southern interior mule deer strategy?

[Stone Sheep Steve]

The Okanagan has been hit with summer fires every year since 03' and we are still experiencing declines.

The OK mtn park fire in 2003 was great for wildlife. Mule deer flourished in both number and the quality of bucks. The elk population doubled.
With this increase in quality/quantity of game, came more hunting pressure (just the nature of modern day hunting). The park probably peaked in or around 2009-2010 IMO. Now, the terrain is getting more grown in with successionary pines. Our former bio wanted to re-burn much of the area within 3-5 years to remove the new pine seedlings that always follow a fire but it never got off the ground.

Mule deer do better at avoiding predators when their lines of sight are better. Now we have an increase in predators (a natural occurrence after a prey increase) and increased ingrowth.
Recently, they took out 3 or 4 cougars that were sheep/goat(?) killers as lamb and kid recruitment had tanked (sheep and goats are relatively easy to inventory).

The inventory flights in early December of 2015 in the park revealed decent mule deer numbers (but not as high as the peak years) and buck to doe ratios in the 27-28:100 range...well above the provincial minimum target of 20:100.

Has their been any in dept studies or conclusions, to prove your statements?
Where is the data on how was it collected?

Several MU's were flight surveyed in December of 2015...including 8-08, 8-09(broken down into park and non-park), 8-11 (maybe others but these are the ones I remember off-hand). I was speaking to our deer bio last weekend at the sheep count and, although he hasn't summarized the flights, he said he can email them to me.

Data is also currently being gathered on the ground thru other (cheaper) methods.


The 03' fire must have created enough quality habitat, and with the limited access to the park, it would have made a perfect model area.

Question the Factors:

Was a adequate improvement to Habitat a result?

Definitely Yes. Have never met anyone who disagrees with that.

Funding of the burn wasn't a issue, so could more money have been allocated on the study and science?

Funding is scarce but they have surveyed the park a few times since the burn. Without those surveys we would never have had our LEH sheep and goat seasons....which we may lose due to predation issues.

Did the opening of the land allow Predators to more efficiently close in on their prey?

Open terrain favours mule deer. More closed-in terrain hides predators and increase their efficiency, especially cougars.
Without the burn we would have never considered the sheep transplants that we did.

Was wildlife forced into more concentrated areas and more at risk?
Did the hunting pressure increase when viewing and movement patterns became easier?

Yes. Hunting success improves with increased line-of-sight. Inside the park isn't an issue due to difficult of access outside the park can lead to lower than target buck:doe ratios....and has.
Remember-don't confuse buck quality with buck:doe ratios and deer numbers.

Just asking.

Those are good questions to ask.

One important thing about the surveys is that all MU's had similar fawn:doe ratios in the 65-68:100 range. Those are considered healthy numbers going into winter and proves that hunting pressure isn't affecting mule deer numbers.

A few years ago they surveyed the boundary area for mule deer as there was a serious concern over deer numbers and buck numbers from the local clubs. That same year they also flew one of the northern OK MU's and the outfitter in the area had the same concerns.
Those flights revealed buck to doe ratios in the high 20's to mid 30's per 100 does....well above the provincial targets. BUT the boundary area did indeed have very poor mule deer numbers. The flights confirmed that hunting seasons weren't even on the radar for the cause. They could have closed them completely and it would not have affected the population trends.
The club guys over there used to be a lot like you, bownut. They are very passionate hunters and they originally blamed everything on the hunting seasons. It took a couple of years but eventually they became aware that habitat was the key element driving their mule deer numbers into the tank. Once they got their heads around the drivers, they focused their energy on doing what they could for habitat.

SSS

[bownut]

One more Question in regards to Hunting Pressure on Mule Deer

I wonder if the biologist would have had similar results in the counts and ratios if the Hunter Access wasn't so limited.
I am sure there would have been a dramatic decline in the ratios then.

[HarryToolips]

The Okanagan has been hit with summer fires every year since 03' and we are still experiencing declines. Has their been any in dept studies or conclusions, to prove your statements?
Where is the data on how was it collected?

The 03' fire must have created enough quality habitat, and with the limited access to the park, it would have made a perfect model area.

