The Mystery of the Missing Muleys.

Remember this: Sometimes you have to deduce in Sherlockian fashion, just for fun. This is a definite conversation piece. 

Recently, I saw a post by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife stating a summit was held to encourage citizens to add input on the declining mule deer populations of the Western Slope. The Western Slope, being the mountainous terrain from the Continental Divide to the Utah border. This is the side of the Rockies where large sheets of glacial ice once existed but now are slowly melting. This area is comprised of alpine meadows, canyons, plateaus, and high deserts. There are two zones to consider. The first zone is supported by trees and one indicator species while the second zone has no trees, with plains and alpine tundra.  I did go to other sources for answers. I referred to dated information using the Modeling vegetation distribution of MAPPS. With fire, the outcome would be grasslands. The MC1 dynamic general vegetation model indicate by 2095, this area will be largely grasslands out to the line from Louisiana up to the northern border of the US.

A mule deer crisis! I scrolled through the comments on the CPW social media page. Comments ranged from charging the CPW with misleading the public in regards to mule deer populations, denial of the mule deer problem, to blaming the decline in mule deer populations on predators and so on. I mulled over this difficulty while watching the old version of The Wolf Man.

I laughed at the idea the surrounding states were working on their own inflated habitat to lure the mule deer to their area to cash in on the big bucks while Colorado was trying to figure out where the non-existant or missing muleys had escape or disappeared to. Maybe it was migration? I also kept seeing a mule deer being beamed up and carried off by Aliens. Why? Because the History Channel has a good argument for it with Giorgio A. Tsoukalos and his wild hair.

Once you get past the list of who-dunnits such as accidental death, spontaneous abortions, birth control, disease, outbreaks of hemorrhagic, chronic wasting, inability to do a decent count on a mobile animal, predation, and questionable habitat management, and migration away from the area; things don’t seem so clear for sure.

The main concern was the number of mule deer population based on adult males, females, and progeny. There had to be breeding with viable progeny that could live long enough to be included in a study count. The factors possibly affecting this is adult animal sterilization through genetics, structure malformation or function of reproductive organs and output, disease, food and water sources, or inflicted wound, etc. There was the belief that fawns were not making it to adulthood due mostly to predation or some other factor. I also wanted to find a study where female mule deer milk was assessed during lactation for water content or nutritional value. What if they just had bad milk? Also again, what if the breeder buck was flawed in some way or enuched and unable to produce, or poor quality sperm?
 

I did read an interesting bulk of dated information contrasting the difference in white-tail deer and mule deer. Yet as I was reading the current narrative, the only two players concerned were the mule deer and the elk. What happened to the white-tailed deer? This is why I ask. The issue of competition for food sources between mule deer and elk were a little strained. When I contrasted the white-tailed deer with the mule deer the behavior and food source kept the other from over browsing on each other. There was a mutual benefit of the two species overlapping and sharing territory for limited times. There was also the concern elk were driving out the mule deer or taking more than their share of the grub.

In regards to fawning, the white-tail deer favored a different cover than the mule deer which made it easier for cougars to prey on white-tail instead of mule deer. To some degree the mule deer used the white-tail as a sacrificial cover to save their young from predators. There was also the evidence in that particular work of a difference in timing of fawning between white-tail and mule deer by several weeks that benefited the propagation of mule deer due to moving progeny up into the higher elevations away from predators while white-tail moved to lower elevations and chose softer and more accessible cover.

I can’t find my notes on this but it was interesting to find a plant-based reason for the decision-making of ungulates and how this decision played itself out in the consequence of its endeavors to life. If I find it later I shall add it in here but Ididn’t want to totally exclude this information.

I did find evidence that female mule deer required more water during pregnancy and lactation even though throughout some of the studies, water sources were dismissed due to the mule deer’s ability to regulate water. I then thought of the access to water on the glacial side of the western slopes during seasons where mule deer tend to migrate to higher elevations. During colder seasons, water requirements increase. Yet there was disregard to providing water sources to mule deer during times when water supplies were scarce because the mule deer were considered to tolerate the deficit in droughty times. What about the fluid needs of pregnant females who tended to stay closer to water sources that gave predators the opportunity to capitalize on the immobilization of birthing fawns? How would providing more water sources improve overall health of fawn during pregnancy and lactation? This might give the doe more areas to migrate to in a space while avoiding a predator during fawning. Think of it as moving the chess pieces around on the board. If prey had more options, their habit or decision-making ability may shift daily to have a broken routine if menaced by a predator. There would also have to be an action plan to artificially landscape these areas with the particular cover the mule deer requires during fawning and foraging. The problem with this is the diverting of water to the eastern slope and down to other states with water compacts that are experiencing water deficits. Lots of water is being diverted away from its normal location for human consumption and use. At this point, desertification is an issue looming at the state lines.

What about some kind of artificial cover? Of course, you don’t want mule deer falling in a manmade hole to drown. My personal experience has been with World War fox holes. I find a lot of my female deer inside open ended, well drained canal ditches with thick thorny briars and trees lining the canal edges. They tend to use these as walking tunnels, if deep enough, to avoid detection and use it as a water source. They find these perfect places to hide and will burrow under the roots of oak trees on the side of woodland ponds with raised pond borders. They will realize in a low area with a raised section, the predator will go upward for better visibility so they get low and hide under something below and out of sight. When you watch a deer get on its belly and crawl like a marine…then you have lived my friend.

I  researched into some hydrology issues where damming was performed and large amounts of water were being diverted to eastern Colorado via the Western Slope. There was also the issue of extraction and irrigation practices that could have impacted the mule deer. This brought forth the issue of decreasing the effect of moisture in an area that already relied on the moisture in the soil to dictate to some degree what kind of plant flora would grow from the soil. If the soil moisture was too little then grasses would grow. If the soil moisture increased there would be woody shrubs and understory. As the precipitation increases, there begins more tree canopy growth, which is not what the CPW would like. The requirement seems to be like an unstable desert-type area.

I wondered if this was a situation where a landscape was artificially manipulated in favor of a certain vegetation to feed mule deer and turn it away, long term, from what it would have been otherwise. I think here of forcing a kid to eat broccoli when the child hates the stuff. He’ll chew and swallow but eventually will feed it to the dog under the table. You can only press back a landscape for so long especially when you are doing the juggling act of keeping it in just the perfect equilibrium when all it wants to do is roll out to chaos.

After reading one mule deer related article, I thought the Colorado Parks and Wildlife should have sliced the issue with at least one razor's edge.

Let's first look at the most obvious act on the part of the CPW; asking the public for help or including the public. Either way, it seemed the CPW needed help. From what I was reading, the return response was not littered with solutions. I did read that the meeting was more practical-minded in its generic solutions.

When you take into consideration the amount of land that is managed by the CPW, there is a substantial amount of private land that they cannot control. In asking the public for help, I thought that would be a way for the CPW to suggest how to include private owner land into a management plan that would improve habitat for mule deer populations. The main factor in circumventing this hope was expense, allotting and monopolizing private land for CPW projects to treat mule deer issues. Even when the cause is beneficial to a private landowner, some people don't like being ordered about on their property for any reason. I could see where the CPW walks a tight rope.

Most of the time when I see state agency asking the public for help it is because they have reached the boundaries of their capabilities while trying to avoid upsetting citizens. Citizens tend to relocate the duty of dealing with biological issues of their state onto local department of natural resources. When it comes to asking for solutions to problems, they are willing accepted, but the average layman is not going to be allowed to interfere in the process once the plan is in play. The agency will do that and review the ongoing outcome while reassessing the problem. The layman will go back to his home and job while hoping everything will turn out for the best. There is a certain amount of trust in this. The citizen trusts the agency to find out the problem and deal with it. 

Finding some kind of incentive program would prompt people to act. I thought of a couple that might be considered. If the owner has to pay-out-of-pocket, then allot property tax deductions for X amount of acres that are contracted out by the land owner. That contract would define what the land owner would be willing to do to help contribute to habitat landscaping. If there  were a charge for a service or agency coming out to do prescribe burning then give the land owner a discounted rate that is supplemented by federal or state funding. If a certain type of vegetation is to be propagated, supply land owners with small business loans to purchase needed supplies, seeds or grafting.  The land owner would report to a wildlife botanist or biologist once established, while enlisting interns to work for school credits and graduate research. These would be overseen by a lead scientist. This ensures replacement vegetation, vegetation research or modification to improve tolerance to habitat conditions, education to students that champion the cause of promoting mule deer populations in Colorado through programs that encourage participation. I had other ideas but I missed placed my notes in that barrio I call a bedroom.

