+HSSQHU*D]HWWH7LPHV+HSSQHU2UHJRQ Wednesday, January 24, 2024 7+5((
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife mule deer assessment
-Continued from PAGE ONE
other wildlife populations.
The consequences of all
these interconnected fac-
tors are gradually causing
a decline in overall habitat
quality for mule deer.
The suggestion of halt-
ing harvest altogether to
allow the mule deer pop-
ulation to recover was dis-
cussed. However, it was
stated that the current mule
deer population is already
close to or at its likely new
capacity. If active manage-
ment is stopped, mortality
rates may increase, and
survival rates may decrease
GXHWRLQVX൶FLHQWUHVRXUFHV
and space for the deer. It
was suggested to focus on
improving the landscape’s
capacity to support mule
deer while continuing man-
DJHPHQWH൵RUWVIRUVXVWDLQ-
able harvest levels.
Antler point restriction
Another question was,
why doesn’t the ODFW
implement antler point re-
strictions in some units, re-
quiring bucks to have three
points or better? Could this
potentially increase the
number of trophy oppor-
tunities and lead to high-
er-quality bucks in some of
Oregon’s most sought-after
units?
Don Whittaker from
the ODFW said, the idea
behind antler point restric-
tions is that only allowing
the harvest of bucks with
a certain number of points
on at least one side, would
result in more bucks and
provide a chance for larger
and more mature bucks to
thrive. This approach is
commonly used in white-
tail deer management and
has shown success in that
context. Mule deer are dif-
ferent. Many western states
have experimented with
antler point restrictions in
the past, and almost all have
found that it does not yield
the desired results. Instead
of increasing buck ratios
or producing a higher pro-
portion of larger antlered
bucks, it mainly shifts the
heavy harvest from younger
bucks to two and three-
year-old bucks. In the long
run, these restrictions have
not led to consistent im-
provements in buck popula-
tions or antler quality. In the
rare instances where some
positive impact has been
observed, it has typically
been short-lived and not
YHU\ H൵HFWLYH 7KHUHIRUH
based on the experiences of
other states, implementing
antler point restrictions in
Oregon is unlikely to pro-
duce the desired outcomes
in terms of trophy oppor-
tunities and higher-quality
bucks.
Cougar Population
Concerns were raised
about predator populations,
particularly cougars, and
their impact on mule deer.
It was mentioned that there
are around 7,000 cougars
across all classes in Oregon.
While it is true that a cou-
gar kills a deer every 7-10
days, the number of kills
is spread across the land-
scape and includes cubs
and dependent young. In
reality, around 3,500-4,000
cougars are responsible for
the kills, and they primarily
target smaller ungulates like
whitetail and mule deer
fawns, as well as elk. The
highest kill rate occurs just
after ungulate birth, which
contributes to the overall
kill rate on the landscape.
Limiting doe harvest
In 1960s, 40% of the
harvested deer were does,
but currently, this number
has dropped to less than
10%.
The decision to consid-
er limited and controlled
female harvest depends
on factors such as the rela-
tionship between mortality
rates and landscape capac-
ity, and whether the mor-
tality is compensatory or
additive to the population.
Reproduction of mule deer
is currently at a rate of 7 per
100 does.
The consideration of
doe harvest by the ODFW
has sparked controversy
among some individuals
ZKRTXHVWLRQLWVH൵HFWLYH-
ness in light of already low
deer populations. At first
glance, it may seem coun-
terintuitive to target female
deer for harvest when their
numbers are already dwin-
dling. However, there are
certain situations where doe
harvest can actually yield
positive outcomes.
Mule deer populations
are incredibly sensitive to
mortality rates. If a signif-
icant number of deer - say
20 out of 100 - perish each
year, the population will
either stabilize or decline.
However, if only 10 out of
100 does die annually, the
population is likely to ex-
perience an upward trend.
Over the years, Oregon
and other western states
have observed that when
there is no female harvest,
the age structure of mule
deer populations can skew
towards older individuals,
negatively impacting repro-
duction rates. Therefore, it
becomes crucial to analyze
the mortality factors with-
in a population, assessing
whether they are additive
or compensatory, and de-
termining the population’s
proximity to its carrying
capacity.
In cases where a popu-
lation is nearing landscape
capacity and data indicates
that the mortality rates are
predominantly compensa-
tory rather than additive,
a carefully regulated doe
harvest could potentially
improve the age and sex
structure of the population.
By selectively targeting
older females, ODFW aims
to revitalize the population
and promote healthier re-
productive cycles.
Hunter numbers
The number of hunters
has declined over the past
few decades, but the decline
KDVQRWEHHQVLJQL¿FDQWLQ
the last 10 to 12 years in Or-
egon. The decrease in mule
deer hunters is primarily
due to the decline in mule
deer population. ODFW
has responded by adjusting
its conservation framework
and reducing harvest levels
accordingly.
In 2020, there were
326,663 registered hunters
in Oregon, accounting for
7.8% of the state’s popu-
lation. In the same year,
ODFW sold 77,000 bear
tags with a 37% participa-
tion rate and 75,000 cougar
tags with a 22% participa-
tion rate.
The Oregon Depart-
ment of Fish and Wildlife
(ODFW) has stated that
ULÀHKXQWVIRUPXOHGHHUEH-
gan in the 1930s. However,
they have noticed a decline
in the number of hunters
due to various actions and
responses, as well as lim-
ited hunting opportunities.
ATVs and OHVs
'XULQJWKH¿QDOZHEL-
nar on January 9th, con-
cerns were raised by hunt-
ers about the widespread
XVH RI$79V ERWK GXULQJ
hunting season and year-
round, which can disrupt
wildlife and their habitats.
ODFW has responded by
closing certain roads to
$79 XVH GXULQJ VSHFLILF
times of the year to protect
winter ranges and create
secure habitats for hunting.
Public education and out-
reach are also being used to
DGGUHVVWKHLPSDFWVRI$79
use on wildlife.
Dereck Broman from
ODFW mentioned that he
received a question from
hunters regarding the fre-
quent sightings and noise
RI$79V :KLOH DFNQRZO-
HGJLQJ WKDW$79V FDQ EH
enjoyable, many hunters
are worried about the unin-
tended consequences they
bring, particularly con-
cerning mule deer. The
question arises - what is the
recommended approach?
&DQ$79VEHVWRSSHGDQG
is it necessary to stop them,
especially concerning mule
deer?
According to Jeremy
Thompson, there has been a
noticeable rise in the recre-
DWLRQDOXVHRIR൵KLJKZD\
vehicles in various parts of
the state. To address this,
some roads, including those
XVHG E\$79V DUH FORVHG
during certain times of the
year. These closures aim
to protect the winter range
and create secure habitats
for hunting. In the Blue
Mountains, designated trav-
el management areas have
been established to provide
a hunting experience free
IURP $79 GLVWXUEDQFHV
Thompson emphasizes the
importance of educating the
public about the impact of
vehicular use on wildlife.
Collaboration with land
management agencies is
key in identifying areas
where increased vehicle im-
pacts are observed and im-
plementing limitations on
their use. The ODFW will
FRQWLQXHRXWUHDFKH൵RUWVWR
work with constituents and
partners to mitigate these
impacts.
In response to ques-
tions regarding the declin-
ing mule deer population
and the lowered number of
desired deer on the land-
scape, Smith emphasized
the importance of setting re-
alistic and attainable goals.
ODFW aims for a 44%
increase in mule deer pop-
ulation, which would still
EH D VLJQL¿FDQW LPSURYH-
ment. It is worth noting that
mule deer populations have
been declining across many
Western states, not just in
Oregon.
Poaching
Concerns about litiga-
tion and political interfer-
ence in predator manage-
ment were addressed by
ODFW. They stated that
they must adhere to the cur-
rent laws and regulations
set by the voters of Oregon,
which includes the ban on
hound hunting for cougar
and bear.
During her presenta-
tion, Yvonne Shaw revealed
that in 2019, the state leg-
islature allocated a signif-
icant amount of funding,
specifically $4.4 million,
to support an extensive
anti-poaching initiative.
7KLVH൵RUWLQYROYHVWKHHV-
tablishment of three teams,
HDFKZLWKDVSHFL¿FUROHLQ
combating poaching ac-
tivities. The initiative in-
cludes the appointment of
a Wildlife Anti-Poaching
Resources Prosecutor, who
will be based at the Oregon
Department of Justice.
ODFW is actively re-
cruiting more troops to
combat wildlife crimes
and intends to hire addi-
WLRQDOVWD൵WRPRQLWRUDQG
track cases through the
court system. The lack of
adequate prosecutors is
recognized as a challenge,
with the current ratio fall-
ing short of the ideal ratio.
Successful cases, like that
of Walter Erickson, a no-
torious poacher, highlight
WKHFROODERUDWLYHH൵RUWVRI
OSP, special investigations,
and prosecutors resulting in
VXEVWDQWLDO¿QHV MDLOWLPH
bans, and asset forfeiture
IRUR൵HQGHUV
The draft of the mule
deer plan is currently near-
ing completion, and public
input and comments are still
being sought. Interested
individuals can sign up for
email updates on ODFW’s
website to stay informed
about the plan’s progress.
It is worth noting that
wolves were not extensive-
ly discussed in the webinar
series.
DEADLINE:
MONDAYS
AT 5PM
Barney Lindsay Memorial
JANUARY 27, 2024
Doors open at
5:00 pm, dinner
at 6:00 pm, live
aution begins at
7:00 pm.
Gilliam Bisbee Building
Tickets $40.00 each sold in groups of two, can be pre-purchased
at Murray’s Drug in Heppner or sold at the time of the event at the
door. Ashley Lindsay is making the meal, Joe Lindsay and sons
will be providing the entertainment, Erin Heideman is the emcee
and Kenny Grieb is the auctioneer. We lots of amazing live and
VLOHQWDXWLRQLWHPVLQFOXGLQJ¿VKLQJWULSV$LU%Q%VWD\VD/LQGVD\
steer and lamb, fertilizer, grass seed, wine cases, many spa baskets
DQGRWKHUJLIWEDVNHWV2YHULWHPV