low calf and fawn ratios and predation

[scoutdog5]

There has been a lot of discussion about predation's impact on herd populations on several of my game management proposal posts. Here is my take on it.

I absolutely believe that the biggest cause of low fawn and or calf ratios is predation during the first three weeks after birth. In the case of elk, the major culprit is cougar, with a giant assist from bears in some parts of Oregon. For deer, it is cougar and coyotes, not sure which actually takes more.

The simple solution would seem to be to lower predator numbers by a significant amount. Sounds good, but I don't see any chance of that happening. Spring bear hunter success rates are around 6%, add 3,000-4,000 tags and pretty much everybody could go every year, but i doubt you would see much change in the kill, given low success rates. Could be wrong. Cougars, you need dogs, and we aren't getting em back, at least on a statewide basis. Coyotes? I-fishers are certainly doing their share, keep it up, but does anyone really think hunting can put a serious dent in coyote numbers? I don't.

Like most wildlife issues, this one is complicated. It is true that predators are killing the fawns and calves, but that is only part of the story. Numerous studies on elk have shown conclusively that when mature bulls do the breeding, cows conceive during the first estrus cycle, and the vast majority of calves are born around the same time. Predation by bears is pretty much limited to the first three weeks of life, and calves are also much more vulnerable to cougars during this time. Research also shows that cows will not allow a younger bull to breed them during the first estrus cycle.

In Oregon, with few exceptions, here is what is happening. First Estrus Cycle usually occurs in mid September, during the bow season. Certainly some cows are bred during the first cycle by mature bulls, when there are mature bulls present in the herd, but many are not bred during this time. In Eastern Oregon, the second estrus cycle typically is during the rifle deer hunt. Once again, some cows get bred, some don't. Some cows will accept younger bulls, some won't. The third, and usually final estrus cycle occurs in late October, typically just prior to the start of the first rifle elk hunt. At this point, I believe virtually all cows are bred, grabbing onto whatever bull is available. By the way, there has been some research that seems to indicate that spikes are not capable of breeding during the first estrus cycle even if the cows were receptive, but I don't think that has been determined for sure at this point.

In the Ochoco unit, there has been substantial breeding activity every year between the end of the rifle deer season and the start of the rifle elk season for at least the last 15 years. Many of you have reported the same thing in other units. My party personally witnessed numerous cows being bred prior to and during our first season hunt last year.

So here is where we are in Oregon. Cows are being bred from approximately Sept 15 to as late as Nov 1, more than 6 weeks. When we get to the calving season, instead of all the cows dropping calves at approximately the same time, birthing is spread throughout June and July. Instead of having a three week window where predation is a serious threat, that period is extended to more than 6 weeks. The result, low calf numbers going into the winter.

I believe the same principal is true for mule deer, although I am unaware of any studies that support that, or refute that. A secondary problem with mule deer is that being born in July is a much more serious problem for deer fawns. Numerous studies have shown that late fawns are much more likely to be malnurished, killed by predators, etc throughout their first year of life.

Under the current situation in Oregon, we don't have the tools to really control the impact of predators on big game populations, and wolves are going to add to the problem. It is, however, within our ability to control the number of mature bucks and bulls that are available to do the breeding, and also limit the impact that human beings have on big game during the rut through road closures, access restrictions, etc.

Now, let me emphasize that my new funding proposal does not address any of this, except to add a fee to pay for more road closures and more enforcement. However, we are going to have to deal with this at some point we really want to see our big game populations increase.

Scoutdog

[gottafish]

absolutely believe that the biggest cause of low fawn and or calf ratios is predation during the first three weeks after birth. In the case of elk, the major culprit is cougar, with a giant assist from bears in some parts of Oregon. For deer, it is cougar and coyotes, not sure which actually takes more.




Not according to the Bio in Lagrand I talked with. Bears are the number one problem when it comes to fawn and calf predation. and the Odfw has over 300 kills on Vidieo to back that up. He said the bears just hang back and wait for the cow to start calving and then runs in for the kill. they have been known to follow a herd for weeks picking up 95 % of the calves

[whtelk]

The bear will head for green grass to forage in the spring and that just happens to be where the calving areas are too. Bears are opportunists and will gladly take what he can get.

[mtn300]

Follow the elk and you will find a bear around. I saw this several times. IFish bear hunt in the fall.. Need more mature bulls but that will be a tough one because everyone wants the opportunity to hunt. I would give up my opportunity to have more quality hunts.

[Chug]

Was Humans, added to the Predation? Poachers?
Cars? Big trucks? barbed wires, lack of habitat stress.

Wonder if anyone really counted the number of Dead deer, on roads?. Per county/state. per year. In the last month seen 5 Road deer kills in my area..

Sure would be nice to see Footage & photo's of those kills from Predation.. They speak volumes over " What If's "

Farmers Whine of Sage rats, but keep shooting the coyotes., That feed on the Sage rats. Um.. if they are eating Sage Rats, that is a good thing Less poison used to kill Sage Rats.

That is my Stolen/Barted

Oh well, I got my Cat & Bear tag.. that is all what counts!!..

[nakoa]

ya but convince all the hippie's to let the hunter bring back dogs to control the preditor population we as hunter would have better luck french kissing an alligator.

[Joe]

This is rushed and pretty rough but consider these numbers.....

Murderers Creek - Bio's counted 2,176 deer in '06. Just guessing that they saw 25% of the population there are 8704 deer in MC.

Approximately 70% at the end of each fall are does or 6,092. If those each have just one fawn that is 3,000 doe and 3,000 buck fawns. Total buck kill is (132 archery and 596 gun) 728 bucks.

That means that for the population to maintain an even keel predators kill 3,000 does each year and 2,300 bucks. Considering cougars kill a deer a week alone these predator numbers seem low???? Coyotes kill a LOT of deer too.

My conclusion would be that of the 6,000 new recruits each year the evil old hunters are getting 11.6% of the venison. I want more! Lets focus on getting so many deer we have to kill does every year to maintain the populations we prefer. That is the ideal situation.

[baltz526]

in a lot of elk range there are very few bears, but these same areas also have the same problems as high bear number areas. if elk drop most of the calves in 1 week, a much larger percentage will survive. if you spread out this birthing to 3 seperated weeks, you in effect give the predators 3 times the opportunity to eat calves/fawns

[traks44]

I had the Opportunity to listen to Martin Vavra in our range 442 class the other day.

I learned some some great new info, like the reason the branch bull season is only 5 days long now is because that before when it was 2 weeks long that all the branch bulls were getting shot and that this in turn would force younger bulls to breed. Therefore lengthening the calving season and causing more predation by predators. By shortening the calving season the calves also had a better chance of survival in the winter. I guess it makes sense that larger calves will have a better chance going into winter. If calves are born to late they wont have a chance. He told the class that you wouldnt turn out 2-4 beef bulls per 100 beef cows and expect them all to be bread. This is the same concept with elk, they need X amout of mature bulls per 100 cows to hit there objective in making sure nearly all the cows get bread.



He also mentioned that bears were a huge problem on elk calves in the spring. Alot of bears will just travel the calving grounds looking for them. For the first three weeks of life that calf eats and lays hidden. The mom will go out and feed until her udder is full and then come back and let the calf nurse. The calf after nursing goes directly back to the ground while mom goes feeding again. Of course the cows will have to move for feed and ounce she has moved the calf far enough, the calfs lays down again and this goes on for three weeks about.

He said that with cougars most of the time they will take the old and weak and the young ones. He said there were excpetions to this of course but a lion will not try and large bull if there is a small calf or old cow nearby. This is not where the problem lies, the problem lies where the hunter take animals from all ages of the cow population. He said this is what hurts the population the most because mother nature is not at work. Predation along with this exact problem is why starkey will not be open for cow hunting he said until it rebounds.

It was very interesting to listen to him for an hour and a half. While some of this seems very basic he added much more to these issues.

He also went on to say that deer, elk, and cattle all have different nutritional requirments and utilize different areas. He said that in general, cattle displace elk, and elk displace deer. This is why you see deer closer to roads more often than elk. When elk move away from the roads it pushed the deer towards the roads in alot of instances. Fascinating stuff it was!

Bottom line was that predation is our #1 problem. What I got from the discussion was that people can complain all they want about habitat but if they elk and deer dont make it to maturity then habitat is pointless. I believe he also would agree that there are to many cow elk hunts. We can either have lots of predators and few cow hunts or lots of cow hunts and few predators.

In a nutshell, Overpopulation of predators in Eastern Oregon is causing ALOT of problems both economically and ecologically.

[Rank Amateur]

Originally Posted by traks44

This is not where the problem lies, the problem lies where the hunter take animals from all ages of the cow population. He said this is what hurts the population the most because mother nature is not at work. Predation along with this exact problem is why starkey will not be open for cow hunting he said until it rebounds.

Now there is a smart man. Yep, no horns on the cows to give the hunters a clue to the age of the cow or Doe, they shoot the first one they see and then an old gummer cow dies in the winter or from predators. If we only took the older animals out of the herds, female hunting would not be much of an issue.

No doubt predators are a very big issue and if we could cut that mortality in half we would not be argueing over the scraps.

In the Cedar Creek enclosure study, the recruitment rate into the herd (survive to yearlings) was .62. So for every 1,000 Does that would be 620 yearlings. There was very little if any predation in the study. That is as good as it is going to get for Blacktail deer, this was Tillamook burn habitat.

The drop rate for fawns was 1.52, so there is a lot of natural mortality besides predation on fawns.

[coyote243]

Predation is a big factor when it comes to fawn ratios. I belive if you can take a predator out you should and if you can help someone to take a toothy cridder in anyway you should. but it seems to me that people are zip lip on helping each other take cats, bears or coyotes. it wasn't that long ago I was asking for mp3 sounds and info on cougars and bears, no person chimed into help. these animals are so hard to hunt when you know how and even more so when just starting. we will talk about how we would like to thin the numbers but that's it. theres plenty of cats/ bears for all... what are the chances that by helping someone it will really hurt your hunting success.

[gweedo#1]

Originally Posted by Rank Amateur

Now there is a smart man. Yep, no horns on the cows to give the hunters a clue to the age of the cow or Doe, they shoot the first one they see and then an old gummer cow dies in the winter or from predators. If we only took the older animals out of the herds, female hunting would not be much of an issue.

No doubt predators are a very big issue and if we could cut that mortality in half we would not be argueing over the scraps.

In the Cedar Creek enclosure study, the recruitment rate into the herd (survive to yearlings) was .62. So for every 1,000 Does that would be 620 yearlings. There was very little if any predation in the study. That is as good as it is going to get for Blacktail deer, this was Tillamook burn habitat.

The drop rate for fawns was 1.52, so there is a lot of natural mortality besides predation on fawns.

that goes for young bulls to they should make it 3pt or better and let the young bulls have a growing chance ( for deer to ) statewide..I bow hunt the saddle mt unit and I can tell you that the herds there are alot healthier than the wilson and trask.

[mtn300]

Originally Posted by traks44

I had the Opportunity to listen to Martin Vavra in our range 442 class the other day.

I learned some some great new info, like the reason the branch bull season is only 5 days long now is because that before when it was 2 weeks long that all the branch bulls were getting shot and that this in turn would force younger bulls to breed. Therefore lengthening the calving season and causing more predation by predators. By shortening the calving season the calves also had a better chance of survival in the winter. I guess it makes sense that larger calves will have a better chance going into winter. If calves are born to late they wont have a chance. He told the class that you wouldnt turn out 2-4 beef bulls per 100 beef cows and expect them all to be bread. This is the same concept with elk, they need X amout of mature bulls per 100 cows to hit there objective in making sure nearly all the cows get bread.



He also mentioned that bears were a huge problem on elk calves in the spring. Alot of bears will just travel the calving grounds looking for them. For the first three weeks of life that calf eats and lays hidden. The mom will go out and feed until her udder is full and then come back and let the calf nurse. The calf after nursing goes directly back to the ground while mom goes feeding again. Of course the cows will have to move for feed and ounce she has moved the calf far enough, the calfs lays down again and this goes on for three weeks about.

He said that with cougars most of the time they will take the old and weak and the young ones. He said there were excpetions to this of course but a lion will not try and large bull if there is a small calf or old cow nearby. This is not where the problem lies, the problem lies where the hunter take animals from all ages of the cow population. He said this is what hurts the population the most because mother nature is not at work. Predation along with this exact problem is why starkey will not be open for cow hunting he said until it rebounds.

It was very interesting to listen to him for an hour and a half. While some of this seems very basic he added much more to these issues.

He also went on to say that deer, elk, and cattle all have different nutritional requirments and utilize different areas. He said that in general, cattle displace elk, and elk displace deer. This is why you see deer closer to roads more often than elk. When elk move away from the roads it pushed the deer towards the roads in alot of instances. Fascinating stuff it was!

Bottom line was that predation is our #1 problem. What I got from the discussion was that people can complain all they want about habitat but if they elk and deer dont make it to maturity then habitat is pointless. I believe he also would agree that there are to many cow elk hunts. We can either have lots of predators and few cow hunts or lots of cow hunts and few predators.

In a nutshell, Overpopulation of predators in Eastern Oregon is causing ALOT of problems both economically and ecologically.

Predation Bingo !!!

[OutdoorBum]

Originally Posted by nakoa

ya but convince all the hippie's to let the hunter bring back dogs to control the preditor population we as hunter would have better luck french kissing an alligator.

[CombinationLicense]

Your theory sounds plausible to me Scoutdog but there is now hard data to back up the amount of predation occurring on elk herds. ODFW Bio Bruce Johnson has been conducting the Elk Nutrition and Predation study in target areas for several years now. The results clearly show that cougar predation is the leading factor in low elk calf recruitment.

Cougars 74%
Bears 12%
Coyotes 3%
All other causes including nutrition 11%

I heard Brice Johnson give the summary of his work down at ODFW some time back and he didn't think that breeding/gestation times were a significant factor in mortality. While this study doesn't include deer stats, there should be a correlation since that's what cougars eat. Armed with this data, wouldn't we (Hunters) be better off to force (Read: lawsuit) the ODFW/Oregon Fish and Wildlife commission to do their jobs (IE: Control predation) as outlined in Oregon's Wildlife policy?

Wildlife Policy, ORS 469.012:
It is the policy of the State of Oregon that wildlife shall be managed to prevent serious depletion of any indigenous species and to provide the optimum recreational and aesthetic benefits for present and future generations of the citizens of this state. In furtherance of this policy, the State Fish and Wildlife Commission shall represent the public interest of the State of Oregon and implement the following coequal goals of wildlife management:
(1) To maintain all species of wildlife at optimum levels.
(2) To develop and manage the lands and waters of this state in a manner that will enhance the production and public enjoyment of wildlife.
(3) To permit an orderly and equitable utilization of available wildlife.
(4) To develop and maintain public access to the lands and waters of the state and the wildlife resources thereon.
(5) To regulate wildlife populations and the public enjoyment of wildlife in a manner that is compatible with primary uses of the lands and waters of the state.
(6) To provide optimum recreational benefits.
(7) To make decisions that affect wildlife resources of the state for the benefit of the wildlife resources and to make decisions that allow for the best social, economic and recreational utilization of wildlife resources by all user groups.[1973 c.723 §6; 1993 c.659 §2; 2001 c.762 §6]

"CL"

[scoutdog5]

Combo: That is a great post. I am incorporating the wildlife policy into the proposal. I could be wrong, but I thought Johnson's study was one where they put radio collars on calves at some point after birth. Depending on how long after birth that occurred, bear predation would be under-represented, since it primarily occurs shortly after birthing. I was also thinking this study was done in an area with good numbers of mature bull elk? Maybe not. Johnson is one of the bio's in La Grande, isn't he?

Your point illustrates the problem exactly. Wenaha unit has good numbers of mature bulls, lot's of roadless and wilderness habitat, lots of bears and cougars, and a cow calf ratio the last three years of 17/100, 30/100/20/100. Silvies unit far fewer mature bulls, heavily roaded, small number bears, but plenty of cougars, and a cow/calf ratio the last three years of 14/100, 14/100 and 116/100. Maintenance level for elk (the calf ratio needed to maintain herd at current population level) is 30-35/100, so both of these units are in serious trouble. Unfortunately, the cause of the problem is likely considerably different in each unit. This makes state wide solutions difficult.

