We have consistently reported on the decline of Moose across most of the USA(Colorado so far holding up ok) due to the "perfect storm of warming temperatures increasing the incidence of debilitating Winter Ticks and the increase in Deer Brain Disease caused by land alteration over the last 100 years allowing Deer to penetrate farther and farther into territory that was historically a Moose dominated herbivore system....................It always irks me(and I hope you as well) how people are so fast to blame Wolves and Bears for the declining Moose numbers even when Wolves are absent from the environment......................When Moose are severely weakened by the Ticks and Brain Disease, the Wolves and Bears have easy pickings and do kill Moose for a living.....................That is what should be written,,,,,,,,,,,,,that the Carnivores are simply taking advantage of the the changing world that we humans have brought about..................Deer invading Moose habitat and warmer temperatures have so much to do with our economic and industrial activities.---the end result caused by these changes to previous healthy habitat is an increase in Moose death by predation..............An analagy in our own lives is that without sufficient exercise combined with unhealthy eating habits brings on heart attacks and cancer............................The focus on improving the health of Moose should be burning less fossil fuels and regrowing thicker forests---that would reduce both Ticks and Deer.........................The focus on improving human health should be more exercise and a heart healthy diet, not taking Lipitor and other medicines that have horrible side effects-------------------Let us focus on true cause to engender true solution.................Lets not focus on the end result of not taking care of the environment and our bodies!

Minnesota moose die from wolves, ticks, abandonment and disease

• joseph marcoty, , Star Tribune.com

The first year of a landmark study found higher mortality rates than normal and listed several causes. Researchers say more work is needed.

A bull moose, sprouting the bumps of new antler growth on its head, grazed in a swamp off the Gunflint Trail in northeastern Minnesota — possibly one of the lucky ones in a declining population. One season of a high-tech study showed that the adult death rate was 18 percent; for calves, it was 71 percent.

It's tough to be a moose in Minnesota.

The deaths of 54 that were tracked as part of the
 biggest and most high-tech research study ever
conducted on moose provide a rare glimpse into
the harsh life they face in the wild and help explain
why they are rapidly disappearing from
Minnesota's
North Woods.

By far the greatest number, primarily calves,
 were killed by bears and wolves. A number
were abandoned by their mothers; one drowned.
Three adults died from massive infestations of
winter ticks, and others succumbed to deer-
related
 parasites and infections.

Researchers said one season's worth of data
from
 about 150 collared moose is not enough to
illuminate
 trends or to provide solutions in how to help
them
rebound. But it's clear, they said, that more
 are dying
than is normal.

Calves suffered a 71 percent mortality rate
after only
one summer, said Glenn DelGiudice, the
 wildlife
 researcher for the Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources who is running the calf
research portion
of the study.

And the ones that made it so far still have to
survive
 their first winter.

Moose need a mortality rate of 50 or 55
percent in the
 first year of life to maintain their population,
DelGiudice
said.

The adult death rate was 18 percent, said
Michelle
Carstensen, who is running the adult research
 for DNR
. If that rises to 30 percent in the winter, as
 expected,
 "that's not sustainable," she said.

The number of moose in Minnesota plummeted
by
 one-third last year, double the rate of previous
 years.

Results of the annual aerial moose survey
 conducted
 in January indicated that 2,760 moose were
 left, down
 from 4,230 in 2012.

In 2006, the population in the northeastern
corner of the
 state peaked at 8,840, but by then moose
had alread
y largely disappeared from the northwestern
corner of Minnesota, where they had long
 beenpart of thelandscape.

The sharp decline adds new urgency to the
 effort to
 understand why moose are dying in such
numbers.
 So far, the project has been funded for two
 years
 with $1.2 million from the state, tribes and
 the
 University of Minnesota Duluth.

Now researchers are hoping for another
$750,000
 from the state in part to determine how
 much of
 an impact global warming may have
 on the moose population.

Researchers want to attach devices on 30
 moose that
measure ambient and body temperatures
 to determine
 whether heat stress from higher average
 summer temperatures is playing a role
 in their demise.

A number of other studies have shown a
connection,
but none actually have provided the biological
evidence, DelGiudice said.

103 adult moose collared

In the first year of the study, wildlife crews
 found and
collared 103 adult moose with GPS devices
 that track
 their every movement.

