whered all the deer go

funfishin · 10-07-2005, 08:41 PM

ive been away at college for the last couple of years and havent deer hunted in the Astoria area for a while. Been bustin my butt and have only seen about a dozen does and a trillion elk. seems like theres less sign around too. whats the deal. i didnt think hairloss was affecting that the poplations that much in our area

FishTech101 · 10-07-2005, 09:37 PM

the bucks went nocturnal

funfishin · 10-07-2005, 09:45 PM

no kidding...on my way home tonight i saw about a dozen along the road but nothing with horns. also saw a spike yesterday and that got the fever going but thats about it.
we really dont have the cougar problem here like other parts of the state
(im thinking that theres a giant underground cave where all the bucks hang out durning deer season, then come november when the elk need it they trade off....if only i can find the cave)

Rank Amateur · 10-07-2005, 09:48 PM

Yep, HLS has hammered the deer population.

Of coarse ODF&W ignoring the problem and hammering the Does really helped too. Still got over 400 Doe tags for this year!

HammondSeaRanger · 10-07-2005, 10:24 PM

NO JOKE ... I have seen alot of ELK ... I heard a shot this morning on the 300 line so i figure someone got lucky.

keep those clatsop co. reports rolling in !

Matt

FishTech101 · 10-07-2005, 10:54 PM

i got a spike this year archery hunting. i need to fill my archery tag for elk missed a half rack this year and a bear. half rack was a 5 x with a busted off antler good luck fellas them big bucks like the thick brush and most of the time sit within 10 yards of you as you walk by.

Fish-a-Holic · 10-08-2005, 04:58 AM

Rank Amateur,

In your post you state that ODFW isn't doing anything about hair loss. One of my friends is the district biologist for the State, and he has been trying to get them to cut tag numbers, and even place Blacktail Tags into a draw scenario. The problem is that the ODFW Commission feels that have to have opportunity for all hunters. This equates to tags. They can't cut the tag numbers back to far, or there is no opportunity. My friend has said that he would just as soon pull all doe tags, and put the blacktails to a draw. Now to me that sounds like ODFW wants to do something, but as usual the Commission stands in the way!

FishTech101 · 10-08-2005, 07:04 AM

hair loss is due to lice not the ammount of hunters.

Rank Amateur · 10-08-2005, 09:51 AM

I would like to meet your friend, because he is standing alone, my bet Dave Cottam. I have never been to an Commission meeting where the staff report was to eliminate all antlerless tags. Yes they have reduced them, but in our area (North coast)they needed to have been eliminated about 5 years ago. Our district bio has published studies that showed HLS was not a big killer (which I know is wrong and the survey was flawed), but Dave Cottam just to the south was jumping up and down how bad HLS is. There is a big disconnect within the department. I would truly hope that the commissioners are not that out of touch to suggest continueing Doe harvest on a declining herd. They do not do that in Eastern Oregon and have followed staffs lead in severely reducing antlerless elk havest on the coast too. So this is a very confusing issue as to whom is at fault, but the fact remains, ODF&W is the management agency, they knew about this disease 3 years before it arrival, they ignored it for about 5 years after it enterred our state and they failed to reduced Doe tags while harvest results plummetted.

The word oppurtunity needs to be a little better defined by ODF&W; a walk in the woods is not an oppurtunity in my book!

BrianMaguire · 10-08-2005, 10:42 AM

Rank,

The department has no idea how many deer they have. The USFS bio's (that I have talked to) out east think the new population models are a joke and can't figure out how the department could even believe them. The dept seems to be more worried about damage than anything else, so as long as you have doe hunts the private timber companies have nothing to complain about. Sinilar sit on the east side with elk. Just my jadded view.

Cheers,

Brian

Rank Amateur · 10-08-2005, 11:08 AM

Its interesting you brought up that point, Brian. Years ago when we started harping about the excessive Doe harvest, the bio's would jump right up and say we have X number of deer per square mile. I got a little suspicious though when the same bio gave me three different numbers (13-25) in about a 4 month period of time. Now the latest from our district bio is that he could not give a population estimate for an M.O. because they do not know. Well, at least he is being honest!

The biggest piece of evidence that we have and it is the largest statistical survey we have is simply harvest numbers. If the deer are there the hunters will find them. Yet the department has gone as far as to say that hunters don't know how to hunt Blacktails now, crock!

Its simple biology, food, shelter and water. In the places we have this on the north coast, we just do not seem to have the deer. I believe years of overharvest on Does, coupled with factors that we are not aware of (weather mortality) and finally HLS has sent us in the toilet.

Food for thought; I have analized the tooth data extensively and the one thing that always struck me odd was the huge drops in animal numbers between age classes, I'm talking up to 40%. The bio's have always argued that hunting has no effect on the population, but seeing the huge drops between age classes causes one to pause! If it is not hunting harvest, then what factor would produce these drops, because literature does not suggest such high mortalities from nature causes. What I found interesting though was tooth data from Cow elk harvests in an area that had been locked up for many years the graph from those teeth are as expected, a very gradual decline between age classes. These deer and elk are using the same habitat, so why the huge difference. Regardless the tooth data should have been a huge wake up call that mortalities are already high and additional Doe harvest may have not been warranted. Remember antlerless harvest should only come into play when the herds are at the optimal level, this can not be said of todays deer herds on the North coast! Oppurtunity must play a second seat to herd health.

blacktail519 · 10-08-2005, 11:24 AM

The deer are here..... Here we go jumping to conclusions when guys early in the season are unsusccesful. Same thing with salmon seasons. Relax guys. Or better yet, the more of you that get frustrated early and give up, just leaves more opportunity for me when the hunting actually gets good. I spent alotto of time in the woods this year, and in the spring time, I was seeing a ton of deer, and they didnt all just dissapear folks. They will become more active the later it gets. RELAX

younggun20 · 10-08-2005, 01:46 PM

I agree with you blacktail. The deer are there you just have to get out of your truck and get them. Blacktail are tough deer to hunt, but there are lots of them. Like I said though, you gotta beat the brush and put the miles in or you could go a whole season without even seeing a deer. If you don't think there is deer, go into the woods about the first week of the general elk season when the deer are rutting and you will see them everywhere. You don't even have to get out of your truck then, they will run in front of your truck as you're driving.

skein · 10-08-2005, 01:51 PM

Hey Blacktail and Younggun,

You guys be sure and post the pics of your bucks this year, okay? That ought to shut us up. :grin:

Skein

Rank Amateur · 10-08-2005, 02:11 PM

Hey Skein, do you suppose we are in that group that doesn't know how to hunt Blacktails?

These guys seem to have the answers. Hey guys, while you are out take some pictures of all the tracks and deer droppings, they must be everywhere!

Sorry guys for the bash, but lets have some perspective here. I started hunting deer in '68 when you could go East and West. The average for our group was at least one buck a weekend here on the Westside, that would be a group of four to five guys. Yep party hunting, although most shot their own. When it came to the last of the season the bucks were running hard and the trails were all cut up, well the trails were cut up at the beginning of season, they turned into troughs by the end of season. You would see at least 5 deer a day if not many more. I did a survey of 100 hunters about 10 years ago, the average number of deer seen a day was 1. Harvest has since fallen off 50% since then, so you say there is a lot of deer? I say bull!

FishTech101 · 10-08-2005, 03:04 PM

i wonder if it is the fact that on the north coast you can A. hear the deer B. smell the deer C. taste the deer and of course D. stick your arm threw the bushes right up its keester is the reason people think they are gone. you cannot see more than 10 feet in most of that country and if a deer is sitting completely still you aint gonna see it yeah back in 68 when there where clear cuts on every ridge then i see hunting being succesful but remember this is 2005

Rank Amateur · 10-08-2005, 03:42 PM

Yeah and in 2005 there is still clearcuts on every ridge in Northwest Oregon. For those of you who don't know, this is probably the most intensively logged forest in the world. Has been for a very long time. The habitat is here, the deer are not. Look at the harvest stats. Yes, I know of small areas where I can see maybe 10 deer in a day, but the trouble is there are vast areas will little to no deer in them and the habitat is fine. I hunt elk, 2nd season in this area and you just do not see very many deer.

Why would you guys question the very people who grew up hunting these animals? We know all about the brush hunting, been there, done that and still doing that.

FishTech101 · 10-08-2005, 04:07 PM

ive hunted all my life too and there are not as many clear cuts as there used to be anyways i see that you are set on your Opinion there are deer i see them all the time big bucks too.

Rank Amateur · 10-08-2005, 04:48 PM

According to the State Department of Forestry the cut on private lands has remained fairly stable. From personal experience having been a logger, there was a tremendous amount of new cutting since the mid '70s, which has continued through today. This mainly applies to Saddle Mt. and Scappoose units. The state has started stepping up cuts in recent years also.

Yes, I do have my mind made up, after 14 years of research and fighting with ODF&W. If you want to take me out and show me all these deer fine, but let me take you for a ride also to the tremendous amount of ground with out tracks. I have seen bio's shake their head in wonder, why these areas have few deer.

So since you are evidently going to school to be a fish tech, how many deer per square mile do you think we have, how many is a good population and what number is carrying capacity? Any ideas? How many deer are you seeing?

blacktail519 · 10-08-2005, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Why would you guys question the very people who grew up hunting these animals? We know all about the brush hunting, been there, done that and still doing that.

I refuse to argue with your type that already has his mind made up, and anyone that contadicts him, in your eyes is a fool.

I too have hunted a few years, and like every year, will have horns hanging. Sorry for your bad luck and misfortune the last few years, but im here to tell you, the deer are still around. Possibly you need to change your tactics. 20 years ago, it wasnt difficult to fill your tag, but as we all know, with time, the animals evolve, and tactics must change. Im sure 30 years ago the big Blacktail bucks weren't near as nocturnal as they are today, with increased pressure, and changing habitat. I wish you the best luck in your hunts too come :shocked:

younggun20 · 10-08-2005, 05:41 PM

Hey skein check the site, I think you will find a picture of me with a very nice buck. However it is a muley. If I wanted to I could go to the coast and kill a blacktail every year. I have two uncles that live on the coast and kill nice bucks EVERY year. My dad also works with a guy that shoots a dandy every year out near Yamhill. The deer are there. The one day I spent on the coast wandering around for black bear this year I saw a nice forked horn buck. I see nice bucks almost every time I am elk hunting the coast too. I don't know why you can't find the bucks, but where I hunt there are lots.

skein · 10-08-2005, 05:41 PM

Don't want to argue, Blacktail, just want to see pics of this year's buck.

Skein

FishTech101 · 10-08-2005, 07:09 PM

i see about 10 when i am out and already got my buck monday after opening day. but i dont know the caring capacity probaly has to do with the food source and abundance. i would have to say by my observations though 50 to 70 per square mile but then again im just a student.

slowbuilder2005 · 10-08-2005, 08:10 PM

I know that 10 years ago that I saw a lot more deer when I hunted. I'd typically pass up 10 or 12 before shooting, because I insist on only taking good clean shots. Now I have a tough time finding the deer ...is it me? I jumped one today, but didn't see it. I heard a loud "HUFF!" and stomping off through the brush but he was invisible from where I was. I saw a little sign, certainly not zero and some looked fairly fresh (none was warm). Saw what appeared to be the world's largest pile of bear scat ...the darn thing must've eaten a pound of Exlax or something. That happened to be near some old homestead apple trees that I happened to know about (but doesn't help much now that all the surrounding woods have grown up so much.)

Other than the one that I jumped the little bit of sign in that area, I came up blank ...no fresh sign, no other deer, no deer in the headlights on the way out or on the way home. Today's afternoon/evening rain should've produced some deer ...oh well. Better than sittin' at home.

Brian

Plunging Float · 10-08-2005, 08:31 PM

I can't vouch for the whole north coast, but I've hunted the wilson and saddle mountain units for 24 consecutive years now. There are so many more clearcuts in those two units today than there were that it sickens me.

Rank Amateur · 10-08-2005, 09:12 PM

That's fine, don't argue, you must have special karma, if you can hang horns every year. I probably could hang horn every year too, if I decided to hunt in my back yard every year. The argument is not individuals taking animals but the public as a whole taking one. The facts are the public is not taking animals out of the north coast units in the same manner as they have in the past, especially the Saddle Mt. unit.

It is possible that the buck have gone more nocturnal, especially after the bow seasons started in the unit, this was something we did not have before 1979. It could also be the factor of less bucks available, lower densities will lead to less interaction with hunters. Hunter numbers should not have made the bucks nocturnal, since the numbers below do not support your comment.

Look at the stats below and ask yourself is this really the direction you want the deer herd to go? Sure there are still animals, about 1/3 of what it used to be. Are we incorrect that there are not the animals there used to be or are you really going to claim that they are still there in the numbers of years past? I have not claimed anybody is a fool, I would say misinformed. Stop and think about it, if it is the hunters ineptitude, would not the buck population be getting greater and greater until they would be coming out our ears? That's not happening.

Buck Harvest Saddle Mt. unit
Year hunters buck harvest % success
1971 4,040 920 23
1972 5,910 1,520 27
1973 8,730 1,290 15
1974 10,340 1,160 11
1975 8,580 1,160 14
1976 8,600 1,520 18
1977 6,310 1,600 25
1978 7,712 1,238 16
1979 8,765 1,606* 18
1980 9,455 1,097 12
1981 9,869 974 10
1982 6,634 826 12
1983 8,116 928 11
1984 No Data
1985 3,279 609 19
1986 5,762 805 14
1987 5,510 753 14
1988 4,812 698 15
1989 5,050 824 16
1990 3,949 712 18
1991 4,000 350*** 9
1992 5,000 1,100*** 22
1993 6,100 800*** 13
1994 4,900 850*** 17
1995 4,100 890*** 22
1996 4,034 814** 20
1997 5,000 1,050*** 21
1998 5,500 900*** 16
1999 3,949 712 18
2000 4,111 786 19
2001 No Data
2002 360****
2003 432****
2004 3000 570 19
*Hunters choice started.
**Doe moratorium in unit.
*** Number approximate off of chart.
**** Approximations from memory.

blacktail519 · 10-09-2005, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Look at the stats below and ask yourself is this really the direction you want the deer herd to go?

I personally donot believe the stats too be accurate, and believe they do need to change the way things are done, to get a more accurate figure. Whether it be requiring all hunters, in order to purchase a tag, as long as they purchased a tag the year before, they should be required to show these tags when purchasing new. I know that there is no perfect way of factring these statistics you have shown, but I honestly have never had anyone with the state, ask me of my success in a general season buck hunt on the west side, nor has anyone that i have talked to today. Now when it comes to Agg hunts, and antlerless elk tags in the Scappoose, and Saddle mountain hunts, we have been notified. The more Ive thought about this whole argument, I realize I don't have near the experience as some of you, beeing im only in my thirties, But i just honestly haven't noticed a huge impacted dent in the local herds where i have hunted through the last 20 years. I was not around too hunt in the sixties, and personally cannot comment on how things have changed from that ERA, apologize if any of my comments have offended any, I am strictly stating my own personally experiences. Good Luck in everybody's persuit of the mature Blacktail Buck

, because we all know just how damm tough it can be :grin:

Rank Amateur · 10-09-2005, 11:32 AM

I will offer my apology too, I get pretty heated on this stuff. I have spent a good share of my life fighting ODF&W over these issues and it really sticks in my craw when fellow sportsmen side with them. Let's leave it at that.

Are you hunting the same areas year in and out? This could explain your success in that you are in a sweet spot. I would think if you are hunting unit wide, you would have noticed the difference. With that said, the Scappoose unit did out perform the Saddle Mt. unit last year in regards to buck harvest, which is really unusual. This HLS thing seems more dependant on moist conditions, so maybe it is effecting the Coast areas harder than the interior. I do know HLS showed up late last year in the deer in the local area.

While I agree that the stats could be done to a higher degree of accuracy, the fact remains they are done to a 90% degree of confidence. With hunter numbers in the thousands, the results are hard to argue with statistically. From personal experience the harvest in days gone by is accurate. Heck when we were in high school, I knew guys to go get a buck during lunch hour! Everybody was getting bucks, now it is a exception.

You will notice at the beginning of the stats that the buck harvest was low, that was because of the winter of 68/69 that event was a major killer of deer. If we have one of those events now we will really be crying in our beer!

funfishin · 10-09-2005, 01:30 PM

rank i totally agree with you. the last couple of years i have harvested bucks but it was just west of salem/corvallis. now that im back in saddle mountain unit i am hunting the hell out of areas that i have always seen deer in. now there is way less sign, way less animals. nice find on the stats too.

i understand that its early in the season, but i can always bust a few does still hunting and usually a few bucks, i think ive seen a half dozen during legal shooting hours, and all but 2 were in the back yard.

i was still hunting timber out on 202 today where i have seen tons of deer in the past, couldnt find any sign except for a few sets of tracks.

i would definatly like to see saddle mt a draw tag. until it is and the populations increase i think im going to hunt out east and pickup a muley.

Rank Amateur · 10-09-2005, 06:07 PM

Unfortunately for all of us, it is my prediction that what we have now is going to be concidered good in a few years. This Hairloss syndrome is not looking like it is going away. In looking at the tooth age structure data, the increase in age that is currently occurring could only be explained by a mortality rate in the in the deer herd of around 60%, with the majority of this mortality occurring in the fawns and yearlings. My thoughts on that were reinforced a year or so ago when I saw Dave Cottam claim the same figure on channel two news. I believe the key environmental factor that influences HLS mortality is the winter weather with wet winters being more severe. We have been lucky in the past winters to be fairly dry and warm. They are predicting a wet winter this year.

The research so far on HLS is showing that this is a new syndrome, with a new parasite that the Blacktails have no defense for. It is speculation at this time that the deer may build a defense for this, but that has not been proved as yet or has there been any sign of this. It has also been demonstrated that Mule deer can get HLS, yet there seems to be an environmental factor keeping it from spreading east. I believe it has something to do with moisture levels. Regardless, we are facing a threat to our deer hunting for which we have no tools to fight it with. Our best hope is to leave as many adult female animals in the field as we can, this may buy us time for the defense mechanism to come into play. If we harvest the Does that may have the defense mechanism we will be harvesting our only hope!

Call me full of bull if you want, but so far my predictions have been more on target than ODF&W.

blacktail519 · 10-09-2005, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Our best hope is to leave as many adult female animals in the field as we can, this may buy us time for the defense mechanism to come into play. If we harvest the Does that may have the defense mechanism we will be harvesting our only hope!

I in no means am calling you on this, i am just curious, why would it make more sense to keep the does around, instead of the bucks? I mean, as we sit, there are plenty more does then bucks, i am not certain what the buck to doe ratio accurately is, but i would think it would make more sense to limit the buck kills, and increase the buck to doe ratio, thus increasing a higher offspring percentage? I guess i am confused. If you could explain more, i am certainly interested. Thanks, Todd

funfishin · 10-09-2005, 09:10 PM

Quote:

I in no means am calling you on this, i am just curious, why would it make more sense to keep the does around, instead of the bucks? I mean, as we sit, there are plenty more does then bucks, i am not certain what the buck to doe ratio accurately is, but i would think it would make more sense to limit the buck kills, and increase the buck to doe ratio, thus increasing a higher offspring percentage? I guess i am confused. If you could explain more, i am certainly interested. Thanks, Todd

i believe its about 3:1 or even higher

FishTech101 · 10-09-2005, 09:13 PM

because you kill a doe you dont get a set of fawns or even a fawn the next year. you kill a buck and another ole boy is going to take care of the duties

Rank Amateur · 10-09-2005, 09:48 PM

Fishtech is right, right now it is all about production. One buck can mate 20 Does, so it does not take a lot of bucks to have a successful fawn crops.

If my scenario is right, we have a low density of deer to supportable habitat, which means there is a lot of room of herd expansion.

If there is a defense mechanism for HLS the key will probably be the Does, although the buck will be half the genetic code. The reason there is a thought that some deer may have a defense is that it has been observed in twin fawns (well maybe not twins, but siblings) that one will get HLS and one will not. Nobody understands this at this time, but that is what is giving some hope. Anyways the Does with the right genetic code may produce immune offspring, bucks and Does. So as long as we protect the Does we should build a herd of immune deer, even while harvesting bucks. Sure we would be safer protecting the bucks too, but is probably not as critical. Granted this is purely hypothetical at this time, we may very well be spinning our wheels.

Regardless, when a population is below carrying capacity, which can be strongly argued in our area, female harvest should be suspended. Don't get confused with Quality Deer Management, we are no way in the situation that they have back East.

FishTech101 · 10-09-2005, 10:14 PM

i dont think it is only the HLS but what about the cougars and bears they have exploded in population since the hippies outlawed bait and dogs.

Rank Amateur · 10-09-2005, 10:41 PM

That is valid in different areas, but the timber companies keep the bears thinned out around here. Cougars are starting to build but I do not believe they are a factor that brought the deer down. They may become a factor though that can keep them down in the future. It is certainly food for thought.

HLS really hits at the heart of a deer population, without recruitment, it doesn't take long for a herd to age and die out.

FishTech101 · 10-09-2005, 10:44 PM

how do they keep them out chase em i got me a bear tag needing filled

ehunter · 10-10-2005, 07:30 AM

The timber companies hire private people with dogs to hunt they are excluded from the current law? Don't see many bears or cats on the NW coast I have only heard of one cat that was seen last fall over by Big Eddy. Deer numbers are way down I walk from after elk season till elk season opens in the fall out there on private timber lands and I am lucky to see 5 deer a day. I grew up out there and there is a real deer numbers problem.

skein · 10-10-2005, 08:20 AM

It's funny, but there have been no responses from any ODFW-related folks, and I'm sure there are some who are reading this and other threads where we've discussed the same things.

Over on the Salty Dogs forum both the fish bio's and the Coast Guard routinely respond to threads where their knowledge and expertise can educate and enlighten. And yes, we went through a 'growing pains' season where we flared up and went on the attack, but once we got past that, both sides (I think) have learned a lot from each other - and the resource is better because of it.

So...IF we will not pile on when they do join a discussion, maybe they would be willing to tell us what they see from their perspectives. And, by the way, that doesn't mean we have to roll over and quit asking the hard questions. I'm just promoting a dialogue instead of a battleground.

Skein

blacktail519 · 10-10-2005, 10:07 AM

Quote:

It's funny, but there have been no responses from any ODFW-related folks, and I'm sure there are some who are reading this and other threads where we've discussed the same things.

Over on the Salty Dogs forum both the fish bio's and the Coast Guard routinely respond to threads where their knowledge and expertise can educate and enlighten. And yes, we went through a 'growing pains' season where we flared up and went on the attack, but once we got past that, both sides (I think) have learned a lot from each other - and the resource is better because of it.

Very well said. I know this thread has certainly sparked my interest, and I have gained some knowledge that i previously was un aware of. It would be nice to get an ODFW opinion on some of these issues.

Have many of you ran into high numbers of deer with HLS? I personally have only seen one. It could be the area that i spend most of my time just hasnt been hit hard yet, but im really curious how many infected animals some of you have personally encountered?

ehunter · 10-10-2005, 10:24 AM

Yes there are pockets of deer in different area's. I know my brother has land in Rainier last year they saw very few deer this year is a little better. I think that is the confusion, some places are a little better than other area's. As a long time ex resident of Columbia county my personal experience is there are fewer deer. We had a doe almost run us over last winter with a bald spot on her shoulder as we were walking. She could barely walk.

Rank Amateur · 10-10-2005, 10:43 AM

Well seeing the HLS deer is the tricky part. I believe that HLS was in Northwest Or. in '97. I remember the district bio and I commenting on how dark the deer looked in the spotlight during spotlight trend counts. They looked like drown rats. What we didn't know at the time was that was the first sign of HLS.

In '98 we started seeing the fawns with the Mohawk hair cuts. It seemed to be full blown in the Astoria area and less here in Vernonia, but it was happening. That's the year we called this to the attention to the district bio, they had not observed it yet. '99 people were seeing a lot of HLS, fawns were dying in peoples garages and next to their houses. This is very unusual to say the least! It is hard to remember all the years, but eventually HLS seemed to be less evident, but the big question was, was it because the disease was less or that there just were not as many deer to observe. I think the harvest stats would suggest the latter. That is my personel belief, along with my experience since I drive through the unit a lot on the way to work. Seeing a deer in the road today is not common, back in '97 you had better watch out!

In one winter I had three different reports of dead or dying fawns within a half mile strecth of road. I personally dispatched one of them. It had come to a residence to die, it was hardly breathing, laying in the snow, unconsious. The thing to remember is, we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg. What do you think the coyotes are doing to the weakened fawns and yearlings out in the woods?

If my memory is correct, in the Cedar Creek enclosure study done back in the '60's in the Tillamook Burn (best habitat that we ever had) the survival rate of the fawns was only 40% or .6 fawns per Doe. So any additional mortality is not a good thing.

The classic signs of HLS is a black wet dog look when rained on, the electric shock look or a general scruffy look when dry, the light color crease in the flank area and then the loss of hair up to the Mohawk look. HLS is usually only apparent from December till May, although I do believe I saw a Doe with it this summer, but I would think this is an exception. When you see a HLS deer, watch if for a while, it will may your skin crawl, they will constantly lick themselves or scratch with a foot. Their ears are constantly twitching!

blacktail519 · 10-10-2005, 12:37 PM

Quote:

The classic signs of HLS is a black wet dog look when rained on, the electric shock look or a general scruffy look when dry, the light color crease in the flank area and then the loss of hair up to the Mohawk look. HLS is usually only apparent from December till May, although I do believe I saw a Doe with it this summer, but I would think this is an exception. When you see a HLS deer, watch if for a while, it will may your skin crawl, they will constantly lick themselves or scratch with a foot. Their ears are constantly twitching!

I am definately going to be more attentive the rest of the season, and attempt to better observe the deer in the area i hunt. I have noticed that this year, for early in the season,most of the deer i have seen appear to be much much greyer than in previous years. Im not sure that it has to do with anything, but it's certainly different from previous years. Thanks for the info

Chesapeake · 10-10-2005, 01:18 PM

I have followed this post the last few days. Seems all of you have viable arguments one way or another.

I looked the data over and dont see how it proves or demonstrates a decline in deer. Through out the columb there are dips and such but the relationship between hunters and deer harvested remains fairly constant. I dont see any evidance of a large decline in deer #s from the data.

I hunt SW Washington and have killed 5 deer in the last 6 years with a muzzleloader. Probably luck.

I think the deer #s are falling due to what I call DOUGLAS DESSERT. The logging practices of today cause alot of reprod that has little or no brows in the understory. With the herbasides and fertilizer the logging companies use, the cuts go from grass and thistle to reprod without realy brushing out with the good brows that deer prefer. Elk seem to flourish in this type of situation because they are grazers and love the grass. Deer are browsers and seem to suffer.

just my $.02

ehunter · 10-10-2005, 01:36 PM

Rick I think some of what you are saying is true regarding habitat changes in the clear cuts. The one area I have a strong personal relationship with has plenty of forage for deer but during all of Achery season I saw a total of 5 deer that was about 12 days of hunting. We were glassing from day light to dark on most days. I grew up there in some of those area's and years ago we would see at least 5 deer in a medium size cut and some times 10 or more in a large cut at first day light. That was the deer we would could see. Again this year the deer we are seeing are a lot of single deer. I saw only 1 fawn. There is a ton of forage for deer in the older cuts like black berry vines ect. I am not a bio or a deer expert it is my hobby but I spend a lot of time out there exercising my dogs and scouting and I can tell you there are not many deer there. I don't know why but I have never found a cougar kill or bear kill and I have seen plenty of those in Eastern Oregon.

I can't remmber the last time I saw a deer on my way though Vernonia a few years ago you had to drive very carefull on hwy 47 but these days if you see a deer consider your self lucky I guess. :grin:

Chesapeake · 10-10-2005, 02:12 PM

A few years back I built a game camera and started using it pretty regularly, I now own 2. Needles to say it was an awakening. You would be surprised the #s of deer you film durring the night. I dont think they "go nocturnal". I think they are nocturnal and just feed durring the summer days because of the shorter nights and to take advantage of the abundant food supply.

This year all the does I have seen have a fawn and alot of them have 2. I atribute this to the mild winters we have been having. It also shows that there are atleast enough bucks to get the job done.

But again I feel deer #'s are dropping based on personal observations but can find no way to accurately determin how much and to what extent.

I think the game bio's are probably in the same boat and are just doing thier best to satisfy the masses.

Rank Amateur · 10-10-2005, 04:42 PM

If you look at the data the only time the harvest numbers fell to the level of the last three years was 1991, followed with an exceptional year. Yes the numbers bounce around, probably weather related during the season, but if you start doing averages over say 5 year periods of time you will see the decline.

Here's some food for thought. Deer are just like humans, lazy! Why stay out in the early morning to feed when you have a belly full at night. But what if you have a lot of competition for the food? Well you have to go further out in the clearcut to get at it or away from the competitors. Now that your belly is full, heck I don't want to walk back to the timber and bed down. So higher densities of deer may lead to more sightings both because there are more to see but also higher use and penetration of the clearcuts.

To back up this theory, in the early '90's I was doing a lot of research on the blacktails. I could cover a lot of ground and see very few deer, but I also had access to a piece of ground that a timber company held for their own hunting. They had a rule in there, no Does and no spikes. It was night and day, I could go in there and count 50 deer in a couple of hours all out in a couple year old clearcut, it would take me more than a week to do that where the public hunted. You will claim that they didn't hunt it as hard, you would be wrong, the hunters per square mile was the same, just different rules.

If there was a forage issue we would be seeing poor fawn drop and poor Doe condition. I just do not see evidence of this. The Does are having fawns, they just are not surviving to yearlings. I have suggested to ODF&W on multiple occasions to do a kill sample of Does in the late winter to do body condition scoring like you will see in a post by that name. They always showed little interest. Science will answer that question if we have the will to gather the data. Recently there has been information forwarded by researchers that suggest herbicides are doing no harm and may be beneficial for deer, I agree with this caustiously. I see tons of the number one feed for deer in most clearcuts.

I do agree with your assessment about the turn around time of clearcuts, but if anything that should make the clearcuts that have prime feed infested with deer, that sadly is not the case.

Chesapeake · 10-10-2005, 06:04 PM

Rank Amateur,
I guess I am just looking at the data you supplied diffrently.

If you look at it from a hunters verses harvest standpoint the data is surprisingly stable.

From 71 on anytime there is 5000 hunters give or take 500 the harvest was 1000 deer give or take a few hundred.

The only time the harvest goes above 1000 is if there is more than 5000 hunters.

The 72 to 79 years when the harvest was well above 1000 deer there were 6, 7, 8, 9, o reven 10,000 hunters. These years had the lowest succes rates, arround 10%.

The data shows that the decline in hunters mirrors that of the harvest. The success rate is %20 or so throughout the data table.

Again I just dont see the decline you claim according to the chart.

Just my perspective.

FishTech101 · 10-10-2005, 06:10 PM

HLS isnt that caused by lice and mites.

younggun20 · 10-10-2005, 06:42 PM

That's a very good observation Chesapeake. I am just not seeing it either. I do know that Rank is extremely knowledgable about blacktail and deer herds in general though. He seems to have done a lot of research, and has been hunting blacktails longer than I have been alive (sorry if that makes you feel old, not the intention). You both make very good points. Cody

Rank Amateur · 10-10-2005, 08:37 PM

Thanks for taking the time to be interested! You will see that I have gone back and updated the chart, although it kind of balls up when you post it.

Success rates, in my opinion, one of the weakest measures of game densities. Why? Envision a dart board with 10 ballons on it, you let 100 guys throw darts, well before you get very far all the ballons are burst, the success rate is 10%. Now you have the same board with 10 new ballons and 1000 throwers, well you know the results and the success rate is 1%. Gee, this is terrible, but does it mean there were less ballons, no! Equate this to buck deer, there is only X, at the maximum you can only harvest X. Of coarse it is not that simple, buck hunting is very dynamic and with more pressure you will harvest more bucks out of the pool of X, to a point, then you get into deminishing returns. The simple fact will remain that some bucks will be harvested before the next hunter gets his turn, he is basically wasting his time, but he doesn't know it.

Hunter numbers flucuate due to numerous factors, hunter success being one of them. We have to remember we had the bad winters over East in the early '70's and I believe the start of controlled hunts in different forms. Other factors I want to point out is antlerless harvest was sparse in the 71-78 period. Hunters choice started in 79-93 and then there was the antlerless moratorium in the unit in one form or another 94-98. Going back and doing the pecentage of success it averaged 18.5% 71-79 ('79 is included because the either-sex hunt effects the '80 harvest) 1980-1993 the success average was 14.2%, during the moratorium it ran 19.2 %. So you can see the 71-79 period did not have the lowest success rate inspite of the huge hunter numbers.

The bottom line the over all harvest is down, way down. The last three years has averaged 454 bucks, nowhere in the data can you come up with a three year harvest that low. Yes, this is a short span in time and more years will tell the story clearer.

Here's what I see;
71-79 little Doe harvest 1,334 buck average.
80-93 either choice season 806 buck average.
94-98 antlerless moratorium 900 buck average.
99-04 HLS 572 buck average.

I can see it!

The theory that hunter numbers and success rates indicate deer density is flawed. If you kept a stable hunter number then it would gain credibility. As the deer population flucuated up and down the success rate would mirror the population density. But with the hunter numbers flucuating up and down it becomes obscene to try and draw a conclusion.

Chesapeake · 10-11-2005, 08:16 AM

I see your point that success rate is not a good measure of the deer population but the Fish and Game use these figures combined with arial and spotlight serveys ect... in there "Scientific Formula" to estimate the deer herd.

I also understand that all the methods used to collect the data to plug into the "scientific formula" are all estimations at best. This creates a situation where you are using estimates upon estimates to calculate an estimate.

This invites the posibility of large errors.

I think you said it best when you said "But with hunter numbers fluctuating up and down it becomes obsene to try and draw a conclusion".

With that being said I am back to: How and why do you feel deer #'s are dropping significantly?

Not that I dont believe you, but that I want to understand you're insight into the situation.

I find it interesting that you spend time to research this stuff. I thought I was the only hunter that new all the data and reports from the Fish and Game Biologists are public information.

I dont know about Oregon but the WDFW website has a link to these reports and hunters can read through them at will. Kinda like VCR directions but all good info.

Washington has enacted Mandatory Reporting so they can better asses hunter hours compared to harvest. Again gross estimations considering they only ask "Days Hunted" in the 2 units you hunted most. I find it interesting that even after enacting mandatory reporting the deer and harvest statistics are the same as in the past. Either thier Scientific formula was working all along or it averages everything to the point that the #s all come out the same.

Rank Amateur · 10-11-2005, 09:19 AM

I whole heartedly agree with your view of the estimations, the more you dig into the methodology being used by the departments the less faith one has. In fact in some cases it is down right a leap of faith!

While the success rate may not be viable, the hunter harvest is. While we will both agree that year to year flucuations will occur, trends over time will show the truth of a direction of a game population.

I guess this is the assumptions I work on. As animal populations gain in density the chance of being taken by a hunter increases. The reverse is true also. I find it impossible for buck population to continue to grow with out increased harvest coming into play sooner or later. It gets back to the dart board thing. We have 1,000 ballons on the board and 1,000 throwers, some will miss and the next year when you add another 1,000 ballons to the left overs on the board you will have let's say 1,250 ballons, the success rate will go up for the 1,000 throwers, this will continue untill you will reach a point of equillibrium.

So if we look at the data we will note that success rate never exceeded 27% and averaged 18.5% in the 71-79 period of time, during the antlerless moratorium period again we averaged 19.2% success rate. I wished I had the complete data for 2001 on, but unlike your state, we have been unable to get the department to publish the data so we can have it at our finger tips. Regardless the last year of data is valid and the success rate is 19%. While I stand by my statement of success rates being a crude tool, they do give you a general insight of hunter interaction with the game. We see the status quo percentage of harvest and a low number of deer in the harvest. If there were indeed a huge build up of bucks in the population over the previous past 6 years, I would think it would be reasonable to see a high end success rate. I would suspicion the 19 percent success rate was higher than the two previous years.

Ok, that is what the data tells me. The other part of the equation is what my gut tells me. First, deer fawns suffer a fairly high mortality rate to begin with in normal circumstances. Add in HLS and it is easy to believe that the fawn survival rate would drop even further. The heart of any deer herd is its fawn recruitment rate, they must recruit enough fawns each year to replace the Does that die of old age, hunting, predation and accidents. One of the great tools that ODF&W has implemented recently is tooth age structure data. I helped gather some of those teeth and was at a loss for quite a while as to what it would provide as far as data. I was disappointed that ODF&W too seemed lost as to what different age structures would mean, but after doing some pencil work it is not that tough to understand. When we started the antlerless moratorium in the Saddle Mt. unit, I believe (going by memory, please don't make me go to the attic again)the average age was 3.2 years of age. What we saw after the moratorium was over was I believe 3.4 years of age. This is after 5 years of suspended antlerless harvest. My theory was that as we left the Does standing we were recruiting more fawns into the herd, which keeps the age structure from increasing. ODF&W was telling us that not killing Does would just mean lower fawn recruitment due to their opinion that we were at carrying capacity. Most people would say, see it didn't make any difference. I was less certain, we had seen increased buck harvest throughout the study period, suggesting increased population. What to me was the telling moment was what happened after the moratorium and we knew we had HLS. The age structure started to climb, significantly, the last I saw it was around 4.6 years of age and that was at least a couple of years ago. While that may not seem like much of a change, when you pencil out that change in what must have happened to fawn recruitment to get there it is huge.

The obvious to me is my personal interaction with the deer. I drive an average of about 300 miles a week down the Eastern border of the Saddle Mt. unit, in the last 15 years I have seen low numbers, then an increase during the moratorium and now very low numbers of deer. I wish I would have kept a log, because it would have been very good evidence. But my memory is not that bad, I definately remember having to stop and put two deer our of their misery in the last two years of the moratorium, but have not had too since! I have not had a close call with a deer in years. Now watch I will hit one!

Wreckless · 10-11-2005, 10:01 AM

First, I'm NOT a bioligist, Shoot, I can barely spell it

Second, I agree with Skien (again), I'd LOVE to hear from a bioligist on the issues...The "Dogs" have some GREAT discussions that include scientific facts, and some speculation. :grin:
Third, I've personally seen HLS in the Wilson, Trask and Willamete units. A couple of the deer I saw, had it 2 years ago and were standing just out of downtown Hillsboro.

Having said that, this has been an interesting read with a lot of well backed speculation.

My personal experience is: I've been lucky enough to hunt private land between Yamhill & Gaston, several spots, for the last 20 years. There ARE less Deer. The feed is there, the habitat is there, just less Deer. We do have a Cougar that occasionally visits (I think we must be on the edge of it's range). There is still also a lot of poaching/party hunting in the area and IMHO to many does being killed

, but the fact is there are less Deer. A "honey hole" used to have a BUNCH of deer including several bucks, now there may be just a few. Driving down the driveway in the evening used to be a game of "dodge Deer", now it's not.

BTW, there are still some "pockets" of Deer!!

I believe that if the bioligists were allowed to do their jobs, w/o politics getting in the way we'd be fine.

Bioligists? PLEASE share