I read The Colorado Mule Deer Story and The Draft for the Mule Deer Strategy put forth. This information seemed to cover the necessary issues you would find in this particular problem. I then called Colorado State University to speak to Manier or Hobbs because I had questions. I have yet to receive a return telephone call and penned this deficit down to one or the other being busy. I looked for answers elsewhere. 

I did want to include this snippet from the online Hobbs-Manier release for its relevance to the problem.

Hobbs and Manier issued a release that suggested lack of fire to be a factor in the decline in mule deer populations. To quote Hobbs, “We're not seeing a single stress that's causing the slowing of growth among the deer populations, but there has been a definite change in the quantity and quality of habitat for this particular species.” Manier and Hobbs stated, “that fire suppression, which led to a gradual increase in forested areas in the region, caused an acceleration in canopy coverage in the area that was studied. The increase in tree cover caused a reduction in grazing areas.”

http://www,news.colostate.edu/Release/2818

I looked around for prescribed burning articles in accord to mule deer populations and habitat.  I did read somewhere when the wildfires burn off woody shrubs, cheatgrass and other noxious weeds would endeavor to take over. This caused grasslands to become riddled with invasive species and be less nutritious. Here we have the issue of fire suppression and increase growth on a habitat.  In other places, tree cover began to increase and crowded out shrubs, so you can see the delicate balancing act when playing with matches.

If Hobbs and Manier do believe prescribe burning should be implemented then this would be a good time to do a study on the areas of prescribe burning. If there tends not to be a benefit to prescribe burning through increases in soil nutrients or plant species this might not be the answer. To do prescribe burning there has to be a marked benefit to the outcome. If not that road is a dead end or at least not the cure for the problem.

I looked on Google Books to find this title, "Environmental Mafia", circa 1 Jan, 2003 authored by Richard O' Leary. So this information was at least eleven or twelve years old. I felt like John Oliver, doing the rope motion with his hand, while yelling, "What is this? What is this?" This was an interesting read. Just go straight to Chapter Ten, Watch It Burn for more reading. If the worry is out of control wildfire the reasoning here to do prescribed burning outside of fire season while being monitored by state forestry agencies would be a good idea.  Cascading events in the form of an overall plan to prune and rebuild habitat to suit the mule deer would be effect with vigiliant monitoring. Yet the nagging questions are: Will the mule deer breed enough to have fawns on the ground? Will those fawns live to be counted? Can we make quota?

This information validated the parallels to the issue of Priority One and weed control from the CPW's strategy plan.

I wanted to understand the numbers game. I do realize, when dealing with quotas,  the number counter can become so obsessed with the maintenance number then freak out over a deficit. This is probably because the standard has been set so high there are no allowances for deviations from that value which cause the mental crisis, when it is not a problem. It is just a variation due to factors influencing the numbers. Usually one would take the high known value and the lowest known value and find a median number to go by. This is your working value that is not set in stone like the Ten Commandments. If mule deer populations diverge by 250,000, mule deer apocalypse will be at hand.

I referred to the CPW's handouts and articles. The key goal to indicate a healthy population of deer by the CPW standard is 525,000 to 575,000.  I then investigated the information on what defined a deficit. In 2006, there were a total of 600,000 mule deer that declined to 408,000 in 2012, then 390,000 in 2013.  This 2013 number subtracted from standard 575,000. The difference totaled was 185,000. Sure this is a huge number but not near half the total. Considering what constituted mule deer populations all-time-low, I thought this was a bit of running to fear but yet there it was. Given these numbers seem to fluctuate per article.

I wondered why there was a race to action to improve what appeared by the numbers, to be a dwindling mule deer population. Or is it?

Mule deer do represent an animal on a landscape as part of a bigger ecosystem. They also constitute money on four legs.  Given the big business of hunting, tourism, and people wanting to keep their state jobs, it seems to me the mule deer was a linchpin of sorts in the states economics. I am not questioning an agency's general truth to be re-establishing numbers for a healthy populations but you have to consider everything; even the unsightly reality of things. If my money was slowly disappearing, I would be worried.

I wanted to talk to other hunters that hunted the particular area but reading comments, figured that would be a dead-end unless I found the right guyor gal.

Regurgitating facts from the CPW handouts, in 1921-22 there was a winter feeding campaign and in 1932, Pittman Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act funded the first federal money for research and nutritional requirements for mule deer.  There was pelletized feed at feeding stations during 1983-84 but this didn't help fawn mortality. Here there was the effort to supplement mule deer diet but a poor outcome to fawns. I guess Bambi was shouldered out at the feeder. Predators could have realized this was a food source for prey and just waited until feeding time to pick unsuspecting prey off. I would guess that is the lay way to hunt as a predator but effective. It’s a thought towards decreased numbers especially if you wanted to blame it on cougars or other animals. You lead the mule deer right to the slaughter but what else is there to do? Let them starve? It's a chance you have to take.I did read another article that related the problem of causing a density in one area where the foliage was stripped on top of the feeding. Once again, it is import to think spatially when promoting any kind of plan. Yes, it would be small section of habitat to work on but not in the same spot but evenly distributed for an increase in mobility, especially at fawning season.

Priority One on the strategy was to landscape-scale the habitat to improve its quality.  I would assume this would be a good idea because it included the private land manager. If I were a land owner at a meeting like this I would ask that all important question. How much is this going to cost me? Who is going to come up with the plan for my private land?  Is it going to cost me to do prescribe burning and who will do this? Where am I going to get seed from to do forage restoration and is it going to cost me? Who and where is the money for weed management going to come from?

After this, I just lost count of priorities and started asking questions.

Priorities aside, the main issue that stuck out for me was the food source.  Here you have an area that was once covered with some vegetation then it was cut down or removed for agriculture and domestic livestock. Once that issue was phased out to some degree then the area was left to heal itself. Invading or migrating species of plants moved into this untreated area. The problem with this was found in a study that explained the event as a limited species, able to survive and persist, but may not be the best fit for the environment. The food source appeared and the mule deer followed. Here you have the conundrum of trying to maintain a habitat’s flora that has a limited time span in the area based on its ability to adapt to the fluctuating environment it has migrated to. Some of these plant species, if you research are possibly not native species yet as that awful word of climate change is tossed around, the shifting environment may not be able to maintain those particular plants.

I thought selecting areas where the rate of success is higher given the location could be strip landscaped where small sections are blocked out to foster those things needed for the propagation of vegetation for mule deer and maybe an improvement in bulk vegetation to divert away elk from the area the mule deer would browse. How well this would work is a mystery. This could be done over a period of time and would take up less space on a private land owners property. The land owner can designate how much he or she is willing to put aside for a certain amount of time for mule deer recovery. Once again, an incentive program should exist to encourage land managers to participate. Participation is the juice from the lemon so communication is pertinent where information is deliver to the layman in a way trust is not broken, questioned, or influenced.

The firm belief amongst hunters is predators. When you consider the idea predators can have up to three or more progeny, then their numbers could out breed the prey. This is not the case due to hunters culling predators that prey on the mule deer. When you consider the number of 525,000 without regard to hunter participations, that is a lot of deer to predators. What if the differential were the number that would feed the predators as a whole? Does an allowable amount of mule deer numbers, rellocated to predator food sources, play into the plan of the CPW for its healthy mule deer statistics? If you have 3000-7000 cougars with a herd of 575,000 mule deer, how much do the cougars get? Or is that figured in? This excludes other sources of food such as wild sheep, white-tailed deer, etc. How much are bears allowed? It's not a pet, but you are still responsible for its food source. Does this number only involve the exclusivity of human predation on mule deer as our supplemental food source?

The more I read these islands of information, the suggestion from other sources are: this whole circumstance has not been thought out well, the information provided is dated and questionable, and  dwindling trust issues.The mismanagement of the issues and sources are undermined by lack of effort to do a full-on scale current study into what is actualy going on at the Western Slope. This extends into human habitation and how poor decision-making is slowly creeping up on citizens by undesirable outcomes. Long-term, mule deer population numbers are not going to be your only problem. Wait until the water shortage becomes an undeniable truth.

I know when we see problems, we would like a study implemented that would point out the one guilty culprit but that is not always the case. It is several criminals that add up to a much bigger picture or small field of view. If there is a suggested solution, the solution should be tested then assessed for results. In this case, it would not be unheard of that the area would fluctuate between grasslands and shrub forests throughout time until finally it would go barren or the forest takes it. If not, then move on to the next possible thing. Better foliage, more water, and fewer predators. My all time favorite is critical thinking for a better plan.

 

Written by: W Harley  Bloodworth

~Courtesy of the AOFH~