When they die, in a wilderness version of the
 television
 show "CSI," a signal alerts crews who rush
 in and recover
 the carcass to determine its cause of death.
 The crews
 include staff from the DNR, the U.S. Forest
Service,
 and the Fond du Lac and Grand Portage
bands of Ojibwe.

In springtime, when the GPS signals alerted
 the crews that
 the females were bedding down to give birth,
specially
 trained crews that do the same work in western
 states and Alaska carefully moved in to collar
 50 newborn calves.

Despite taking all the precautions they could
think of, one frustrating and unexpected result
 of the calf collaring is that
 11 died, said DelGiudice.

Nine of them were abandoned by their mothers
 One died
when a mother stepped on it during the attempt
 to collar it
and one died for unknown reasons.

The timidity of the mothers surprised the wildlife
experts who have done such collaring elsewhere,
 DelGiudice said.

In Alaska, the helicopters had to hover directly
 above the handlers on the ground to keep the
mothers at bay. In one
 case, the pilot had to nudge a mother moose
 away with the helicopter strut.

"Here the mothers were skittish and would bolt
 for distances," DelGiudice said.

In addition to those 11 deaths, four calves slipped
 their collars, leaving a total of 34 for the researchers
 to follow. By the end
of the summer, 24 of them had died. Four were
eaten by
bears and another 16 most likely were killed by
wolves, though researchers aren't positive about
four of those. One drowned, two were abandoned
by their mothers well after being collared and one
 died for unknown reasons.

If the 10 that are left survive the winter, their chances
 are good, DelGiudice said.

Easy prey for wolves

Wolves also took about half of the 19 adults —
eight were direct kills and two died from infections
 that developed from wounds, Carstensen said.
Three apparently healthy moose died for unknown
reasons.

That raises tantalizing questions about the predator
 deaths. Moose that are sickened or weak are
 easy prey for wolves, which then eat the 
evidence of what caused the decline in the 
first place, she said.

That may be what happened to one moose whose
demise, by sheer chance, was witnessed by Amanda
 McGraw and others in a group of graduate students
 who were doing moose
 habitat research near Isabella, Minn., during the first
week of September.

They saw an adult moose near the edge of a pond,
and
 moved in to get a closer look and take photos. They
crawled through the long grass on their bellies, and
 only as they got close did they realize that the moose
 was sick and injured.

It ignored them, and then stumbled into the water,
where it couldn't get up.

They called in the moose wildlife crew and left to
finish their work. When the crew arrive two hours
 later, the moose
 already had been eaten by wolves that most likely
 were
 lurking in a nearby patch of poplars waiting for its
collapse.

She realized only later, McGraw said, that while
 crawling through the grass she might have come
 nose to nose with
a wolf.

