It must have been a bad night!

[Rank Amateur]

Well that makes for a good excuse any ways. Last night I assisted with a spotlight deer herd composition count with the District bio, Herman Biederbeck. Herman is a good guy, we just don't see eye to eye on everything, well that's earth shattering news. We had our usual long talks about the Travel Management Agreements, deer numbers, cougars, bobcats and people who keep trying to shoot themselves in the foot by abusing the private landowners and their kindness of allowing to hunt on their lands.

To sum it up, I told Herman I was going to quote him, and the qoute is "Hmm...................hmmmm......" We had just pulled up to a very nice looking clearcut with a good vantage of the landscape and that was what rolled off Hermans lips. I had to give him a jab in the ribs and say "Hmmm.......where are all the deer"? Herman takes my jabbing pretty well, I have to admit!

For the night we saw 10 deer, only could classify 5, one Doe, two fawns and 2 bucks (I will take pm's with payment for that information). It simply was not a good night, but the elk didn't seem to think so, they were out in force, we probably seen close to 50 head, three were spikes.

We covered from Crowns old head quarters to Mist and then back to Keasey road. That my friends is a large area. A few nights earlier Herman and another local assistant spotlighted 41 deer in a smaller area, so there are deer out there and I have no doubt that given the right conditions we would have done better.

I'm still chuckling over the "Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm............", though!

[ehunter]

Rank so what is take on the numbers down normal coming back no problem ect. I also take it all where healthy a little early for HLS. Did you discuss baker point and why the change in the youth hunt in Cedar Creek. Man I have a ton of questions.

[Rank Amateur]

By our conversation, Herman is convinced that the deer decline is habitat driven. So, I would take it that since the habitat is continueing to be converted into more industrial forest lands that the deer herd will continue to decline.

I mentioned the record low harvests and he stated it was a function of the low hunter numbers. I then mentioned the low success rate, I don't think I got an answer to that. This is one of the points where we disagree. He readily admits that the deer population is down, down two where, nobody knows.

I didn't have the heart to ask if they are going to continue the Doe hunts. Frankly, it is a mute point anymore.

[Chesapeake]

Deer dont grow to well in a Douglas dessert. Not much does but mushrooms.

[Rank Amateur]

Originally Posted by Chesapeake

Deer dont grow to well in a Douglas dessert. Not much does but mushrooms.

You would think some would grow in the clearcuts though????? Very interesting that the elk are doing well, deer, not.

[lake creek charlie]

When i bought my place 16 years ago close to florence,when we went hunting(within 1 mile of my place)we saw MANY deer and usually limited out easily. THEN we started seeing cougar right after the dog ban. We have not SEEN a deer in the same area for 8 years. HMMMMMM

[Chesapeake]

I dont hunt deer where I hunt Elk and I dont hunt elk where I hunt deer.

In the lowland high production douglas dessert areas I see lots of elk and not alot of deer.

My guess is that the deer need a more stable environment than patchwork clearcuts that are surronded by reprod and constantly change. Also I think all the herbacide they spray to kill off the brush is hard on the deer more so than the elk. Elk will roam all over to find the best feed. They seem to have a larger home teritory. Deer seem to have a smaller teritory and dont travel as far to find food.

Just my armchair wildlife biology.

[woodsy188]

I went out Tuesday night in the Yamhill area. We saw about 25 deer, only 2 bucks.

My "leader" told me that the numbers have been very low this year. We had hoped to see over 100 that night, but knew it wouldn't be a reality.

The highest population of deer weren't in the 'timberland's property' but in the valleys of private farm land.

[ehunter]

Here is my problem with habitat being the sole source of the BT decline. I can take you into miles of area that have ground blackberries lot sof cover and very few deer. What ahd changed between now and the 70's even the mid 80's ????

[whtelk]

I went to high school with Herman. He was a really good guy then and I am certain his heart is in the right place when it comes to wildlife and fish.

[Blacktail Slayer]

For the Alsea unit I believe habitat is a huge part of low BT deer numbers. Less clear-cut and tons of spraying. Elk herds have been growing none stop in this unit with around 8 or more cow elk hunts to help manage this unit. I have read research paper, talk to bio's, and 2nd generation old timers that all say the deer and elk populations have switched spots. Since elk are in herds; they tend to push deer out of the good habitat areas. The deer are then forced to eat on less nutritious vegetation, use more energy constantly moving from the elk pushing them out of areas, elk taking over the BT's bedding area, which in turn can force a deer to feed and bed in areas more susceptible to predators. This is a unit that I hunt and if wolves ever get to this side of the Cascades; I wouldn't mind them thinning out some of the elk. Everyone probably thinks I'm crazy, but I as long as the state could manage the wolves I would be happy. The wolf management plan calls for so many packs on the westside and I wouldn’t mind it being in my area.

[No Fences]

I went out on Tuesday as well. Went to the Bible Creek area. DIdn't see too many, but the buck out numbered the does. Maybe 15+ deer all night. The night before, the bio and his assistant saw a whole lot more.

One group of deer we saw had 5 animals in it and all of them were bucks, with a couple of decent ones. One of them was missing his right side.

I did see 2 forkies along side the road on my way home that were in an area that I've always thought held deer, just never witnessed any. The bigger of the 2 out weighed the other by a good 50 lbs.

[Blacktail Slayer]

I have been out spotlighting with the bio's also. Your going to have your good nights and your bad. It doesn't always mean that there is no or low deer numbers in that area. Remember we are talking about blacktails here. Lots of hiding cover and areas traveled away from roads out of sight.

[Rank Amateur]

Originally Posted by Blacktail Slayer

I have been out spotlighting with the bio's also. Your going to have your good nights and your bad. It doesn't always mean that there is no or low deer numbers in that area. Remember we are talking about blacktails here. Lots of hiding cover and areas traveled away from roads out of sight.

Definately, each night can produce different numbers, last night the temps dipped down to freezing, that is not good for deer count.

The one problem I have with the deer versus elk theory is that in the Saddle Mt. unit in the 60's we had our highest populations of both deer and elk at the same time, so I don't see how it can be said the elk push the deer.

Interesting to see the other guys out helping too, good job!

[BlacktailBowhunter]

[quote=Rank Amateur;2291151]

I mentioned the record low harvests and he stated it was a function of the low hunter numbers. quote]

Funny, the genereal western tag purchases were up about 2,000 from last year. That is according to ODFW.

BTBH

[Rank Amateur]

I hadn't noticed that, but S.M. tag sales are down. Most people have a hard time buying tags when they never see anything. I just don't buy that argument, because it would mean the population of deer is remaining stable or increasing and statistically that should mean higher success rates for fewer people. 10% success rate for the general season is nothing to be proud of.

[No Fences]

Originally Posted by Rank Amateur

I hadn't noticed that, but S.M. tag sales are down. Most people have a hard time buying tags when they never see anything. I just don't buy that argument, because it would mean the population of deer is remaining stable or increasing and statistically that should mean higher success rates for fewer people. 10% success rate for the general season is nothing to be proud of.

Maybe it has to do with more and more people not getting out of their rigs when they hunt?

[Trick]

Originally Posted by Rob Kaiser

Maybe it has to do with more and more people not getting out of their rigs when they hunt?

I remember the 70's with my dad and the roads were full of them then also. To me that's the way it's always been....doesn't really seem any worse now.

We simply don't have the clear-cutting that we had 25 years ago. Less feed and maybe even worse is the deer just plain have more cover. When I'm in the reprod I still see countless beds, trails and piles of pellets. But the simple fact is you just can't see them in that stuff. Combine that with cougars, coyotes, HLS, etc...it just makes it tough.

Still see deer all the time in city limits....some dandys too!

[RipsDrift]

This year was the worst I have had for seeing BT. I was wondering if all of the spraying that has been done on state and private land has anything to do with declining BT numbers. When looking in clearcuts and everything is brown for 4 or 5 years it can't be good. Probably can't be good for the fish either. Just my worth.

[ehunter]

Alot of the Scappoose and the some of saddle mountain is walk in. We walk a ton in the fall and see very few deer I mean one or 2 deer in a 6 or 7 mile loop is not very good. I am old enough to remember the days when we were bow hunting elk and we could always shoot a buck. We would always see small bucks but not any more.

Originally Posted by Rob Kaiser

Maybe it has to do with more and more people not getting out of their rigs when they hunt?

[Blacktail Slayer]

Originally Posted by ehunter

Alot of the Scappoose and the some of saddle mountain is walk in. We walk a ton in the fall and see very few deer I mean one or 2 deer in a 6 or 7 mile loop is not very good. I am old enough to remember the days when we were bow hunting elk and we could always shoot a buck. We would always see small bucks but not any more.

Wow it sounds like you need a new area to hunt deer if you are only seeing 1 every 7 miles. I have never been to a place with that low of counts day after day. There probably won't be a single deer there next year. You probably won't mind posting your GPS location either for other people to hunt if there is only one deer left every 7 miles. What was that location again

[ehunter]

Blacktailslayer I would be happy to post the GPS location and then if some one see's more than 5 day in a day I would be happy to buy them a cold one I would love to be proved wrong. This area used to be a youth doe hunt not any longer. Ask Limbhanger and Rank they will back me up. The only reason we go in there is there are a few elk

[Rank Amateur]

Hey, I bet we covered 35 miles the other night, with 10 deer seen, so .35 deer per mile. Pretty lousy. I spent 6 days scouting (3 prior to 1st season and 3 prior to 2nd season) then one day hunting and 1 day packing elk and I saw a grand total of 3 deer, two Does and a fawn. It is really looking thin out there guys. Yep, the place to see deer is around town, so what is up with that?

You would think if spray was a factor then you would not see deer around the young cuts, but why no deer in the older cuts? I was in an area today that is older reprod, some timber and some new cuts, definately a mix, but no deer. I don't think I saw a single deer track and this road doesn't look like it has had vehicle traffic since the last bull season.

You guys down south have it good, but so did we at one time.

[woodsy188]

This is where I state my opinion that the west side general rifle hunt should be a draw hunt.

[baltz526]

maybe in some northern units this may be an option. hunting pressure is very low in some general tag units for deer. the only reason to do a draw would be to reach in your pocket.

[woodsy188]

I don't know what the numbers are, but it seems that a draw could provide the opportunity to bring hunting pressure WAY down. Numbers seem pretty high, at least I think that just by looking at the number of people I see in the northern area.

I don't have a lot of money, but $4.00 doesn't really hit my pocket that hard.

[Blacktail Slayer]

Originally Posted by ehunter

Blacktailslayer I would be happy to post the GPS location and then if some one see's more than 5 day in a day I would be happy to buy them a cold one I would love to be proved wrong. This area used to be a youth doe hunt not any longer. Ask Limbhanger and Rank they will back me up. The only reason we go in there is there are a few elk

I believe that the deer numbers are down. I know you may not see many deer a day, but do you at least jump and hear deer or see fresh sign in your area. It is to bad our number of deer tags on the westside from doe and youth hunts have been so high, logging practices, HLS, and predators have done what they have done to our deer numbers. The higher elk populations in some of this units doesn't help either. I have not read the Blacktail Management Plan yet, but very interested to see what they have planned out. What are peoples thoughts on the new plan. I guess I should do a search and see if this was brought up before. Good luck to the people who have tags still in their pockets.

[Rank Amateur]

I have read through the Blacktail plan, sorry, I really didn't see any meat in it. They are looking to go to a Sex-Age-Kill method of population estimating, but it has some pit falls just like all the methods. Even if we get an accurate estimate of the population what does that gain us, other than maybe "We told you so". Maybe it would force a draw?? Maybe cut out the Doe harvest?

It just seems there is something going on that we are all missing, we seem to have plenty of fawns on the ground in the summer, although it is getting really hard to see enough deer to get a real accurate look. I used to go out in July-August and count Doe/Fawn ratio's and used to do quite well seeing deer, now it is really hard. You can't get much of a picture from a handfull of deer.

Looking at the past data of the fall deer composition counts and then the spring trend counts, the Doe/Fawn ratio's look ok, although Herman did allude that he thought they were lower than they should be. Unfortunately, the data is not real valid, the methodology is flawed and this can be seen when spring fawn counts exceed the fall counts, it doesn't quite work that way in real life.

It's almost like we are loosing animals period, adults and fawns in proportion, this is how something like this can slip under the radar, because the population looks normal in the counts, but the counts are simply lower in number. This is because the method used to monitor our deer population really did not monitor the population but the ratio's between the sexes and fawns. There was no correlation to deer per acre ect. This is what has happened to our local bio's and they will admit, that while the buck to Doe and fawn ratio's are within norms, they did underestimate the loss to the overall population.

I really believe that HLS has been under estimated. Populations really took a nose dive in the late 90's and it has been down hill ever since. HLS can hit the adults hard too and with low recruitment into the herds could give us the picture we are seeing now. Hard to prove though.

I really think the habitat question can be answered now, with out a fancy study or such. We know that deer in southern Oregon are doing better, we need to harvest some Does in late winter and get a body fat index reading from them. Then do the same thing up here, if the habitat is really a major factor, we should see a lower body fat index. Let's face it fat deer do not die from malnutrition. If in fact the northern deer are in poor shape, then we must look at what is changed in the habitat, we used to carry a lot more deer. It is very odd that the elk are doing well, but the deer are not, frankly they ultilize a lot of the same forage. I know somebody mentioned mobility and it is true that elk are more mobile, but do we really think a deer will stay in one spot and starve to death, while good forage is probably less than 1/2 mile in any one direction?? Don't the timber companies log and treat the forests in southern Oregon in a similar fashion as up here?

[loper]

Originally Posted by Rank Amateur

I have read through the Blacktail plan, sorry, I really didn't see any meat in it.

Any ideas on what the missing meat of the plan might look like?

Originally Posted by Rank Amateur

They are looking to go to a Sex-Age-Kill method of population estimating, but it has some pit falls just like all the methods.

If a model that was currently being used by one of the other states managing black-tailed deer had already proven to be quite effective I think the agency would have chosen it; I'll give credit for scrapping the existing model as being ineffective.

Originally Posted by Rank Amateur

Even if we get an accurate estimate of the population what does that gain us, other than maybe "We told you so".

Perhaps an accurate population estimate would get enough hunters to scream so that the agency is forced to embrace a "Black-tailed Deer Initiative"; it certainly appears enough people expressed frustration at the fee increase meetings to force a "Mule Deer Initiative" to come to fruition.

Originally Posted by Rank Amateur

Maybe it would force a draw??

It certainly might add better information with respect to that conversation.

Originally Posted by Rank Amateur

Maybe cut out the Doe harvest?

Where the population estimate and the model indicates that is the proper thing to do, yes.


With the particular model chosen it is important to take the mandatory reporting seriously whether one is successful or not; I hope everyone does so.

[ehunter]

This is a start until they get some decent information and see what we have been seeing it and hear from us it might help to make a difference.


With the particular model chosen it is important to take the mandatory reporting seriously whether one is successful or not; I hope everyone does so.

[Norm]

Hunting in NW Oregon from the late 70's till 2007, I really noticed a big decline in deer populations shortly after they changed the deer seasons and added doe permits ( ~900 per NW unit) in the 90's. I think spraying young clearcuts also makes a difference, your killing the best couple of years of deer and elk feed something that I think was not popular until the late 80's. I'm sure predators, HLS, and poaching also have some affect, but to a lesser degree.

It would be interesting to see population trends against the above mentioned factors over the last 30-40 years.

[BrianMaguire]

Originally Posted by Norm

Hunting in NW Oregon from the late 70's till 2007, I really noticed a big decline in deer populations shortly after they changed the deer seasons and added doe permits ( ~900 per NW unit) in the 90's. I think spraying young clearcuts also makes a difference, your killing the best couple of years of deer and elk feed something that I think was not popular until the late 80's. I'm sure predators, HLS, and poaching also have some affect, but to a lesser degree.

It would be interesting to see population trends against the above mentioned factors over the last 30-40 years.

I agree, its a combo of factors. There are plenty of clear cuts, that argument holds no water. DHL and doe hunts are IMO, probably the biggest factors, but ODFW is essentially frozen and incapable of doing anything about DHLS. Outside Wilsonville we have been seeing DHLS for a 3 years now. Deer numbers are down dramatically, but the Willy doe tags continue to be handed out like candy.

[ehunter]

This is the part I find the most frustrating doe tags are still out there in a declining population? I agree there are some factors out of our hands we can't stop the timber companies from spraying they are doing it legaly and it is a problem but we can put less pressure on the deer numbers and let them try to come back. I see way too much empty ground that is capable of carring more deer.

Originally Posted by BrianMaguire

I agree, its a combo of factors. There are plenty of clear cuts, that argument holds no water. DHL and doe hunts are IMO, probably the biggest factors, but ODFW is essentially frozen and incapable of doing anything about DHLS. Outside Wilsonville we have been seeing DHLS for a 3 years now. Deer numbers are down dramatically, but the Willy doe tags continue to be handed out like candy.

[Rank Amateur]

Loper,

Meat-well where to begin, for me meat is answering some of the giant gaps of knowledge like, HLS what is the true mortality rate and long term effects on the survivers, we don't even have a clue what happens to these stunted deer that survive or how well they produce offspring. Habitat-we need to answer this question, do another Cedar Creek enclosure study but split it up into different plots with different timber management styles (spraying). A cheaper habitat model would be to collect samples from around the westside and look at fat indexes as an indicator of habitat quality. Weather/winter kill-develope an accurate model that picks up all the key weather conditions that lead to winter kill in Blacktails, this would be useful in management to prevent overharvest, especially on Does, have you ever noticed how units seem to be managed the same year in and year out; that truly can not be a reflection of what is happening on the ground. A good telemetry/mortality study up North would be useful, not sure the one down around Diamond lake applies up here. Yep, this all costs money, but hey how are those tags sales doing???

SAK has some of the same pitfalls as the POP2, input of valid data. I do like the idea of using age structure and kill percentages. I'm a little leery that the Doe harvests will be continued as an excuse to collect that data. I have seen the age structure data twisted in the past, so I'm a little leery how this data will be used this time. I would really like to see examples of expected out comes from the possible data, BEFORE any of the data is sampled and computed. This really should not be hard for the bio's to do, that is if SAK is truly understood. We probably have enough data right now to run a couple SAK models for Saddle Mt. deer, we took tooth samples for quite a few years and we have the harvest numbers. I just might try that myself, I have all the data.

Well, I would think tag sales would speak for themselves. There was a whole organization formed over night up here on the North coast but the department just out lasted us. There is a ton of resentment up here, but most people have just given up, quite a few have gone with the motto of "just kill them all, it doesn't matter". Lot's of people have simply given up hunting, they wanted to hunt in their backyard, not travel all over the state.

It is obvious that a lot of people don't know what is going on up here, but start looking at the stats people, it is creeping south and east. A 10% success rate during the general buck season is a disgrace, period.

[Hookset]

Originally Posted by Blacktail Slayer

For the Alsea unit I believe habitat is a huge part of low BT deer numbers. Less clear-cut and tons of spraying. Elk herds have been growing none stop in this unit with around 8 or more cow elk hunts to help manage this unit. I have read research paper, talk to bio's, and 2nd generation old timers that all say the deer and elk populations have switched spots. Since elk are in herds; they tend to push deer out of the good habitat areas. The deer are then forced to eat on less nutritious vegetation, use more energy constantly moving from the elk pushing them out of areas, elk taking over the BT's bedding area, which in turn can force a deer to feed and bed in areas more susceptible to predators. This is a unit that I hunt and if wolves ever get to this side of the Cascades; I wouldn't mind them thinning out some of the elk. Everyone probably thinks I'm crazy, but I as long as the state could manage the wolves I would be happy. The wolf management plan calls for so many packs on the westside and I wouldn’t mind it being in my area.

Crazy..........sounds right to me. Elk numbers along the coast are not increasing. Elk are spread out in more areas, but not in greater numbers then 20 years ago. The big shift in game distribution and numbers in the Alsea unit can largely be attributed to the spotted owl debate and the shift in logging practices on the Siuslaw National Forest. For years the national forest was managed for maximum volume where large tracts of timber were logged and shipped over seas. Then to ease concerns in the local logging communities, more timber was logged to fill the mills. Does anyone remember the large stacks of timber in Newport waiting to be shipped over seas?

In a nut shell, Congress ordered X amount of board feet harvested from federal lands to fund various federal expenses, where each forest was responsible for their share. Siuslaw along with other National Forest lands were harvested for timber at an accelerated rate that was not sustainable. Much of the increase in volume was based on outdated timber surveys that were not accurate or updated regularly. In many situations, timber surveys were over 5 years old. When new complete surveys were finally tallied, it became clear that federal lands were largely miss-managed and the current logging numbers would have to be sharply curtailed or run out of timber at current levels.

At this very point in time, the spotted owl entered into the picture. A lot of people believe environmentalist created the spotted owl debate. But the timing sure worked well for the National Forests in Western Oregon since the government would have to sharply decrease logging anyway.

OK, so what does this have to do with deer and elk? Simple, the logging increased the amount food available to deer and elk; it was like living in a supermarket. Elk and deer numbers were exceptionally high and could be found everywhere. Then the logging in many areas on public land was almost completely shut down or drastically reduced for many years. Much of the forest grew up; large tracts of clear cuts became overgrown brush piles or large tracts of new timber. The best forage for deer grew up and wasn't replaced by new clear cuts. Areas that once harbored large groups of deer were no more; deer either moved or eventually died off.

I used to spend hours driving coastal roads looking for deer and elk sign.......and sign was everywhere. From late summer into early fall, deer could be easily spotted from the roads. I remember stopping at different clear cuts along the gravel roads and glassing many does and bucks. There were countless trails crossing the roads with fresh tracks. In fact you didn't have to see the deer, just drive the roads and look for trails with the most sign; these trails were trampled to dirt.

After the logging stopped, most of these trails were eventually abandoned and never used again. You can still see lots or these former trails since nothing has grown on them; they are testaments to former glory days for deer and elk. You can also walk old abandoned roads and cat trails and find very few tracks or active trails.

Today, there is once again logging activity and new clear cuts. But it'll take years to bring deer and elk numbers back up to their former levels. I do believe the deer suffered the most with the change of habitat; but it really didn't help either species to loose a major food source.

I also realize there are other factors at work today like HLS and predation, but for the central coast, the change in habitat I believe was the trigger for todays decline in deer and elk numbers.

[ehunter]

So let me ask you guys what makes the difference in Southern Oregon is that they country is more open and logging is not as important? I think and sounds like there are still good deer numbers down there is HLS present?

[loper]

Originally Posted by BrianMaguire

Deer numbers are down dramatically, but the Willy doe tags continue to be handed out like candy.

Focusing on just this one unit:

Currently, as a deer deemphasis zone, it is my understanding that there are no management objectives for the unit; if that is the case does it matter how many tags are issued if management is primarily for the minimization of deer damage?

[BrianMaguire]

Originally Posted by loper

Focusing on just this one unit:

Currently, as a deer deemphasis zone, it is my understanding that there are no management objectives for the unit; if that is the case does it matter how many tags are issued if management is primarily for the minimization of deer damage?

No if they want to make them extinct in the unit. The any deer option is not meant to 100% eliminate deer in the willamete unit, but in conjunction with DHLS it may well do that. I used this as an example of tag issuance lagging far behind facts in the field about populations. It takes too long for every one to figure out there is a problem.

[bajadan2000]

Good discussion. Concerning greatly reduced deer populations, here is what my boots on the ground found in the last few weeks.

I tried predator hunting in an area that is normally closed to the public due to being owned by a lumber company. The Timber Co. opens the gates only during the elk and deer seasons. I went in during a muzzleloader season to try and pop some predators. This is a huge area that has many many miles of roads in WA. state

What was clear is, the deer population was way down. Maybe as much as 70-90% from only 5 years ago. The logging activity in this area has been continuously running at a high pace. So lack of logging was not the problem like on public land.

Since the roads are closed most of the year, poaching does not seem to be a reasonable cause for such a huge decline.

I thought maybe predators where the problem and talked to many of the hunters telling them my intentions and to look out for coyote and mountain lion sign. I started to think there must be a huge predator population that reduced the deer herd. I keep hearing the same thing from the elk and deer hunters. A few coyotes around, but no cat sign. I only called in one coyote in 4 days, and saw very little coyote sign. No one, including myself saw any cat sign. Predators where not the reason for the deer population decline in this area.

So what is it. DHLS was talked about by many hunters but dismissed as not valid in this area.

The hunters had seen many truck loads of herbicide going into this area to be applied by helicopter. Many hunters that have been working this area for many years are now starting to believe that the herbicides are causing the decline in the deer populations. From what I saw, it is hard for me to argue their point.

Something is going on that is reducing the deer population, and it is scary.

[Rank Amateur]

Originally Posted by bajadan2000

Good discussion. Concerning greatly reduced deer populations, here is what my boots on the ground found in the last few weeks.

I tried predator hunting in an area that is normally closed to the public due to being owned by a lumber company. The Timber Co. opens the gates only during the elk and deer seasons. I went in during a muzzleloader season to try and pop some predators. This is a huge area that has many many miles of roads in WA. state

What was clear is, the deer population was way down. Maybe as much as 70-90% from only 5 years ago. The logging activity in this area has been continuously running at a high pace. So lack of logging was not the problem like on public land.

Since the roads are closed most of the year, poaching does not seem to be a reasonable cause for such a huge decline.

I thought maybe predators where the problem and talked to many of the hunters telling them my intentions and to look out for coyote and mountain lion sign. I started to think there must be a huge predator population that reduced the deer herd. I keep hearing the same thing from the elk and deer hunters. A few coyotes around, but no cat sign. I only called in one coyote in 4 days, and saw very little coyote sign. No one, including myself saw any cat sign. Predators where not the reason for the deer population decline in this area.

So what is it. DHLS was talked about by many hunters but dismissed as not valid in this area.

The hunters had seen many truck loads of herbicide going into this area to be applied by helicopter. Many hunters that have been working this area for many years are now starting to believe that the herbicides are causing the decline in the deer populations. From what I saw, it is hard for me to argue their point.

Something is going on that is reducing the deer population, and it is scary.

Did the people you talked to about this area work or venture into it from December on? This is when HLS takes it's toll. With so few deer to see, HLS is hard to see also.

What did the clearcuts look like, barren waste lands or did they have a lot of ground cover, like trailing blackberries. Were there elk present in the normal numbers?

Spraying has been around since the 70's, but the formula's have probably changed a lot. Now pre-emergents are used that were not used before. It is always possible that there is a direct link????

Any declining population which is hard to monitor (blacktailed deer) will always show a dramatic decline at the end. I think we are at this cliff fall space in time in some areas.

I have had a theory that HLS caused an unbalance in the predator prey relationship since HLS caused deer to be more vunerable earlier in the year (December-February) than the normal winter mortality that weather causes (February-April). This should have cause the predators to bridge the lean times and keep their numbers up. Of coarse, once the deer population collaspes, so does the predators. So I wouldn't rule out predation, you may be looking at the end of the cycle. You also have to remember that a predator/prey relationship is based on a proportions, not overall numbers, any thing that tips the balance causes the relationship to shift. So actual predator numbers may be down, but the prey may be even more so.

I know in my coyote hunting experience the last few years, I find the dogs where there are a few deer around. Kind of makes sense.

[Blacktail Slayer]

Hookset,
I guess I'm just talking about the eastside of the Alsea unit. There has been several new cow hunts available over the years to help manage their population. I have talked with several old timers that 2nd and 3rd generation Alsea unit residents and agree with what I have said. The deer numbers have gone way down, but the elk numbers have gone way up. The bios have been going crazy on this side of the Alsea unit trying to get the elk populations down. I guess I just figured the westside of the unit was the same way. Plenty of timber companies and clear cuts throughout the unit. I understand what you said about the federal timber management, but the unit has a ton of timber company land with clear cuts all over. I see amazing deer and elk trails to this day. Sorry to hear about your area not having the same numbers and sign as mine. I think if you could go around with a military grade infrared camera at night to check deer and elk numbers; you would be very surprised. I know of an area in the unit that did not have a single elk until 1980. A few elk showed up the next couple of years; and now there is about 200 head just in that small area. All the locals and bio's are having a hard time managing the elk with their out of control population growth. Again, I guess this is just my part of the unit. Wish I could say the same for you.

[bajadan2000]

Originally Posted by Rank Amateur

Did the people you talked to about this area work or venture into it from December on? This is when HLS takes it's toll. With so few deer to see, HLS is hard to see also.

What did the clearcuts look like, barren waste lands or did they have a lot of ground cover, like trailing blackberries. Were there elk present in the normal numbers?

Spraying has been around since the 70's, but the formula's have probably changed a lot. Now pre-emergents are used that were not used before. It is always possible that there is a direct link????

Any declining population which is hard to monitor (blacktailed deer) will always show a dramatic decline at the end. I think we are at this cliff fall space in time in some areas.

I have had a theory that HLS caused an unbalance in the predator prey relationship since HLS caused deer to be more vunerable earlier in the year (December-February) than the normal winter mortality that weather causes (February-April). This should have cause the predators to bridge the lean times and keep their numbers up. Of coarse, once the deer population collaspes, so does the predators. So I wouldn't rule out predation, you may be looking at the end of the cycle. You also have to remember that a predator/prey relationship is based on a proportions, not overall numbers, any thing that tips the balance causes the relationship to shift. So actual predator numbers may be down, but the prey may be even more so.

I know in my coyote hunting experience the last few years, I find the dogs where there are a few deer around. Kind of makes sense.

I will try to answer your questions the best I can. I would also like to state that I am not sure what is causing the problem for the reduced deer population. I do not know enough about spraying or DHLS to make the call. I am only passing on the info I saw and the gut feeling I have that there is a real problem now.

Without making a phone call to double check, the last hunting in this area goes through to Dec. 15th. Then I believe they shut the gates to the public until next Sept. I need to call the timber co. to find out and will let you know. I found a real honey hole of Turkeys way back in that would be too far to mountain bike into. I want to find out if they open the gates for spring Turkey season.

The clear cuts looked like deserts. No sign of wildlife at all. No ground cover. One was posted as being sprayed this fall that really looked empty. I should add the area where I did find deer was across a natural river barrier and out of this large area. The few deer signs I did find inside this area (which is a very large area between two well known medium size rivers) where all around clear cuts that still had the cut timber on the ground. It was very clear the deer where not around any clear cuts that had been sprayed. Not sure if the deer moved out of the area or?? But a lot of deer are missing in that large area between the two rivers..

The elk numbers where ok, a little down, but most hunters thought this was weather related keeping some of the elk higher up.

I came across 10 elk gut piles in my hiking. Some where only a few days old going back to this rifle and archery season. Only three of the piles had been worked over by any predators. All three worked piles where on the same ridge and the same area I had a coyote come in. I have never seen gut piles not worked over by predators before. This leads me to believe that the predator population in this area is also way down. Not sure if it is part of a natural cycle or possible the same conditions causing the deer population decline?

I need to learn more about HLS so I know what to look for.

[Blacktail Slayer]

I have been in a area that was sprayed this year, but still has a ton of deer sign in it. The deer bed in the same place, but travel through the clear-cut to other close areas to feed in. I will have to hike around the cut some time and see if there is anything growing in it.

[bajadan2000]

Maybe DHLS and the spraying both play a part in the reduction of the deer population.

I believe a case could be made that spraying increases the odds that the deer weakend by HLS have a lower chance to survive through the winter due to the change in their nutrition.

We went from burning to spraying and HLS pops up, maybe there is a link in all this somewhere... What did burning do to reduce the chances deer would become infected with muscle worm known a Parelaphostrongulus that causes HLS?

[Rank Amateur]

Originally Posted by bajadan2000

Maybe DHLS and the spraying both play a part in the reduction of the deer population.

I believe a case could be made that spraying increases the odds that the deer weakend by HLS have a lower chance to survive through the winter due to the change in their nutrition.

We went from burning to spraying and HLS pops up, maybe there is a link in all this somewhere... What did burning do to reduce the chances deer would become infected with muscle worm known a Parelaphostrongulus that causes HLS?

Actually nothing! That is unless they changed their diagnosis again. I'm pretty sure the thinking now is that it is the old european louse that is the culprit in DHLS, the muscle worm is a secondary condition due to lowered immune system.

Since the louse is an exotic, nobody knows the final outcome of whether it will continue to take a toll or if the deer will build an immunity to it.

[ehunter]

I think that it is combo effect there certainly is enough feed in the 2nd and 3rd year cuts that could support more deer but the fact of the matter we are not seeing them. I don't excpect to see a lot of bucks until late June and July but you see more does and fawns in the cuts in the early summer feeding and we are not seeing them in the areas we are hiking in. I also think tracks can be mis-leading remember 3 deer milling around at night can leave quite a bit of sign. Look for droppings that will give you a better est of the deer numbers.

Originally Posted by Blacktail Slayer

I have been in a area that was sprayed this year, but still has a ton of deer sign in it. The deer bed in the same place, but travel through the clear-cut to other close areas to feed in. I will have to hike around the cut some time and see if there is anything growing in it.

[bajadan2000]

Originally Posted by Rank Amateur

Actually nothing! That is unless they changed their diagnosis again. I'm pretty sure the thinking now is that it is the old european louse that is the culprit in DHLS, the muscle worm is a secondary condition due to lowered immune system.

Since the louse is an exotic, nobody knows the final outcome of whether it will continue to take a toll or if the deer will build an immunity to it.

I am only in the early stages of reading studies and have a lot to learn, so if you have something for me to read, please let me have it.

From everything I have read so far the lowered immune system is caused by the muscle worm which allows the louse to overpopulate leading to the hair loss. That is why some deer in a herd get HLS and some do not when they all have the louse.

Which begs the question, why do deer now have the muscle worm problem???

[ehunter]

I don't know the answer is muscle worm visible to the eye.

Originally Posted by bajadan2000

I am only in the early stages of reading studies and have a lot to learn, so if you have something for me to read, please let me have it.

From everything I have read so far the lowered immune system is caused by the muscle worm which allows the louse to overpopulate leading to the hair loss. That is why some deer in a herd get HLS and some do not when they all have the louse.

Which begs the question, why do deer now have the muscle worm problem???

[bajadan2000]

Originally Posted by ehunter

I don't know the answer is muscle worm visible to the eye.

No is the quick answer, the muscle worm is an internal parasite.

Most studies mention using a tissue sample to detect it. I am trying to find out if it can be detected with blood samples or scat droppings from live field testing, but so far everything I have read mentions tissue samples.

[ehunter]

Thanks I was jsut wondering?

Originally Posted by bajadan2000

No is the quick answer, the muscle worm is an internal parasite.

Most studies mention using a tissue sample to detect it. I am trying to find out if it can be detected with blood samples or scat droppings from live field testing, but so far everything I have read mentions tissue samples.

[bajadan2000]

Found this, it explains HLS much better than I can.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) believes hair slip syndrome (also called hair loss syndrome) originates with a parasitic muscle worm, which lays eggs in the bloodstream. Eggs hatch in the capillaries of the lungs and can cause low-grade pneumonia. Many deer die from the pneumonia, but the worms also cripple the immune system. With the immune system compromised, lice numbers increase dramatically. Lice cause deer to lick and rub obsessively, creating actual hair loss in those areas. The syndrome appears to particularly affect fawns and yearlings. “Some animals do survive, but deer with the syndrome have a mortality rate from 30-70 percent,” said Jon Gallie, wildlife biologists

[ehunter]

So the question is how is the parasite passed on by coughing or what? I wonder do the lice jump from one animal to the next?

Originally Posted by bajadan2000

Found this, it explains HLS much better than I can.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) believes hair slip syndrome (also called hair loss syndrome) originates with a parasitic muscle worm, which lays eggs in the bloodstream. Eggs hatch in the capillaries of the lungs and can cause low-grade pneumonia. Many deer die from the pneumonia, but the worms also cripple the immune system. With the immune system compromised, lice numbers increase dramatically. Lice cause deer to lick and rub obsessively, creating actual hair loss in those areas. The syndrome appears to particularly affect fawns and yearlings. “Some animals do survive, but deer with the syndrome have a mortality rate from 30-70 percent,” said Jon Gallie, wildlife biologists

[bajadan2000]

Originally Posted by ehunter

So the question is how is the parasite passed on by coughing or what? I wonder do the lice jump from one animal to the next?

One report mentions how HLS "MAY" be spread. If my memory is correct it said deer rubbing noses, coughing and sneezing "MAY" spread HLS between the deer.

Much is not known about HLS and is still being studied. I must say, after reading some of the reports and studies. Then reading the continued progress being made to find answers. I am very impressed with the work of the biologist involved. I am not seeing any indication of biased reports or speculation, just good science. It gives me hope that an answer may be found, even though the biologist involved are being cautious with releasing information and not giving false optimism.

One thing that sticks out. Many deer can die from HLS without showing any hair loss. Hair loss is only one of the possible symptoms. Many deer die from pneumonia before the hair loss begins. This could be much worse than we think.

[ehunter]

I have not read any thing about this in some time but I agree it has hit some areas really hard. I think the question is can the deer develope a resistance to this or is this going to be a on going issue for ever? I think that we have bigger issue than many people are letting on. Certainly the deer numbers in our area are declining but your question is there any tie in with spraying clear cuts is a interesting question? I wonder has this been asked by Bio or even brought up?

Originally Posted by bajadan2000

One report mentions how HLS "MAY" be spread. If my memory is correct it said deer rubbing noses, coughing and sneezing "MAY" spread HLS between the deer.

Much is not known about HLS and is still being studied. I must say, after reading some of the reports and studies. Then reading the continued progress being made to find answers. I am very impressed with the work of the biologist involved. I am not seeing any indication of biased reports or speculation, just good science. It gives me hope that an answer may be found, even though the biologist involved are being cautious with releasing information and not giving false optimism.

One thing that sticks out. Many deer can die from HLS without showing any hair loss. Hair loss is only one of the possible symptoms. Many deer die from pneumonia before the hair loss begins. This could be much worse than we think.

[baltz526]

there is one thing in this pneumonia and spraying logging areas, that jump out at me. if a deer has a mild case of pneumonia cased by the worm, then breaths the herbicide used in forest spraying it could agrivate the lungs further, then add the lesser quality brouse created by the spraying of herbicide and you get a chain reaction killing the deer

[bajadan2000]

I believe there is enough knowledge at this point that two studies should be conducted concerning the connection between HSL and spraying.

I agree with Blatz's comment, and suggest a study should be conducted to find out if deer with HSL that are feeding and living near sprayed areas lowers the odds the deer will survive.

Also, a study should be conducted to examine if spraying vs burning may be the cause of the Parelaphostrongulus parasite. The timing alone of the two events should raise red flags.

As a side note of interest. The US Navy has funded and has been involved in some of the HLS studies. Island Naval bases in WA. have been used as HLS study areas because BT deer on their islands where some of the first to come down with the HSL disease. I doubt there was any burning allowed near their nuclear subs. I bet they sprayed the habitat the deer where feeding on..

[jnicholson]

I think the main reason my area elk and deer hunting was so lousy was the winter kill was so high. We had unbelievable snow at Mt St Helens and there are carcasses everywhere. I'm really surprized there hasn't been more media about it.

John

[Rank Amateur]

Got to head to work here shortly, but I guess there is still confusion about HLS. WSU vet school did the first studies on HLS to my knowledge, they concluded the muscle parasite was the primary cause and the louse was secondary (assuming it was our local louse). OSU vet school then did a study and concluded that it was the louse (old european louse- only one guy in the northwest can identify it) that was primary and the muscle worms are secondary. So I guess they may not be in agreement, I will have to dig around in the next few days to see if there is definative research on HLS. Oregon has conducted the Mule deer/Blacktailed deer HLS study too.

The muscle worm is ingested through a secondary host which is thought to be a slug, which at first they thought was another invasive, not sure where that went. We did scat sampling to determine the extent of the muscle worm infestation.

There should be a lot of info on this website, we have discussed this many times and there was somebody on here who was a friend of one of the graduate students doing research at OSU, probably a couple of years back.

[Blacktail Slayer]

If I remember right the louse was found in Asia and Africa. OSU found the study to show the louse was the main cause of the HLS. The deer would spend day and night scratching and bitting at the louse. They would scratch and bit all their hair off and would spend little time eating. No hair and little eating lead to a low immune system. I don't remember talk about worms, but this is where the worms or parasite may come in. Most deer may have worms and parasites. They are wild animals that share feeding and watering areas. The deer may handle the parasites alright when their immune system is doing good. The louse, no hair, and low immune system may allow the parasites to then do their damage. Spraying may also be another question on how it affects deer that have HLS. The louse was found to affect mule deer also. They found that elevation is what was holding back the louse from affecting mule deer. The scary thing is I was over during spring break doing big horn sheep surveys and saw a yearling mule deer in a herd of about 13 animals that was completely bald except a strip of hair down its back. I turned in the location to the bios and prayed HLS didn't make it over there. Hope this helps.

[bajadan2000]

There does seem to be confusion and mixed reporting on the cause of HLS. I did find the OSU HLS report published in 2004. To be fair, here is a link if anyone would like to read it.

http://www.jwildlifedis.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/670.pdf

I do have questions about the study. Also your comment about elevation is one topic I would like to discuss in detail. However, I will save that for a later time and give everyone a chance to digest this report first.