefer have aged into the later stage (forests and grasslands vs shrub dominated) that elk prefer.

Allotments are much shorter in duration right now than they were even 20 years ago. The amount of livestock on National forest lands is much less than it used to be. As much as people want to moan about welfare ranching, in many places on NF its not being done at all. On BLM it comes with added water sources and other items that help wildlife as well. Places that i hunt every year, the cows are still rotated through. They're in different places everytime I go there.

One of the biggest factors that changed mule deer population trends imho was outlawing strychnine and 1080, when I was a kid, it was pretty rare to see a coyote in general, now they're everywhere. They're hell on deer, even if most don't want to admit it. Studies from unit 14 in Nevada show a strong correlation between coyote removal and deer populations.

One of my closest friends is a long time rancher, he said up until the 80's they posioned everything on BLM and national forests. The guys I know who consistently have the biggest and most mule deer kill everything that walks that has fangs and claws in their areas.

 

[WRO]

Maybe not human encroachment, but Willow Creek had a pretty decent burn late last summer. A lot of that winter range has been torched, last summer's fires eliminated even more of the native bitter brush stands. I planted bitter brush in there 20 years ago after one of the fires , some of those burned again last year.

Fire has been going on since the start of time.

Interestingly enough, we have less forest fires now than we did 60 years ago. IMHO the smoky the bear campaign was a disaster for the ecosystem IMHO.

 

[Andrew12gauge]

40-42 for starters, not much has changed down there, both the Oregon and se Idaho side are devoid of significant development. The willow creek corridor in 32 has had very limited encroachment.

Compare that to like 78, where there’s a ton of public use, the winter range is loaded with utards mansions etc, yet from observation there’s way more deer there (not after this winter I’m guessing) but their winter range has had 2 feet of snow in it for 5 months.

Only significant difference from IDFG management standpoint is that one has 200 tags and the other’s kill every 2 point, and then limit the mature buck harvest.

I don’t claim to know the whole state, just what I’ve observed.

What’s changed in 40-42 and unit 32 that you fail to account for is the wildfires have not grown back with deer food and habitat, they’ve grown back with cheatgrass. Mule deer can’t live on cheatgrass


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[David Gough]

What’s changed in 40-42 and unit 32 that you fail to account for is the wildfires have not grown back with deer food and habitat, they’ve grown back with cheatgrass. Mule deer can’t live on cheatgrass


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's the story of our life in Nevada. Our mule deer herd is sad.

 

[WRO]

What’s changed in 40-42 and unit 32 that you fail to account for is the wildfires have not grown back with deer food and habitat, they’ve grown back with cheatgrass. Mule deer can’t live on cheatgrass


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cheat grass has been prevalent in se Idaho since the 40s.

Not saying it’s not an issue, but it’s sure not a new one.

Mule deer are browsers generally, not grazers.

 

[Dioni A]

Cheat grass has been prevalent in se Idaho since the 40s.

Not saying it’s not an issue, but it’s sure not a new one.

Mule deer are browsers generally, not grazers.

Would love to know where you got the 1940s date from. I don't think it's accurate. Everything I've researched alludes to it being close to 40 years later than that before it became a chronic widespread issue.

 

[Andrew12gauge]

Cheat grass has been prevalent in se Idaho since the 40s.

Not saying it’s not an issue, but it’s sure not a new one.

Mule deer are browsers generally, not grazers.

Exactly the problem, they are browsers and once a fire passes through, cheatgrass gets a foothold, cheatgrass dries out and creates amazing fuel for a fire, the next fire burns hotter, the cheatgrass is the first thing to come back and out competes all of the beneficial forbs and shrubs that mule deer eat. With each fire cheatgrass becomes more prevalent while beneficial plant communities dwindle away. Large portions of SW Idaho are now cheatgrass monoculture completely devoid of deer


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WRO]

Would love to know where you got the 1940s date from. I don't think it's accurate. Everything I've researched alludes to it being close to 40 years later than that before it became a chronic widespread issue.

Cheat grass was first noted in Idaho in 1914 and was reported as being prevalent in many areas by 1940. Oregon had 10 million acres of cheat by 1946 for reference.

 

[Dioni A]

Again, I would love to know your source.

 

[WRO]

Again, I would love to know your source.

There’s an Oregon state study from 1979, and two cited papers from Idaho.

Google them, can’t get the link to copy on my phone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dioni A]

There’s an Oregon state study from 1979, and two cited papers from Idaho.

Google them, can’t get the link to copy on my phone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I tried to.

I'm basing my opinion off of multiple conversations with Ryan Hatfield. I don't think there's a person alive who's more researched on the topic of big mule deer in Idaho (he literally wrote the book on it) Specifically speaking about the area from Indian valley North to council and through Hell's canyon. He's got numerous historical photos and personal experience and was explaining to me his thoughts on the impacts of cheat grass many years ago. I've also had multiple conversations with rangeland ecologist. Cheat grass has been around for a long time but it had nowhere near the impact that it has since the 1980s. At least as far as central Idaho is concerned.

I'm very open to the idea that I'm wrong about this but haven't seen any evidence to prove another timeline.

 

[WRO]

I tried to.

I'm basing my opinion off of multiple conversations with Ryan Hatfield. I don't think there's a person alive who's more researched on the topic of big mule deer in Idaho (he literally wrote the book on it) Specifically speaking about the area from Indian valley North to council and through Hell's canyon. He's got numerous historical photos and personal experience and was explaining to me his thoughts on the impacts of cheat grass many years ago. I've also had multiple conversations with rangeland ecologist. Cheat grass has been around for a long time but it had nowhere near the impact that it has since the 1980s. At least as far as central Idaho is concerned.

I'm very open to the idea that I'm wrong about this but haven't seen any evidence to prove another timeline.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2436&context=gbn

Cites tons of cheat grass in southern Idaho by 1930s.

North central Idaho is one of the core areas cited for native grasses remaining per the blm. I’ve read anywhere from 1899 to 1914 for arrival to Idaho.

1980 is the year cited that it was finally found in every country in Idaho. It’s been present in higher density in the owyhees and valley since the early 1930s. Came in from the railroad.

Ryan’s a good dude, spoke to him several times.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dioni A]

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2436&context=gbn

Cites tons of cheat grass in southern Idaho by 1930s.

North central Idaho is one of the core areas cited for native grasses remaining per the blm. I’ve read anywhere from 1899 to 1914 for arrival to Idaho.

1980 is the year cited that it was finally found in every country in Idaho. It’s been present in higher density in the owyhees and valley since the early 1930s. Came in from the railroad.

Ryan’s a good dude, spoke to him several times.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for sharing I'll give it a read. It's not even that long, fortunately.

I feel lucky to consider Ryan a close friend and mentor. The guy knows a lot about deer and especially deer in Idaho.

 

[Andrew12gauge]

I came away with only 1 thing from that article, BLAME CALIFORNIA. Cheatgrass likely got its start in Idaho from sheep that were trailed from California. Even back in the 1890’s California was spreading its plague across the country. Now I just wish it would break off into the ocean even more


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk