3-30/3-31, any suggestions

[aamenta]

On the road, I’ll check back in after the hunt. Good luck to anyone going out this weekend and thanks for all the help.

[browningboy]

It's all about carrying capacity. Really, more deer than usual should be taken out of areas like the elephant hill fire to give the ones that survive the season a better chance of surviving the diminished food supply through the winter. I have zero qualms about hunting deer in there.

Well for what they went through and the amount of food loss, it’s the man you are I guess, good luck

[Whonnock Boy]

It's science. For arguments sake, let's say prior to the Elephant hill fire, the area could sustain 1000 mule deer, even in the harshest winters. Now with, I'm guessing based on my own visual observations, 75% of the landscape burned, the area can only sustain 250 mule deer. Those 1000 deer are competing for food that can sustain only 25% of them. The assumption is, 750 mule deer, or 75%, are going to die due to a lack of feed, but in reality, a much greater percentage is going to die, possibly 900 or more! IF..... there was maybe 400 deer vying for that same 25% of feed, theoretically maybe half of them will die due to starvation, leaving 200 deer. More deer will die due to starvation, than hunters will possibly harvest. Does that make sense?

Well for what they went through and the amount of food loss, it’s the man you are I guess, good luck

[wideopenthrottle]

there will be massive winter kill if there is not enough food....as said a huge percentage will die when all the food is gone early..shooting as many bucks as possible out of there is not just a humane thing to do but also the best assistance a conservationist could give..they will eat till all the food is gone and then starve ..they dont know how to ration food

[Weatherby Fan]

It's science. For arguments sake, let's say prior to the Elephant hill fire, the area could sustain 1000 mule deer, even in the harshest winters. Now with, I'm guessing based on my own visual observations, 75% of the landscape burned, the area can only sustain 250 mule deer. Those 1000 deer are competing for food that can sustain only 25% of them. The assumption is, 750 mule deer, or 75%, are going to die due to a lack of feed, but in reality, a much greater percentage is going to die, possibly 900 or more! IF..... there was maybe 400 deer vying for that same 25% of feed, theoretically maybe half of them will die due to starvation, leaving 200 deer. More deer will die due to starvation, than hunters will possibly harvest. Does that make sense?

Do you really think those deer will just stay in a burn with no food and starve to death ? They only have to move a few kilometres west or east and there in good food and cover, animals are pretty adaptive I️m curious as to where your getting your assumptions from ? Is this just a theory of yours ?

[Whonnock Boy]

Honestly, I have no idea how many deer will remain in the area, versus leaving for greener pastures. It would certainly be an interesting study. Personal observations have shown that deer are still in the area, I'm assuming because it's all they know. That said, the theory is sound. The carrying capacity of the area is severely diminished, and those that have stayed, or going to stay, could have a tough winter ahead of them. Based on the "theory", I really don't believe continuing to hunt the area is doing more harm than good. Something else to think about is, how will added numbers to areas surrounding the burn impact the carrying capacity of those areas? What I know for sure is, wolves wouldn't still be frequenting the area if there wasn't anything to eat.

I'm curious. What are your own observations for the area? Are the numbers still there, or are the fringe areas carrying more deer?

Do you really think those deer will just stay in a burn with no food and starve to death ? They only have to move a few kilometres west or east and there in good food and cover, animals are pretty adaptive I️m curious as to where your getting your assumptions from ? Is this just a theory of yours ?

[Weatherby Fan]

Honestly, I have no idea how many deer will remain in the area, versus leaving for greener pastures. It would certainly be an interesting study. Personal observations have shown that deer are still in the area, I'm assuming because it's all they know. That said, the theory is sound. The carrying capacity of the area is severely diminished, and those that have stayed, or going to stay, could have a tough winter ahead of them. Based on the "theory", I really don't believe continuing to hunt the area is doing more harm than good. Something else to think about is, how will added numbers to areas surrounding the burn impact the carrying capacity of those areas? What I know for sure is, wolves wouldn't still be frequenting the area if there wasn't anything to eat.

I'm curious. What are your own observations for the area? Are the numbers still there, or are the fringe areas carrying more deer?

I will have a better idea after Dec 9 as I’ll be up that way from November 28 for a cpl weeks, from the limited time I have spent up there this year, surprisingly there seems to be a good number of doe’s with fawns, I did see a handful of bucks to.

[Whonnock Boy]

I'm interested to hear what you observe. One thing I did see, was a good number of deer frequenting the farmers fields and surrounding hills, but I'm assuming this is normal for that area. I would be willing to bet that those fields are going to be pretty full come the dead of winter, something the locals have not seen in a while. This year will be the hardest for the survivors, but the coming years, oh man.....

I will have a better idea after Dec 9 as I’ll be up that way from November 28 for a cpl weeks, from the limited time I have spent up there this year, surprisingly there seems to be a good number of doe’s with fawns, I did see a handful of bucks to.

[wideopenthrottle]

Do you really think those deer will just stay in a burn with no food and starve to death ? They only have to move a few kilometres west or east and there in good food and cover, animals are pretty adaptive I️m curious as to where your getting your assumptions from ? Is this just a theory of yours ?

I am not so sure about that...I have heard of deer staying in their winter range starving because that is where they think they should be to avoid snow....even in years when the snow has melted early outside their winter range they don't budge...I learned about this in school but I will try to find a link for you if you like...

[browningboy]

Well I'm up here right now for the next few days, I'll update tomorrow night so long as we don't stay up too late!