Too many Elk?

[S.Clancy]

Ryan Hatfield's editorial in the latest issue of "The Western Hunter" is, Seeking a Better Balance: Can Overwhelming Elk Recovery be too Much of a Good Thing?

His argument is that where forage is limited in the winter, and elk and deer compete, and the deer always lose. He also argues that the dramatic rise in elk populations in the past 50 years has had a significant impact on the corresponding drop in muley numbers.

He argues that to provide more opportunity we should manage for more deer and less elk. He states, " The fact is that we can put probably three times the deer on the mountain than we can elk."

I have an opinion on the subject as well as some questions. What do y'all think?

This is absolutely a thing.

 

[Billinsd]

"He also argues that the dramatic rise in elk populations in the past 50 years has had a significant impact on the corresponding drop in muley numbers. "

I'm a statistician at my day job. Humans can't help but assign meaning to random variation and/or association. Does Round-Up cause cancer? Hell no - that horse has been beaten to death 10 times over with science. But that doesn't stop a jury of below-average intelligence Californians from proclaiming it's true.

Just because Ryan Hatfield argues that two random variables have a causal association doesn't mean it's true. Leave that to scientists.

All bad people have drank milk at one point or another in their life. It's true!!

 

[Travis Hobbs]

Anyone arguing that you can increase elk numbers, while not lowering deer numbers in a given area is in fairy tale land. Science proves it, it’s not up for debate. Carrying capacity is carrying capacity, and you can only have so many mouths on a given landscape.

If I have 100 acres that feeds 20 head of sheep for 90 days... I can’t add 5 head of cattle on top of those 20 sheep, and get the same 90 days of grazing.

This is even more true on a winter range, when diets are identical...especially a winter like we just had. Elk do better in deeper snow, and most definitely will push deer out of prime feed. And an elk eats more than a deer...

Ryan is spot on IMO Elk numbers have been on the rise all over the west, and deer numbers have decreased. Most hunters like to dream of a landscape crawling with thriving numbers of both elk and deer... but at the end of the day....habitat decides how many animals it can feed/sustain and no matter which way you slice it, increasing populations of one herbivore, decreases another.

 

[Muledeerfanatic]

I agree with Ryan on this. An area can only handle so many animals. The mountain behind my house used to hold a good number of deer and a few elk. The place is crawling with elk now, I saw 4 big herd bulls with 10-40 cows each last September, and very few deer.

 

[BuckSmasher]

Anyone arguing that you can increase elk numbers, while not lowering deer numbers in a given area is in fairy tale land. Science proves it, it’s not up for debate. Carrying capacity is carrying capacity, and you can only have so many mouths on a given landscape.

If I have 100 acres that feeds 20 head of sheep for 90 days... I can’t add 5 head of cattle on top of those 20 sheep, and get the same 90 days of grazing.

This is even more true on a winter range, when diets are identical...especially a winter like we just had. Elk do better in deeper snow, and most definitely will push deer out of prime feed. And an elk eats more than a deer...

Ryan is spot on IMO Elk numbers have been on the rise all over the west, and deer numbers have decreased. Most hunters like to dream of a landscape crawling with thriving numbers of both elk and deer... but at the end of the day....habitat decides how many animals it can feed/sustain and no matter which way you slice it, increasing populations of one herbivore, decreases another.

I think I could add some nuance to that but for the sake of argument lets take what you said at face value. Do we lower the elk populations to benefit the deer?

Hatfield's piece wasn't meant to be an empirical study on mule deer/elk dynamics published int a peer reviewed journal. It was an opinion piece asking where we put our priorities.

I say NO in MOST cases. There are plenty of opportunities to hunt deer/big game. There are few opportunities to hunt elk, and those opportunities are facing increasing demand. Elk are bigger, tastier, and arguably more fun to hunt. ANY elk is a trophy. Only big buck Muleys are trophy's.

 

[BuckSmasher]

I agree with Ryan on this. An area can only handle so many animals. The mountain behind my house used to hold a good number of deer and a few elk. The place is crawling with elk now, I saw 4 big herd bulls with 10-40 cows each last September, and very few deer.

With a name like 'Muledeerfanatic' I could have called your postion.

You are not wrong because I disagree with you. Call me "elkfanatic".

One thing I have noticed a trend of, this is just from me anecdotally, is that longtime residents of the west are usually skewed more toward muleys than elk. Your dad and grand dad hunted mule deer and now non-residents want to hunt elk and wildlife management has went that way. I as a non-resident (hopefully for not too much longer) associate Western hunting, by and large with Elk. Hatfield even mentioned that in his article. I can hunt a much more wary deer in my backyard. I don't need to drive 800 miles to shoot a bigger dumber deer with big ears.

 

[Broomd]

...

I'm a statistician at my day job. Humans can't help but assign meaning to random variation and/or association. Does Round-Up cause cancer? Hell no - that horse has been beaten to death 10 times over with science. But that doesn't stop a jury of below-average intelligence Californians from proclaiming it's true.

Just because Ryan Hatfield argues that two random variables have a causal association doesn't mean it's true. Leave that to scientists.

Beaten to death...RIiiiiight. I don't believe for a single second that Round Up doesn't cause cancer, and it isn't the science involved. Anything that potent and volatile can't be good.
I used the stuff one time, accidentally splashed some on my bare hand and my tongue went numb in three seconds. It stayed numb for two hours! The stuff is pure poison, and if you believe the 'science' that Monsanto sponsors, you're a fool. Er....Respectfully.
"Science" is often corrupt, one only needs to read the peer review scams-- collusion to further the 'man-caused' global warming agenda--to realize that.

 

[S.Clancy]

I think I could add some nuance to that but for the sake of argument lets take what you said at face value. Do we lower the elk populations to benefit the deer?

Hatfield's piece wasn't meant to be an empirical study on mule deer/elk dynamics published int a peer reviewed journal. It was an opinion piece asking where we put our priorities.

I say NO in MOST cases. There are plenty of opportunities to hunt deer/big game. There are few opportunities to hunt elk, and those opportunities are facing increasing demand. Elk are bigger, tastier, and arguably more fun to hunt. ANY elk is a trophy. Only big buck Muleys are trophy's.

That's a hell of a value judgement you're making there...

 

[BuckSmasher]

That's a hell of a value judgement you're making there...

True.

Is Hatfield making any less of one with his assertion we should tip the scales back toward mule deer. With the justification being hunter opportunity?

 

[S.Clancy]

True.

Is Hatfield making any less of one with his assertion we should tip the scales back toward mule deer. With the justification being hunter opportunity?

I think he is posing that, and introducing the natural flux of wild game populations. We cannot manage a species, or groups of species that share habitat, the same way indefinitely. Adjustment is need, which he is advocating for.

 

[Rich M]

I'm a statistician at my day job. Humans can't help but assign meaning to random variation and/or association. Does Round-Up cause cancer? Hell no - that horse has been beaten to death 10 times over with science. But that doesn't stop a jury of below-average intelligence Californians from proclaiming it's true.

Sounds like you work for Monsanto.

ATSDR Report Confirms Glyphosate Cancer Risks
April 11, 2019 Jennifer Sass
EPA Official Once Tried to Kill It, But the Nearly-Dead ATSDR Report Returns to Haunt Monsanto and Bayer
This week a public health agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), released the long-awaited Draft Toxicological Profile for Glyphosate. And, it supports and strengthens the 2015 cancer assessment of another health agency, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).

 

[Idaho_Potato]

Beaten to death...RIiiiiight. I don't believe for a single second that Round Up doesn't cause cancer, and it isn't the science involved. Anything that potent and volatile can't be good.
I used the stuff one time, accidentally splashed some on my bare hand and my tongue went numb in three seconds. It stayed numb for two hours! The stuff is pure poison, and if you believe the 'science' that Monsanto sponsors, you're a fool. Er....Respectfully.
"Science" is often corrupt, one only needs to read the peer review scams-- collusion to further the 'man-caused' global warming agenda--to realize that.