Question the Factors:

Was a adequate improvement to Habitat a result?
Funding of the burn wasn't a issue, so could more money have been allocated on the study and science?
Did the opening of the land allow Predators to more efficiently close in on their prey?
Was wildlife forced into more concentrated areas and more at risk?
Did the hunting pressure increase when viewing and movement patterns became easier?

Just asking.

AsSSS.said,we.may.be.experiencing.declines.in.cert ain.areas,but.R8.on.the.whole.has.had.steady.popul ations.for.mule.deer.and.whitetail.deer,according. to.the.BC.govt,hope.it's.a.credible.source....

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife...2030_Final.pdf

[HarryToolips]

Some areas are doing fine...others not so much.
Numbers are down pretty good in 8-08. Not much of a surprise as there hasn't been a significant burn in a long time. But the most important part of the surveys in December 2015 showed good fawn to doe ratios in the 65-68 range. This proves that sperm supply is not an issue. Those are good ratios going into winter., What survives the winter is the big question.

Areas like Garnet Valley and Antler's Saddle used to be strongholds for mule deer have been seeing more and more whitetails over the years....even with our GOS on whitetail does.

Areas with significant burns in the past 3-7 years have the strongest mule deer numbers....and also the best buck to doe ratios.

Areas to watch in the future are the Testalindin and Rock Creek burns.

Hopefully we have another fire season that keeps Rocksteady Waaaaay too busy!

SSS

Exactly,I.believe.that.the.whitetails.do.indeed.af fect.the.mule.deer,at.least.from.my.observations.. .trailcams,plus.what.I.see.in.certain.pockets.of.w inter.range,I.see.whitetails.taking.over.areas,wit h.few.MD...even.if.you.go.to.certain.parts.of.R4,o r.MU-814,8-15,or8-23,how.can.people.say.that.MD.haven't.been.affecte d.by.whitetails??

[bownut]

Maybe it goes back to Mulies Traditional Habitat/Ranges< and when they move into the White Tails Ranges , you have a problem.
From my observation, the obvious migration isn't so obvious any anymore.
Now we want to take out White Tails when they were there first.
Just saying

[GoatGuy]

Maybe it goes back to Mulies Traditional Habitat/Ranges< and when they move into the White Tails Ranges , you have a problem.
From my observation, the obvious migration isn't so obvious any anymore.
Now we want to take out White Tails when they were there first.
Just saying

What you are saying doesn't make sense. You're saying mule deer have been moving into white-tailed deer range and that is causing the problem?

Traditional white-tailed and mule deer range is what, where, when?

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Maybe it goes back to Mulies Traditional Habitat/Ranges< and when they move into the White Tails Ranges , you have a problem.
From my observation, the obvious migration isn't so obvious any anymore.
Now we want to take out White Tails when they were there first.
Just saying

Does fire suppression and forest ingrowth make habitat more suitable for whitetails of mule deer??

[Stone Sheep Steve]

One more Question in regards to Hunting Pressure on Mule Deer

I wonder if the biologist would have had similar results in the counts and ratios if the Hunter Access wasn't so limited.
I am sure there would have been a dramatic decline in the ratios then.

We have a lot of roads in the Okanagan. No one is going to argue that. Of course ratios are lower near roads and increased line-of-sight.
Working with the timber companies to get them to decommission roads when they are done with them would be a step in the right direction....although it does cost a lot of money. Maybe getting the Government to lower stumpage fees but make the forest companies obligated to only have a maximum road density of 'x' kilometers per square kilometer might be an idea??

Lowering road density is one way to increase buck:doe and bull:cow ratios where it is required.

SSS

[horshur]

Maybe it goes back to Mulies Traditional Habitat/Ranges< and when they move into the White Tails Ranges , you have a problem.
From my observation, the obvious migration isn't so obvious any anymore.
Now we want to take out White Tails when they were there first.
Just saying

your lifetime experience is not what should be considered "traditional".

[bownut]

What you are saying doesn't make sense. You're saying mule deer have been moving into white-tailed deer range and that is causing the problem?

Traditional white-tailed and mule deer range is what, where, when?

No what I am saying is that they have both adapted to the habitat changes and it seem everyone wants to blame the the W/t for the decline in Mule Deer, I am not sure that it's the case when you factor
everything else. When we can get more conclusive data on what the predation rates are then we may be able to get closer to the truth.