In my view, this is the primary reason why having limited entry for all hunts and all weapons needs to happen at some point. ODF&W should be developing recovery plans that are specific to individual units, or small groups of units in the same geographic area. Managing hunter numbers has to be a significant part of that type of recovery plan.

Just a reminder, my proposal for ODF&W funding does NOT make any changes to the current program as far as limited entry is concerned.

Scoutdog

[Ildor]

Originally Posted by scoutdog5

Combo: That is a great post. I am incorporating the wildlife policy into the proposal. I could be wrong, but I thought Johnson's study was one where they put radio collars on calves at some point after birth. Depending on how long after birth that occurred, bear predation would be under-represented, since it primarily occurs shortly after birthing. I was also thinking this study was done in an area with good numbers of mature bull elk? Maybe not. Johnson is one of the bio's in La Grande, isn't he?

Your point illustrates the problem exactly. Wenaha unit has good numbers of mature bulls, lot's of roadless and wilderness habitat, lots of bears and cougars, and a cow calf ratio the last three years of 17/100, 30/100/20/100. Silvies unit far fewer mature bulls, heavily roaded, small number bears, but plenty of cougars, and a cow/calf ratio the last three years of 14/100, 14/100 and 116/100. Maintenance level for elk (the calf ratio needed to maintain herd at current population level) is 30-35/100, so both of these units are in serious trouble. Unfortunately, the cause of the problem is likely considerably different in each unit. This makes state wide solutions difficult.

In my view, this is the primary reason why having limited entry for all hunts and all weapons needs to happen at some point. ODF&W should be developing recovery plans that are specific to individual units, or small groups of units in the same geographic area. Managing hunter numbers has to be a significant part of that type of recovery plan.

Just a reminder, my proposal for ODF&W funding does NOT make any changes to the current program as far as limited entry is concerned.

Scoutdog

I'd like to see the data on how many cougars per sq. mile are in each unit. "Lots" and "plenty" are hardly empirical, no offense.

[Rank Amateur]

The study done by Johnson broke new ground. They captured cows and inserted a locator beacon so that when the calf was born the act of birthing pushed the locator out and activated it. They had teams on the ground/ air waiting for the signals and got to the area as quick as they could. They then would radio collar any calves that they could find, which sounded fairly high. Again they had crews ready to respond as soon as mortality was detected in the calves. What they found was that the cougars were making most of the kills, but bears would take over a carcass.

[scoutdog5]

Rank, first this is encouraging in that ODF&W designed, implemented, and funded a research project that truly is providing critical info. Given that methodology, those results would tend to counter the theory that bears are the primary cause of predation on newborns. Wish we had 10 more of these types of research projects going on a whole host of other problems with deer and elk on both sides of the state.

This reminds me of what happened in Yellowstone. Wolf biologists started finding evidence of Grizzly bears killing lots of calves. The wolfers were overjoyed, and made a big deal that, see. wolves really did not kill all the elk. The next year, they did a full story, and found that girzzlies were following the wolf herds around, and when they killed an elk, the grizzly chased them off the kill, and had dinner.

Scoutdog

[lor]

Originally Posted by scoutdog5

I absolutely believe that the biggest cause of low fawn and or calf ratios is predation during the first three weeks after birth.

In the area I hunt, during archery season about 70% of the does have fawns. And alot of them have twins. Going up for scouting trips in July we often see herds of cow elk with calfs as well. I'm not sure when the bio's do the surveys, but I'm always amazed at the amount of young animals I see in the John Day valley and surrounding national forest before and during hunting season.

[Fishing With Larry]

Excellant thread.

But, what can we really do about it? In my view, it is a management problem. Predators are defiately the big issue. Low numbers of mature bulls and bucks lengthening the breading season/birthing window is a real concern.

I'm someone who grew up in Saddle Mt. and watched my father and his hunt party year after year tag one spike or small bull for 7-10 hunters, the thought of tagging a 3-point or better when ODFW went to a controlled hunt seemed impossible. Finally, once I reached my twelveth birthday A few short years later, elk herds grew and so did the number of large bulls. Our sucess rate went up to over 60% on bulls and remained consistent until switching to archery just years ago.

Management is key. Key to controlling predators and in controlling buck and bull ratios. ODFW seems like they are slow to act when ratios aren't met.

One other idea is education for those getting doe/cow tags. In the Eastern states, all guided hunting outfits encourage killing does because they are affecting the carrying capacity. They educate the hunter to avoid them taking what they call button bucks or small first year bucks with nubbins. They also educate on how to identify a producing doe vs an older barren doe.

I now know how to instruct my daughter or son how to "cull" unwanted does with our landowner doe deer tags and keep healthy populations around.

[tailchaser]

A couple of questions for ya Scoutdog pertaining to some comments:

"Under the current situation in Oregon, we don't have the tools to really control the impact of predators on big game populations, and wolves are going to add to the problem. It is, however, within our ability to control the number of mature bucks and bulls that are available to do the breeding, and also limit the impact that human beings have on big game during the rut through road closures, access restrictions, etc.

Now, let me emphasize that my new funding proposal does not address any of this, except to add a fee to pay for more road closures and more enforcement. However, we are going to have to deal with this at some point we really want to see our big game populations increase."

One, we do have the tools to control predators better, ODFW chooses not to rattle cages to do it. They have rules mentioned above that could provide leverage to create additional hunts and utilize dogs where they have a proven problem. Example, NE Oregon. What is sad is when they got the approval to let private hunters control problem cats only to have the commission stall on the implimentation. Very sad. What is needed the most is someone that has a set of stones to step up and say it within the organization that can do something about it.

Two, why would I have my fees increase to close roads? Isn't this less of an issue if the forest service or local government doesn't maintain it? Why does it cost more to leave it alone or put a $2 dollar sign in front of it instead of maintaining it?

Three, I'm all for more inforcement but that's been around the whipping post for a while. The amount needed is more than a couple, it's 50-100. I'm pretty sure that's not going into the budget. I'm curious to how many you're talking about.

Finally, it seems there are a lot of people who don't really agree with all of the things mentioned that you are going to propose. Who do you represent exactly? The reason I ask, is if you are supposedly representing (lets say ODFW for now), then I'm not real happy this decision is yours alone on what you're going to put on my plate for years to come without some input. No one is going to argue about putting some limits on hunting, but it seems to me there are some better avenues to go after prior to taking on the hunters. It's a common misconception by ODFW that the hunters are the only thing they can control. It seems it's the only thing they know how to control.

tc

[CombinationLicense]

Originally Posted by scoutdog5

Rank, first this is encouraging in that ODF&W designed, implemented, and funded a research project that truly is providing critical info. Given that methodology, those results would tend to counter the theory that bears are the primary cause of predation on newborns. Wish we had 10 more of these types of research projects going on a whole host of other problems with deer and elk on both sides of the state.

This reminds me of what happened in Yellowstone. Wolf biologists started finding evidence of Grizzly bears killing lots of calves. The wolfers were overjoyed, and made a big deal that, see. wolves really did not kill all the elk. The next year, they did a full story, and found that girzzlies were following the wolf herds around, and when they killed an elk, the grizzly chased them off the kill, and had dinner.

Scoutdog

The study is not published on the ODFW website because it's still in progress. However, there is an outline published here from 2002. The study was originally designed to include areas where the cougar populations were controlled by "administrative removal". As I recall, the Anti groups (HSUS, Predator Defense, etc...) threatened to sue ODFW over it so that portion of the plan was dropped. There has been information released about the study to the public but I don't know exactly where.

Since these threads are starting to overlap, I would like to mention a couple of other points. First, "The Rogue" made a good point about the possible negative effects that raising tag fees could have on hunting recruitment. The costs associated with hunting were identified as one of the contributing factors to declining hunter numbers by the ODFW workgroup I participated in. There should be some consideration as how to mitigate the negative effects for youth participation, IE: reduced cost youth tags. Second, I have long thought that the "Spike Only" units were nothing but money makers for ODFW. The last time I checked, there was about 10,000 (@ $35 each) tags available in a few units and the success ratio was about 5%. That simply adds up to managing elk for the most money and fewest kills.



"CL"

[whtelk]

Scoutdog......Whom do you work for? are you ODFW ....PETA... ect... are you an archery hunter,,,,rifle ,,,,,or none of the above. This an honest question....not skeptical , but I learned long ago to keep friends close and enemies closer. Not questioning your proposal, but not really finding much I like.

[Limbhanger]

Originally Posted by gottafish

absolutely believe that the biggest cause of low fawn and or calf ratios is predation during the first three weeks after birth. In the case of elk, the major culprit is cougar, with a giant assist from bears in some parts of Oregon. For deer, it is cougar and coyotes, not sure which actually takes more.




Not according to the Bio in Lagrand I talked with. Bears are the number one problem when it comes to fawn and calf predation. and the Odfw has over 300 kills on Vidieo to back that up. He said the bears just hang back and wait for the cow to start calving and then runs in for the kill. they have been known to follow a herd for weeks picking up 95 % of the calves

Not quite true. ODFW does an annual calf mortality study in N.E. Oregon and the data shows that 75% of calf mortality due to predation is Cougar related. The bears get their fair share, but the cats get the overwhelming majority.

[Joe]

Originally Posted by Rank Amateur

.

In the Cedar Creek enclosure study, the recruitment rate into the herd (survive to yearlings) was .62. So for every 1,000 Does that would be 620 yearlings. There was very little if any predation in the study. That is as good as it is going to get for Blacktail deer, this was Tillamook burn habitat.

The drop rate for fawns was 1.52, so there is a lot of natural mortality besides predation on fawns.

That is good info to have RA. You would have to consider that the mortality described would be the "sick and weak" that get eaten first so in a real world setting the effect of predators would still be the same only we would be seeing the beneficial side of predation doing it's part in genetic selection. of course the problem is when predation moves way beyond the "sick and weak" which is were we are now IMO. If you plug in those numbers into the example I posted above it is even more enlightening.

Take that same 6,000 does producing 1.5 fawn each and the added recruitment each year is 9,000 of which hunters take 728 bucks (132 archery and 596 gun) therefore hunters have a 8% part in the take. Bow hunters BTW are getting 1.4%!!! I just throw this in since there has been talk of bowhunters needing to give up some of their share, mention of it at least. I have rifle hunted the east side the last two years so if any of you think I am trying to make a case for MY sport your mistaken, I just hate to see hunters getting "credit" that is unfounded. These numbers are not exaggerated from what I can gather based on the Mule Deer population in Oregon and the percentage that live in Murderers Creek. Obviously there is mortality besides hunters and predators but it is minimal and in any population that is that driven by predators, dieing of old age is not going to happen often. Again the slow and weak get killed before they can pass on in their sleep. The only number we really have a good feel for is the hunter take. Poaching in my mind is probably equal to hunting but that gets thrown in with the coyotes as far as I'm concerned....

I know I'm preaching to the choir here but if we do the math it is amazing what would happen if we could eliminate 50% of the predators. The sad thing is everywhere you turn somebody is trying to take away the opportunity. The antis hit a gold mine with the hound and bait ban!! Just look at the fighting among different hunting groups about who gets whats left. I bet they love that....

[ommedia]

This thread is very healthy and good for creative thinking:
We all agree that something isn't right, we want to know exactly why, and based on our experience, gut feelings, and knowledge we come to conclusions or develop ideas. This is good. Having access to any studies is great and I appreciate learning all I can.

If Ifish had been around in 94' with these types of discussions, I imagine we would have, collectively, been able to rally the troops to smell the roses about the bear & cougar initiative. Meaning, we could have held all of our fellow hunters hands and walked them to the voting booths.

One that stands out to me, that was mentioned and that I have learned before, is that there is not a "statewide" solution or solve-all. Issues, and the causes of these issues, differ slightly or greatly per area/unit. What works in SW, may not work in NE, etc.

NOW HERE IS A PIECE OF MY EXPERIENCE TO CHEW ON:
We've talked about how we feel that cougar take more calves, or bear take more calves, or coyotes... Here is my experience. In Wallowa County I have found 2 seperate cases (while either turkey hunting or mushroom picking in late May) where a bear has come accross a major calving area and killed a dozen or more elk calves and not eaten a piece of them. Their skulls were crushed and just laying there. We may have disturbed the events and the bear later returned. What we remember most is that it appeared that the bear was on a rampage. We called them all in to ODFW. One scene had nearly 25 calves laying there, all the calves looked to be a day or so old, but not much more.

From what I gather, I suspect that if you put a coyote, wolf, cougar, or bear in that situation, they might all make best of the opportunity.

If you take the path (like Hart Mtn calving issue a few years back) that if the food source is low, the predator populations will suffer, that could very well be true for coyotes or even cats...but not bears. They don't NEED meat to survive.

I used to believe that a cougar wouldn't be a scavanger, but under dire circumstances, they obviously will. Two hunters I know report that not only do they find bears in the Wallowa county units that come to gut piles, but they are seeing cougars occassionally as well. I have spoken with biologists in that area that believe that the high bear population has changed predation rates. Bears often take over cougar kills, thus causing the cat to kill more often than normal.

You could interpret this as more evidence to control the predator populations, or more evidence to improve heard health/size, assuming you can't greatly affect the predators.

I guess my question is:
Do you feel that increasing the deer/elk heard populations and/or buck/bull to doe/cow ratios will be sufficient, however it might happen? Or, must we do both? Or, will lowering predator populations guaranttee the other?

[baltz526]

my opinion: predators reduction, habitat improvement and reduced human pressure during critical times are the top 3 issues, then comes cow/doe hunts, damage control tags, then over selling tags for bucks/bulls. and spike only hunts are just plain insane

[earlybird007]

My opinion:Predator reduction, cow/doe hunts, poaching, road closure enforcement, habitat improvement


>>>------->

[woolybuggerboy]

another issue affecting calf survival that hasn't been mentioned is human disturbance. for the full study look up the following:
Shively KJ, Alldredge WA, Phillips GE. 2005. Elk reproductive responses to removal of calving season disturbance by humans. Journal of Wildlife Management. 69; 1073-1080.

In research conducted in colorado, two similar study areas were selected, with one being the control and the other being the test area. The test area was subjected to normal recreation (hiking, camping, SHED HUNTING, etc). What they found was that the area with the human disturbance had significantly reduced calf survival (~3 per 100), which is about 39% decrease.

Humans are causing a big problem with calf survival. Other issues which have already been mentioned are predators (bears and cougars), and breeding efficiency (which determines when the calves drop). If all the cows are bred at once and efficiently, then most of the calves drop at the same time. Predators cannot kill as big of a portion of the calves if they're all there at once (as opposed to taking them as they come). This increases calf survival. To increase breeding efficiency there need to be the right bull to cow ratios.

Just my

[CombinationLicense]

Good point about human disturbance as a causative factor in fawn/calf mortality. certainly that and most of the other causes noted on this thread contribute to the problem. It seems like most opinions follow the science that puts excessive predation at the top of the list. Note I said EXCESSIVE predation - certainly maintaining a healthy population of predators is necessary but it's the uncontrolled population that is the source of excessive predation. So how do all of us, and the groups that we're part of address the issue? As I mentioned earlier, I believe that a lawsuit is going to be necessary. That is what ODFW fears most from the pro-predator organizations and part of what's holding them back. The other factor is that the prevailing political winds are blowing in favor of the pro-predator groups. They hold the valley votes that are necessary for any candidate to become Governor. Making our elected officials and candidates for office take a position on this issue would be a good place to start. Then holding them accountable for that position and their actions would get their attention. Hunters can be a very powerful voting block if they would stick together.



"CL"

[traks44]

Originally Posted by baltz526

my opinion: predators reduction, habitat improvement and reduced human pressure during critical times are the top 3 issues, then comes cow/doe hunts, damage control tags, then over selling tags for bucks/bulls. and spike only hunts are just plain insane

, I would agree with that, some minor re-ordering IMO but thats dang close!

[baltz526]

i did forget poaching,