Utah State University Researcher Todd Black, another friend of this blog, penned an article on Predators and Prey that appeared in Mule Deer Foundation Magazine..............a very revealing and balanced analysis that comes out in favor of some predator control strategies to increase game herds...........but also acknowledging that the answer is not always about culling predators..............good habitat for prey species might minimize the need for most predator control...............Interesting read below

Prepared for Mule Deer Foundation Magazine—Todd A. Black

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 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?Its basic ecology, a predator that kills its prey impacts that animal directly and to some extentmay impact the population of a given area. The big question is how much and what is that impact? If an individual animal's death has no effect on the population such that it is replaced by another and numbers stay the same or increase, its death is termed '

on the other hand its death has an impact on the population such that the overall populationcontinues to decrease, its death is termed '

There have been volumes of research published on predators and prey and as with most research the data shows mixed resultspredator 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 canincrease 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 ofcoyotes, 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 deermanagement 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 isGuy Connolly of the USDA Wildlife Services in Colorado. Guy pretty much shoots straight

when he says, "

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

A parting thought about habitat and predators. As we look across the landscape, I think it iseasy 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 soslowly 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 toconcentrate 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 killingpredators.

is it worth the cost is our habitat in condition to support more game, if we are using public taxdollars to address predators is it justifiable to the non-hunting public?Predation management is a 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 needto 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 belowobjectives in fawn do doe rations and in those areas that are highly fragmented. We need towork to identify funding mechanisms that will help to defray the cost and we need to developsound monitoring techniques to determine if our efforts had any positive results. The key as waspointed out is economics, social aspects, and monitoring.The stresses and issues that mule deer face and will have to overcome into the next generationare almost saddening. Our management actions now will almost assuredly solidify their fate intothe 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 predators?

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 nonmonetarycost of producing it and when the increased game production will be used"..

in some cases predator populations are too high and impact their prey, other studies show noevidence 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/sides usually surfaces. Those who oppose the underlying reasoning attack the research and conversely, those

who support its conclusions beat the drum even louder. Simply stated, if the research showscoyotes 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 researchshows 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, especially when 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 is a dead one". Ispent 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 all and started to learn aboutpredators and prey. I was taught that predators 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 houseand home, there are cyclic relationships between predator and prey. As I learned more aboutpredation and actually digested the research/data I started making observations and applyingthose 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 areseeing more of here in the west, especially with our deer herds, is that predators can and are

having a negative impact on localized populations in many areas.

 As I think about this, I think Ihave two pretty good theories to support my ideas, 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 weimplement our predator management strategies, and second has 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 throughthe 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'tgreatly 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 ownhabitat. 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 wehad again.

While predation management practices still continue, fewer people pursue, trap, and huntpredators. Wildlife Services are killing fewer predators because of environmental restrictions(but mainly because we have fewer sheep ranchers) and a predator bounties only happen inselected counties in one state that I know of. In contrast, less than twenty years ago many states allowed unlimited harvest of bears and lions, most had some sort of bounty system for coyotesand foxes. Twenty years ago, it was a rarity for me to see a bear let alone a lion, now it seems ararity if I don't see several bears and at least one lion on my various outings each year.

Today,bears and lions are intensely managed in most western states today. Most states now managebear 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 monitored as to not allow too many animals tobe harvested. To a certain extent even the way we as sportsmen select the large mature males in

our harvest are 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 toms and boars, which everyone wants to throw on their wall, are we are allowing their population to increase by taking away their own population regulators.

 Certainly, one could make a valid argument that our predator management philosophies and practices have had adirect impact on our deer populations over time while allowing the predators to increase.

Elk, Elk, and more Elk

If you read my last article in the March/April issue 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 everywhere and their populations are escalating. What does this mean for the predator? Simple answer really, there are more groceries on the table. Normally there is anintricate balance between predator and prey (one predator and one prey). However, when thereis a secondary prey source to choose from at the store, it is unlikely a predator will starve to

death even if its primary 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 elk are plentiful. This shift makes it possible for predator numbers to remain stable or even increase when deernumbers continue to decline.

This alteration in the predator prey relations is called the '

are statements I hear all too often.compensatory mortality'. If additive mortality'.

Predators and Predation