DWR Snipers thin Bountiful Herd

[huntindad]

I think transplanting could be done and as for the mortality rate of doing so the last I checked it can't be any worse than the mortality rate on the deer they shoot!

Bill

[The Ox]

600 dollars a deer? how? i could haul 25 head in a stock trailer for 150 dollars across the state.

[huntindad]

Don't forget the 10 Biologists and Fish and Game BigWigs that need to be there for photo ops. and press coverage.

Bill

[proutdoors]

http://www.timberon.info/Animals/F-W-Deer.htm

Trapping and relocating deer are often suggested as a way to deal with nuisance deer. Relocating deer, however, can be costly, labor intensive and physically hazardous to the deer and those handling them. There are numerous methods used by the Department of Game and Fish to trap deer. The overall site characteristics and general nature of the problem dictates the best method for trapping deer. Another drawback with relocating deer relates to their survival rate. In the past, relocated deer have been monitored and the results indicate that most do not survive in their new environment past the first year. As with any alternative, the cost vs. the benefits must be weighed prior to a project of this nature.

Also, we have to remember there is usually multiple reasons why deer numbers are low, so simply releasing new deer into an area good compound the problems the existing deer have to deal with. If all we do is transplant more deer into areas that have limiting factors, what have we accomplished? IMO, this would be little more than a temporary/quick fix, while the causes of limited deer populations go on unfixed. I would prefer we fix the causes for low deer populations before we do anything else. Better habitat, lower road kill, less year round human intrusion, these are things we can have an impact on. Other factors such as weather will take some good fortune, maybe a few prayers.

[huntindad]

I agree with improving habitat and lessening roadkills and such but these are very cost inhibited also with very limited success in most cases I have seen. It is going to take numerous things to improve deer herds and all of them are gonna cost money and create hardship in some way (such as limiting tag numbers drastically). But one thing will not help deer numbers and that is killing them in this manner. As well placing one size fits all management restrictions on it based on a very limited study of a small number of cases with information released by the govt. such as saying it doesn't work this fish and game study says so.

Most habitat issues are created by human encroachment with housing as with the Bountiful issue and land fire prevention which is usually dictated by housing so would the cost be justified to remove housing from areas to improve habitat or allow fires to burn and if it takes a house or two oh well? No.

Do we close all roads into any area a deer may be outside of hunting season? Don't think that one will fly.

Do we shut down major roadways when an annual quota of road kill has been reached? Or shut them down altogether? Uh.......NO.

Small things are all we can do and those are things such as redirecting deer traffic away from areas of road that a high percentage of the animals crossing will be killed and limiting future urban expansion into wintering areas and allowing fires to burn in areas of little or no human population or even prescribed burns (Oh Gasp!) and slow human intrusion into winter and fawning areas with SOME road closures.

All of these come at a price , some larger than others but what is the price for a deer? All of these will save a FEW deer for that cost.

So if the cost is high but some success is obtained somewhere then it is better than just shooting them. IMO! Because none of the other SILVER BULLETS are FREE or HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL.

Don't forget that some of the worst MISINFORMATION out there is given by the GOVT. to serve THEIR agenda not YOURS and especially not the Mule Deer's!

Bill

[mossbak]

quote" ...At a cost average of $600 per deer and an estimated mortality rate of 100% over approximately 3 yrs. transplants on mule deer are seldom, if ever recommended by biologists and state game agencies.

====

Now i find that a bunch of BS...

case & point, back in 1945 a rich gentleman bought 100 head of mule deer and shipped them on a train, from Az. to california, then put them on a ship to Santa Rosa island, they thriving today, so much that they're gona kill em off soon!..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0o9uL4u7lY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3Qh8Gq6NKw