Biologist Matthew Lovallo of the Pennsylvania Game Commission has penned a comprehensive management plan for the Bobcat in the "Keystone State" for the 10 years going forward 2013-2022...................Included in this comprehensive treatise is the following---"the Bobcat is the most widely distributed native felid in North America and ranges as far north as central British Columbia and south to Oaxaca, Mexico"..............."Currently, the Bobcat occurs in all the contiguous USA, although it's distribution is greatly restricted in agriculture-dominated areas in the Midwest"................."Historically, the Bobcat occurred in all 48 states"..............."During the last century, it expanded into northern Minnesota, southern Ontario and Manitoba as lumbering, fire and farming opened the dense unbroken coniferous forests of these areas"..................."Bobcat populations in Pennsylvania are continuing to expand geographically and numerically, with the most recent estimates suggesting that continuous populations extend across the northern tier through the central mountains and into southwest and the south central sections of the state".........Pennsylvania's Bobcat population is important regionally as it provides a critical link between established populations in New York and New Jersey and those in West Virginia, Virginia and southern Ohio"........Human trapping and hunting is the major cause of Bobcat death(roadkills regionally as well)----Coyotes, Wolves and Pumas will prey on Bobcats with Fishers known to kill juvenile "Cats"...........Like virtually all Felines, Bobcats are almost 100% carnivorous with rabbits and hares often being up to 90% of their diet..............In the South and upper Midwest, Cotton Rats are major foodstuffs and in the most northern regions, whitetail deer is often on their menu as deep snow often make the deer vulnerable...........bobcats also kill deer fawns and can take down adult deer outside of the cold months as well................Bobcats in Washington State consume large numbers of Mountain Beaver...................Those in the southwest gorge on Wood Rats...........Both game and non-game birds are also targets for Bobcats across their entire range........Fish, reptiles, amphibians, rodents, insects and eggs are also menu items for Bobcats everywhere.........While a stray Sheep, Goat and Chicken will be taken by Bobcats, Bobcat predation on domestic livestock is of minor consequence across it's range and in the farming state of Pennsylvania, there are only 30 to 50 phone calls to Game Officials annually complaining about Bobcat attacks on livestock..................Bobcat activity is greatest around sunrise and sunset(crepuscular periods of the day) coinciding with the movements of rabbits................Bobcats had a bounty on their hide of $1 starting in 1819..............One hundred years later in 1916 a $15 bounty was paid for every Bobcat killed in the state..........7000 Bobcats were bountied between 1916-1937..........Bounties were eliminated in 1937 but Bobcats remained unprotected in Pennsylvania until 1970 when they were classified as a "Game Animal" with only certain times of the year when they could be trapped and hunted............Population modeling by the Penn Game Commission projects that there are some 3100 Bobcats roaming the state currently and it is thought that the population is increasing 4 to 6% annually..............For the last three years, 2010-11 through 2012-13, about 1000 Bobcats have been killed via tapping/hunting(roughly 33% of the total state population)......................Combined with an unidentified smaller number(according to Pa. Officials) of road-killed Bobcats, this Blogger comes away from the Lovallo report feeling that Bobcats are under significant human caused mortality pressure in Pennsylvania---33+ percent of a carnivore population killed each year is certainly causing significant social disorder among Bobcats and disorder leads to a breakdown in their ecosystem services functions as it relates to their impact on rodents et.al and the erratic cascading top down impact on the health of Pennsylvania woodlands and fields..............Something does not "smell right" to me with this type Bobcat management plan for the upcoming decade..........Much too skewed(as it most often is by our State Game Comissions) to the whim of the trapper and hunter, not for the health of the "Cats" or the land they roam

CLICK HERE TO READ: BOBCAT(LYNX RUFUS) MANAGEMENT IN PENNSYLVANIA
(2013-2022)---BY DR. MATTHEW J. LOVALLO; GAME MAMMALS SECTION;BUREAU OF 
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT; PENNSYLVANIA GAME COMMISSION; 2001 ELMERTON AVENUE; HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17110

I sometimes wonder at how Coyotes are the new boogeyman of our eastern woodlands,,,,,,,,They are blamed for everything from there being more Lyme Disease(coyotes do kill foxes which eat rodents--but coyotes also eat a ton of tick carrying rodents,,,, so this claim that coyotes are to blame for more Lymes disease is bogus) to there being less deer for humans to kill each Fall............In Virginia where there is an expanding Coyote population, here is what that State's Game and Inland Fisheries Department has to say about the health of their deer herd-----"Some 219 to 260,000 Whitetails have been killed annually in the Virginia Commonwealth".................."Historically, Indians relied on white-tailed deer for meat, hides, and sinews (cordage)".......... "Deer were plentiful and widespread when Europeans first settled Virginia in the early 1600s"................ "Explorers moving west from Virginia referred to white-tailed deer they encountered as the “Virginia deer” – the English version of its scientific name, Odocoileus virginianus".................... "By 1900, over-harvest of deer for food and hides had nearly extirpated the species"............... "Since the 1930s, Virginia's deer population has rebounded as a result of protective game laws, restocking of deer into areas where they were absent, and habitat restoration"............ "Since the early 1990s, deer management objectives have switched from restoring and increasing to controlling and stabilizing populations over much of the Commonwealth".......... "There may be twice as many deer in Virginia today – nearly 1 million - than when Jamestown was settled"............. "White-tailed deer, nearly extinct in 1900, reproduce quickly and adapt well to human landscapes"..........." Deer inhabit deep forests, open fields, rocky mountain tops, coastal islands, and even cities and towns across Virginia"................ "Deer can thrive anywhere just short of concrete and steel!"...........,"A deer population can double in size annually"........... "With no regulating factor (e.g., predators, hunters), a deer population would expand to the point where some resource, generally food, became scarce"............ "Deer have few natural predators in Virginia, and other sources of mortality (e.g., diseases, injuries) are not sufficient to control populations". .................So all the rukus about Coyotes and Black Bears taking a % of fawns in Virginia and other southeastern states is just that "rukus"--propaganda by hunting groups and farmers to try to make their lives easier(e.g. hunting and farming) .............It has nothing to do with the health of the land and it being badly denuded by "twice as many deer" as there were during Colonial times

Virginia deer season preview

The lack of a good acorn crop could concentrate game and play into hunters’ hands this year.

The Roanoke Times

Fewer acorns in the woods can drive whitetails like this buck into open fields.

Virginia's deer seasons

These are the general seasons across most counties in Western Virginia. Hunting season dates vary by county. For complete details refer to the Virginia hunting regulations digest or visit the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries web site at
www.huntfishva.com.
Archery
Early: Oct. 5 through Nov. 15
Late: Dec. 2 through Jan. 4
Late urban: Jan. 6 through March 29
Youth/apprentice
Saturday
Muzzleloader
Early: Nov. 2 - 15
Late: Dec. 14 through Jan. 4
General firearms
Nov. 16 - 30

Will Virginia deer hunters go from famine to feast this season?

Actually, deeming last year a famine is harsh. The statewide deer kill of more than 215,000 whitetails was among the top 12 recorded takes of all time. But hunters have short memories, and there was no disputing that the number was a big dip from recent years, particularly the astounding kill of nearly 260,000 in 2009.

The decline wasn’t unexpected, at least in the eyes of the biologists who manage Virginia’s wildlife programs.

Years of liberal regulations appear to have accomplished the goal of reducing the state’s deer population across much of the state. Another modest kill, possibly even lower than last season’s, might be the bettor’s pick for this season, were it not for natural conditions that could play into hunters’ favor this fall.

All indications are that acorn crop is a failure, which often correlates to an increased deer kill.

Population trends

Virginia’s deer population objectives are outlined in a Deer Management Plan developed by the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. The plan takes into consideration not only the number of deer that can be supported by the landscape (biological carrying capacity), but the number of deer that the state’s residents can tolerate (cultural carrying capacity).The plan has established that stable populations are desired in most counties, with some counties needing the herd to be reduced.

Stabilizing populations has required liberal regulations because the populations were expanding, evidenced by steadily increasing deer kills.Matt Knox, co-leader of the DGIF’s deer program, said that while disease, predators and even the harsh winter in 2009/2010 had an impact on reducing the statewide herd, he believes that hunters putting the hammer down got the job done across much of the state.“We finally got the ship turned around,” Knox said. “Those record kills were record doe kills.”In fact, the ship might have been turned a little too much in some cases.

Last spring the DGIF’s board heeded the agency’s staff suggestions and cut back on either-sex hunting days in many counties on both public and private land.Knox said that trend may continue.

“I think you’ll see more of that in the future,” Knox said of reduced either-sex days.

Hunting is the primary driver of deer population fluctuations, but not the only one. Disease had an impact on Virginia’s deer herd last year. Knox said the state experienced the worst outbreak of epizootic hemorrhagic disease seen in some time.Spread by the bite of tiny midge flies, EHD typically doesn’t have a statewide impact. Rather, it hits hard in some pockets while deer in other areas are unscathed.That’s what happened last year. It’s just that the hits were more widespread.

Patrick and Franklin counties both suffered suspected large deer losses from EHD, with both counties tallying steep declines in the deer kill as a result of the reduced whitetail population. Both counties, until recently featuring booming deer herds, were subsequently dropped from the list of counties with an earn-a-buck requirement.

As this fall loomed, Knox wasn’t sure what to predict.

The EHD-spreading midges thrive in mudflats, and there is some evidence to suggest that outbreaks are especially bad in years with dry summers.This wasn’t a dry summer, obviously. But there was plenty of mud.“The whole state was a mudflat,” Knox said. “It was such an extraordinarily odd weather year I didn’t know what to predict.”The good news is that it appears that EHD was not a problem.“It was very quiet,” Knox said. “I’m talking about getting two to five reports [of possibly sick deer] statewide.”

Knox and his staff will continue to monitor the herd for another disease, chronic wasting disease.There will not be a statewide CWD monitoring program this fall. Rather, the testing focus will focus on the designated CWD surveillance zone where Virginia’s few cases have been confirmed.

If there is good news on the CWD front, it is that the cases have been isolated within a small area close to the hot spot in West Virginia where the disease was first confirmed in that state several years ago.

