Preditors and Predation

July 24, 2009 by  
Filed under Articles

Predators and Predation

by: Todd A. Black

Photo Credits: Vincent Martinez

You don’t have to talk to very many landowners or even sportsmen and mention the word predator to get them excited.  “There’s way too many predators out there”, “predators are the problem”, and “what are we going to do about all the predators out there”are statements I hear all too often.  Are they justified?  Are they true statements or are they just pointing a figure at one thing that we can do something about and see the results?542725806_fmd08_9969-ws

Its basic ecology,a predator that kills its prey impacts that animal directly andto some extent may impact the population of a given area. The big question is how muchand what is that impact? If an individual animal’s death has noeffect on the population such that it is replaced by another and numbers stay the same or increase, its death is termed ‘compensatory mortality’on the other hand its death has an impact on the population such that the overall population continues to decrease, its death is termed‘ additive mortality’.  There havebeen volumes of research published on predators and prey and as with most research the data shows mixed results in some cases predator populations are too high and impact their prey, other studies show no evidence of predation being a limiting factor on a population and some are just ‘inconclusive’ in the findings.  Because there is rarely a clear definitive answer, one of two opinions/sidesusually surfaces. Those who oppose the underlying reasoning attack the researchand conversely, those who support its conclusions beat the drum even louder. Simply stated, if the research shows coyotes impact mule deer, people who like coyotes have problems with the results, but to the landowners and sportsmen who have claimed that coyotes are killing the deer, the research shows exactly what they have been saying all along.

My Perceptions on Predators

In my lengthening career with I think I have come almost full circle, especiallywhen it comes topredation on mule deer. Back when I was a teenager and knew it all, I subscribed to the rural red neck philosophy that “the only good predator isa dead one”. I spent hours hunting predators, especially coyotes. I did this simply because I thought it would create more ‘muleys’. When I started my career at college, I found out I really didn’t know it alland started to learn about predators and prey. I was taughtthatpredators don’t always impact our game populations, because they only take the sick and weak, predators can’t and won’t eat themselves out of house and home, there are cyclic relationships between predator and prey.  As I learned more about predation and actually digested the research/data I started making observations and applying those observations with what I was learning.

So what have I learned, first as I pointed out research isn’t always convincing and conclusive, research isn’t done long enough, it doesn’t always ask the right questions, and doesn’t always use the best methods.  From what I have observed, read, and studied, I now believe what we are seeing more of here in the west, especially with our deer herds, is that predators can and arehaving a negative impacton localized populationsin many areas. As I think about this, I think I have twopretty good theories to support myideas, so, I will tell you why I am going down the predators are impacting our deer herd road. First, there has been big changes in how we implement our predator management strategies, and secondhas to do with elk and the predator pit hypothesis.

Predator Management; Now and Then

How we view and ultimately manage predators has changed significantly over the past 40 years. There isn’t enough room in this issue to paint the picture of how Wildlife Services (USDA Dept of Agg. APHIS) poisoned, killed, gunned, trapped, and addressed predators in the 50’s through the early part of the 1980’s.  Long and short of it, we don’t even come close to taking the number of predators now that we did then.  To think that this intensive predation management didn’t greatly improve or increase our deer herds is comical.  In fact there is evidence that shows we likely had deer populations well over carrying capacity such that they were impacting their own. habitat.  We likely had artificially high populations of deer herds in many areas but that is when mule deer were king and everyone hunted and the days that many of us remember and wish we had again.542758998_fmd_7128-c2_wsl

While predation management practices still continue, fewer people pursue, trap, and hunt predators. Wildlife Services arekilling fewer predatorsbecause of environmental restrictions (but mainly because we have fewer sheep ranchers) and a predatorbountiesonly happen in selected counties in one state that I knowof. In contrast, less than twenty years ago many states allowed unlimited harvest of bears and lions, most had some sort of bounty system for coyotes and foxes. Twenty years ago, it was a rarity for me to see a bear let alone a lion, now it seems a rarity if I don’t see severalbears and at least onelion on my various outings each year. Today, bears and lions are intensely managed in most western states today. Most states now manage bear and lions are managed as a big game species, have quotas or limited opportunity units where the sex, age, and area of harvest are closely monitoredas to not allow too many animals to be harvested. To a certain extent even the way we as sportsmen select the large mature males in our harvestare allowing them to increase. Every biologist knows you control population numbers through the harvest of females, not the males. But, by continually selecting against the big mature tomsand boars, which everyone wants to throw on their wall, are we are allowing their population to increase by taking awaytheir own population regulators. Certainly, one could make a valid argument that our predator management philosophies and practices havehad a direct impact on our deer populations over time while allowing the predators to increase.

Elk, Elk, and more Elk555437098_em_2733_pfws-1pm-1

If you read my last article you will know I talked about elk.  I really didn’t talk about elk in the sense of them being a secondary prey source for our larger predators but let’s discuss it now.

So elk are everywhereand their populations are escalating.  What does this mean for the predator? Simple answer really, there are more groceries on the table. Normally there is an intricate balance between predator and prey(one predator and one prey). However, when there is a secondary prey source to choose from at the store, it is unlikely a predator will starve to death even if itsprimary prey decreases. I think this is what we are seeing with our deer and elk herds. Deer numbers are down and are fewer and farther between but elkare plentiful. This shift makes it possible for predator numbers to remain stable or even increase when deer numbers continue to decline.

This alteration in the predator prey relations is called the ‘predator pit hypotheses’. It states, when a primary prey (in this case mule deer) are reduced in numbers by a natural or even unnatural event (over harvest, winter kill, drought, loss of habitat, etc.), a predator species can increase or remain stable and continue to suppress their primary prey if they have a secondary prey (in this case elk) which they can switch to. How can we have increasing populations of coyotes, lions, bears, and elk and expect our deer to remain stable? The system is out of balance and it doesn’t favor mule deer. Predator management is an important aspect of mule deer management and steps need to be taken to keep predation in line with current deer populations.