Please lock this thread for the sake of everyone's sanity. We have no business debating science on an internet hunting forum.

 

[Poser]

Having lived in cotton country before, I can add that Whitetails can and do eat Round Up Ready cotton, but they cannot eat organic cotton. (They also get directly sprayed by crop dusters since they often bed down in these same cotton fields.)

 

[BluMtn]

Beaten to death...RIiiiiight. I don't believe for a single second that Round Up doesn't cause cancer, and it isn't the science involved. Anything that potent and volatile can't be good.
I used the stuff one time, accidentally splashed some on my bare hand and my tongue went numb in three seconds. It stayed numb for two hours! The stuff is pure poison, and if you believe the 'science' that Monsanto sponsors, you're a fool. Er....Respectfully.
"Science" is often corrupt, one only needs to read the peer review scams-- collusion to further the 'man-caused' global warming agenda--to realize that.

I guess I must be dang lucky. I have used roundup since it came out in the late 70's. I have sprayed thousands of gallons and have had it splashed on me, I have eaten my lunch with roundup on my hands, and I have worked with my pants wet with it. At 60 I am still upright and no signs of cancer.

As far as the elk/mule deer discussion in south eastern Washington we are loosing both species due to the predator problem we are having at this time. Our elk are moving out of the mountains into the low farm country and the mulie population is declining but not to the extent of the elk herds. The whitetail on the other hand could survive a nuclear blast and in 2 years be back to full strength.

 

[Broomd]

....

Please lock this thread for the sake of everyone's sanity. We have no business debating science on an internet hunting forum.

Then don't introduce it as an analogy. You're "idots" comment/pic is a badge of honor. Anyone stupid enough to defend Round Up as a wholesome product is mentally defective. Admittedly, its introduction was a miracle to farmers--the stuff works like magic--but the wake of poison left behind is epic. Trace amounts of the shit is in our cherrios for God's sake.
Moving on, I won't waste further time debating the indefensible.

 

[Wiscohunter]

Assuming the premise of the article is correct, then preserving winter range should be the number 1 conservation priority regardless of which species you would choose. I only get to visit the west about once a year, but it seems the mountain valleys in Colorado have more development every year and I am guessing some of those areas where once good winter range.

 

[BuckSmasher]

Assuming the premise of the article is correct, then preserving winter range should be the number 1 conservation priority regardless of which species you would choose. I only get to visit the west about once a year, but it seems the mountain valleys in Colorado have more development every year and I am guessing some of those areas where once good winter range.

100% Agree.

 

[MattB]

It's pretty amazing that hunters question the notions that elk and mule deer often compete for a limited and diminishing resource (winter range forage) and that mule deer tend to lose out.

 

[sneaky]

I think I could add some nuance to that but for the sake of argument lets take what you said at face value. Do we lower the elk populations to benefit the deer?

Hatfield's piece wasn't meant to be an empirical study on mule deer/elk dynamics published int a peer reviewed journal. It was an opinion piece asking where we put our priorities.

I say NO in MOST cases. There are plenty of opportunities to hunt deer/big game. There are few opportunities to hunt elk, and those opportunities are facing increasing demand. Elk are bigger, tastier, and arguably more fun to hunt. ANY elk is a trophy. Only big buck Muleys are trophy's.

Seriously? Only big muley bucks are trophies? That's nonsense. Guys who are filling freezers will tell you the meat is the trophy. Kids are ecstatic with any deer.

Yes, if you want deer numbers to increase you reduce elk numbers, and predator numbers. When deer and elk are competing for the same feed the elk are at an advantage. You can nuance the shit out of it if you want, but that's just real world results.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[ahlgringo]

Seriously? Only big muley bucks are trophies? That's nonsense. Guys who are filling freezers will tell you the meat is the trophy. Kids are ecstatic with any deer.

Yes, if you want deer numbers to increase you reduce elk numbers, and predator numbers. When deer and elk are competing for the same feed the elk are at an advantage. You can nuance the shit out of it if you want, but that's just real world results.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Or quit developing wintering grounds with subdivisions - but that it is the harder solution.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk