OCR Text |
Show The Rest Of The Story Recently, my friend, Curtis Barney, expressed frustrations with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and its management man-agement of deer. In my 36 years with the DWR, I have heard ; many citizens give their opin-' opin-' ions on how wildlife ought to be managed. It seems that for every . 10 people, you could get at least 12 views on how things should be done. Utah is a great mule deer state. I am also saddened in the decline of some native wildlife, such as deer and sage grouse. However, I am pleased to have helped the DWR and others in the restoration and increase of elk, bighorn sheep, pronghorns, turkey, beaver, moose, mountain goat, fish, waterfowl, and other non-hunted species. All of us can now enjoy opportunities to interact with wildlife that was almost non-existent when Curtis and I were boys. Deer were few during pioneer settlement. My grandfather noted as a boy in the Uinta Basin that it was news when a deer was seen. Farming and livestock on rangelands changed habitat conditions. Predators, such as grizzlies, cougars and coyotes, were eliminated wherever wher-ever possible. As conditions changed, some wildlife did well, other species almost disappeared. disap-peared. Unregulated cattle grazing converted many native grasslands grass-lands to forbs and shrubs. Deer did great, especially as large predators were suppressed. By the 1930s, deer were causing agriculture depredation. The legislature formed the Board of Big Game Control to address the situation. In 1935, congress passed the Taylor Grazing Act, hoping to control overgrazing occurring on federal rangelands. As shrubs increased, especially sagebrush, deer populations boomed by the 1950s. Either sex harvests were instituted, with liberal extra doe permits. In some areas, a hunter could take five deer. Deer were everywhere and the rangelands were hurting. By the 1960s, the shrublands were changing. Deer and heavy livestock use largely eliminated valuable bitterbrush on most wintering areas. Erosion was a problem. The remaining sagebrush sage-brush was old and unproductive. Struggling young plants were quickly eaten. Human populations popula-tions were growing and some of the critical wintering areas were lost to home-building and new sprinkler farms. Decades of fire suppression allowed pinyon and juniper trees to establish on remaining undeveloped bench-lands. bench-lands. The trees were able to out-compete the grasses, forbs and shrubs. Fire suppression in aspen areas allowed conifers to dramatically increase. Utah's aspen covered mountains, were now converting to spruce and fir forests. As aspen declined, so went the forage for summering deer, especially for does with fawns. Our local ranges, including includ-ing the Beaver Mountains, clearly show the changes that man and his animals have had on the land. Some tree control projects (chainings) helped, but are now being re-invaded by young pinyon and juniper trees, and their value is declining, both for livestock and wildlife. The 1970s, was the decade of change for deer in the .inter (See LETTERS on page 6A) Letters To The Editor From Page 5 A mountain west. Several poisons used to kill predators were banned, except for strict use by Animal Damage Control experts. Only specific animals causing livestock depredation were to be controlled. Only under an approved predator management plan could nonspecific non-specific animals be targeted. As sage grouse declined, I did write several plans to help ADC officer offi-cer Roger Nowers in his work to control coyotes in specific areas. Without intensive coyote control, con-trol, the deer ratio in the Southern Region dropped from 85 fawns for every 100 does to about 60. A big difference in available excess animals for harvest. har-vest. Cougars also were now listed protected by the legislature, legisla-ture, stopping indiscriminate killing. A five year drought also drastically affected deer numbers num-bers throughout the west. Either sex hunting was eliminated. Then came the unreal winter of 1982-83, when nearly 80 percent per-cent of the deer died of starvation starva-tion on some units, including nearly all the fawns. Critical wintering areas had become unavailable because of new houses, farmlands, and highways, high-ways, sue as 1-15. In the 1990's, the legislature made major changes in how the DWR would handle big game depredation on private properties. proper-ties. Landowners could now demand that the DWR control or remove big game from their property. Many landowners enjoy and want wildlife for various var-ious reasons. Other landowners are less enthusiastic, and in some cases, wanted complete removal of big game, especially deer, from their property. DWR had no choice. Thus, thousands of no cost antlerless permits are annually issued in the Southern Region to landowners and their families to kill big game from their property. Is there abuse of this program by some who frivolously friv-olously complain of damage when none is occurring? Absolutely! For several years, a high percentage of my time was (See LETTERS on page 7A) r Letters To The Editor From Page 6A addressing depredation problems, prob-lems, especially by deer. So there you have it. Artificially high deer populatins from the 1930s into the 1970's. An increasing human population popula-tion that compete in every way with wildlife for space and resources. Dramatic changes in the plants that deer need for food. Decades of fire suppression. suppres-sion. A complete reversal in attitudes atti-tudes of predator control. A total stoppage on federal lands of chaining projects that control pinyon and juniper trees on critical crit-ical wintering areas. Bigger highways, faster speeds. Rifles with scopes. Four wheel drives and ATVs (Does anyone walk anymore?). It is totally unrealistic unrealis-tic to imagine that simply adjusting hunter numbers is going to bring back the deer numbers we once remember. No way! The Beaver Unit, including Dog Valley, is managed for 11,000 deer. That number was approved by the Wildlife Board based on available habitat, objectives of federal land management man-agement agencies, depredation problems, and all other political realities. Everyone that wanted had a say in the future management manage-ment of the unit. The plan numbers num-bers will be adjusted as habitat changes. The computer modeled population is now approximately approximate-ly 8,200 deer. The fawns to does ratio has dropped from 70 in 1998 to 36 in 2002, from the effects of the drought. Less fawns means less bucks and a decrease in the harvest. The 2001, after hunt buck ratio of 19 bucks for every 100 does dropped to 12 in 2002. Harvest also decreased from 936 bucks to 826 in 2002. The buck harvest probably indicates that the buckdoe ratio in the counts is a bit low. Controversial antlerless harvest (does) occurred near agricultural lands and on deteriorating deteri-orating winter ranges. The Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife organization is negotiating for school trust lands near Beaver that are critical winter range-lands. range-lands. Without habitat, wildlife have nothing. However, it is ever changing. I noticed this week in Circleville Canyon large swaths of sagebrush on private land being cleared. Does the landowner have the right to manage his property? Certainly. However, large numbers of deer have traditionally used that area for winter browsing. Those deer will feel the impact in future winters. Are deer going the way of the dodo bird? I don't think so. What can you do for deer management, man-agement, hunter or not? You could attend the monthly Wildlife Regional Advisory Council meetings. The RAC is a citizens committee formed in each of the five state regions, representing all manner of interests, inter-ests, authorized by the legislature legisla-ture to hear DWR proposals on wildlife matters. The public is invited to provide input and balance bal-ance to the proposals. Deer management plans are discussed in depth before approval. The 2003 deer management strategies strate-gies were discussed March 19th. in Beaver. Curtis did not attend. After public input, the 1 3 member mem-ber council forwards their recommendation rec-ommendation to the state Wildlife Board, another citizens group appointed by the legislature, legisla-ture, representing various interests inter-ests and areas of the state. The seven member Wildlife Board considers all aspects of protection protec-tion and harvest of wildlife. Paul Hatch, of Panguitch is presently serving on the RAC. Raymond Heaton, of Alton, recently served on the Wildlife Board. The DWR makes no wildlife laws, only recommendations. Laws for wildlife are made by the legislature or by the Wildlife Board. Some elitists want only the perfect hunt: large bucks everywhere, every-where, no other hunters, everything every-thing to themselves, even if most others have to stay home. However, USU surveys say most people want an outdoor experience even with reduced hunter success. The Wildlife Board, through appropriate public pub-lic input, has implemented both deer and elk limited entry units. Will deer harvests return to yesteryear? yes-teryear? Not likely. Will pheasant pheas-ant and sage grouse return to prominence as Utah hunts? I doubt it. Will more hunting opportunities develop for wild turkey, bighorn sheep, chukar partridge, mountain goat, and antelope? Seems likely. What else can be done? Don't just grumble. Talk to DWR biologists biol-ogists and conservation officers. Discuss your concern with them and biologists of other agencies. Learn the problems they face in protecting and managing wildlife populations and habitats. habi-tats. You can make a difference if your ideas are reasonable and are convincing to the majority. Get enveloped in habitat improvement projects. Wildlife people do not want to intentionally intention-ally decrease wildlife, it goes against their grain. It takes major dedication for wildlife professionals to be effective in doing anything in the face of some of the problems I have mentioned. They are smart and well educated. To imply that I or any other of the wildlife people in the DWR have fudged counts is insulting. Those who make a career in wildlife do not do it for big money, because it isn't there. It is a love of the natural world and wanting to make a difference. differ-ence. That's it, the rest of the story! Norman McKee DWR Biologist, retired Panguitch- |