What can be done?

For the past several years, one of my favorite researchers to read when it comes to predators is Guy Connolly of the USDA Wildlife Services in Colorado.  Guy pretty much shoots straight when he says, “ predator control is justified when it will produce substantial increases of game at a reasonable cost, when the extra game production is worth more than the monetary and non-monetary cost of producing it and when the increased game production will be used”.  What leave us hanging and are difficult questions to answer is.  What is justified?  What is substantial, and what is worth it?  I don’t think any of us would argue that we could use more mule deer but is it worth the cost is our habitat in condition to support more game, if we are using public tax dollars to address predators is it justifiable to the non-hunting public?

Predation management isa complex issue and we have to be realistic about how we implement predation management programs. With all the animal rights groups and the public opinion out there we just can’t declare an all out war on predators like we once did. We can’t just go out and eliminate all of the elk either. So what can be done? What can we do to help? I think we need to work hard and close with our state and federal land management agencies to support and encourage some sort of predation management particularly in those areas that are below objectives in fawn do doe rations and in those areas that are highly fragmented.  We need to work to identify funding mechanisms that will help to defray the cost and we need to develop sound monitoring techniques to determine if our efforts had any positive results.  The key as was pointed out is economics, social aspects, and monitoring. The stresses and issues that mule deer face and will have to overcome into the next generation are almost saddening.  Our management actions now will almost assuredly solidify their fate into the next 10-20 years.  While predation management isn’t the only issue and obstacle that mule deer face, it’s certainly one that every state and private management plan should have as part of their tool box.

Is habitat management the answer for predators555437132_em_2746_pfws-1pm

A parting thought about habitat and predators.  As we look across the landscape, I think it is easy to identify certain changes in habitat.  A large portion of it has changed to houses while other has burned up and been converted to seas of cheat grass.  Other changes have occurred so slowly that we may not really see the changes or understand what impacts these changes may have on game populations.  Truthfully, if we had ‘good’ habitat, management predators would likely be less of an issue.

To manage predators we need to manage our habitat.  Habitat is the primary factor we need to concentrate on in maintaining ‘good’ sustainable populations of mule deer.  Believe me, spending money on habitat improvement projects is far better spent than on a quick fix of killing predators.

MDF Spot Light, Weed Control

July 9, 2009 by  
Filed under Conservation

WEED CONTROL

Mule Deer Foundation Chapter Spotlight

Southwest Montana (Belgrade/Bozeman) Chapter Project – FINAL

By Tracy Watt

Intensive, long-term, integrated management is necessary to reduce noxious weed infestations. Ron Carlstrom, Agricultural Agent for the Gallatin County Extension Service, knows this as well as anyone and for the past couple of years, Carlstrom has been working with a group of private land owners who control about 115,000 acres in southwest Montana. The Extension Service wrote and submitted Noxious Weed Trust Fund Grants and obtained monies to treat weed-infested areas on the privately held acreage. The Trust Fund is administered through the Montana Department of Agriculture and provides weed control cost-share dollars for private lands. The funds were used to aerial spray for noxious weeds.spraying weeds

Spraying for noxiuos weeds


Much of the private property, however, lies adjacent to or in the vicinity of Montana’s first state park, Lewis and Clark Caverns. The park spans some 3,000 acres and is located on the  HYPERLINK “http://fwp.mt.gov/fishing/guide/q_Jefferson_River__1115074459268.aspx” Jefferson River, between the towns of Three Forks and Whitehall. There is no livestock grazing plan in the park, nor do any license fees go toward park maintenance. Therefore, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks have been treating for weeds on a very limited basis, with access to about $4,000 per year from their operating budget. They utilize very limited in-house and contracted spraying techniques for weed control, with no ability to treat outlying areas. It became obvious to Carlstrom that if noxious weed management was to be successful on the private lands, something needed to be done for the park, as well.Helicopter on water tender - How they fill water and chemical

Reloading the helicopter with spray!

Mule deer are the largest wildlife population in the Lewis and Clark Caverns State Park, and the area is vital mule deer territory in a part of Montana where good habitat is scarce. Host to rough mountain terrain and sagebrush flats, cedar groves and hardwood draws, blue ribbon trout streams and rushing rivers, and with minimal winter snowfall, the park offers excellent winter range for mule deer. With this in mind, Carlstrom contacted David Rickett, MDF chair for the Belgrade/Bozeman area, who happened to have some Chapter Rewards dollars burning a hole in his pocket. Rickett shared the project idea with his chapter, and the committee members agreed it would be a worthwhile endeavor.

They say luck is when preparedness meets opportunity, and such was the case when Carlstrom and Rickett approached the park manager. With the EA having already been passed through the public process, all systems were a go. In June 2008, MDF’s Southwest Montana Chapter put $7,400 towards the eradication of weeds on 160 acres of this rough and remote mountainous terrain. Noxious weeds were targeted with aerial spraying using a helicopter and the herbicide Transline. Care was taken to not harm the sensitive area, which includes ponderosa pine, cottonwood, hardwood, alder, juniper and mountain mahogany, by using a more expensive chemical that lingers in the soil for a shorter amount of time than other, more harsh treatments.Leafy Spurge Spreading Downhill-1

Leafy spurge spreading down hill.

MDF’s Rickett is calling the summer effort “Phase One.” Phase Two will consist of MDF volunteers, and others, hand spraying weeds in accessible areas of the park, along roads, and in the camp grounds. The Southwest Montana Chapter hopes to invest $3,000 per year for the next five to seven years to help eliminate the threat of invasive weeds on this vital mule deer habitat.