Hunting’s impact on population

A paradox to the state’s county-by-county deer management approach stems from the disparity between deer populations on private and public lands.In general, the deer population density is much higher on private land than it is on public land.The primary driver in the equation is habitat. Most public land, including national forest and state wildlife management areas, consist of mature hardwood forests.

While those areas can produce a lot of deer food in good hard mast years, a general lack of early successional plant growth limits the land’s year-round productivity.The challenge comes in counties that have both public and private land, when trying to establish regulations to stabilize robust herds on private land while trying to increase deer herds on public land.Because the deer can go back and forth between private and public land, Knox believes that liberal either-sex hunting regulations on private land have contributed to reducing herds on public land.

The result was tightening of private land either-sex hunting days in some counties that have both public and private land. At the same time, those counties feature some of the strictest doe-hunting rules seen in years.

Another wildcard in the public land hunting management challenges is a trend of reduced hunting. Hunter pressure has declined by 60 percent or more on public land over the past two decades, Knox said. The decline in pressure is certainly reducing the deer kill on public land, and it’s possible the drop in the hunter kill has given the appearance that the public land herd is even smaller than it is in reality.

The acorn factor

While the overall deer population plays a huge roll in shaping a hunting season, the acorn mast crop is another important factor. Heavy acorn years are a boon for wildlife, which benefits mightily from the nutritious tree nuts. For hunters, it can make things challenging. Deer, as well as other game that feed on acorns, tend to be scattered during heavy mast years.Knox pointed out that 80 percent of the landscape in Western Virginia is hardwood forest.

During poor mast years, not only are game concentrated — at least when feeding — on the 20 percent of the landscape that is more open, but the game are also easier to spot because of the nature of that landscape.

“When there is not mast in the woods, deer go to the fields,” Knox said. “Our experience is that it increases the deer kill.”That appears to be what could happen this fall.Knox is still crunching numbers from field observations, but said it’s pretty clear that the acorn crop is poor.Knox deemed this year’s acorn crop as “horrific” and “historically bad.” It’s more difficult to say what causes a mast failure. “Some people say drought,” Knox noted. “Some people say rain. Some people say winter. I call it the God Factor.“I don’t think anyone can predict mast years.”

While mast failures can make it easier to spot deer, and increase overall hunting success, hunters willing to put in scouting time still have an advantage.Hunters who are able to find oak trees that produced stand the best chance of success. Deer will have found those trees, too. The acorns won’t last long, but while they are falling during bow season, those areas can be extraordinary hot spots.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Buck Stops Here
History, Biology, and Management of White-tailed Deer in Virginia-Virginia Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries

White-tailed deer garner more interest than any other wildlife species in Virginia. Many Virginians relish the chance to hunt, watch, or photograph this most popular game animal. As the largest herbivore (plant-eater) in the Commonwealth, deer have a profound impact on native forest ecosystems. Deer also inflict millions of dollars in damage to crops, trees, and gardens and are a safety risk on our highways.

A History Lesson
North American Indians relied on white-tailed deer for meat, hides, and sinews (cordage). Deer were plentiful and widespread when Europeans first settled Virginia in the early 1600s. Explorers moving west from Virginia referred to white-tailed deer they encountered as the “Virginia deer” – the English version of its scientific name, Odocoileus virginianus. By 1900, over-harvest of deer for food and hides had nearly extirpated the species. Since the 1930s, Virginia's deer population has rebounded as a result of protective game laws, restocking of deer into areas where they were absent, and habitat restoration. Since the early 1990s, deer management objectives have switched from restoring and increasing to controlling and stabilizing populations over much of the Commonwealth.

Baby boom: There may be twice as many deer in Virginia today – nearly 1 million - than when Jamestown was settled. White-tailed deer, nearly extinct in 1900, reproduce quickly and adapt well to human landscapes.

Biology Matters
Deer inhabit deep forests, open fields, rocky mountain tops, coastal islands, and even cities and towns across Virginia. Deer can thrive anywhere just short of concrete and steel! Optimum deer country is a mixture of many habitat types (e.g., woods, fields, crops, brush, etc.) growing on fertile soils.
Habitat for deer, like other wild animals, consists of four basic components:
•
Food - an assortment of green plants, woody browse, mast (nuts and berries), and fungi;
•
Water – rarely a problem for a large, mobile animal;
•
Cover (shelter) – almost any thicket, woodlot, hedgerow, or tall crop field;
•
Space – bucks (males) range over approximately 600 acres, while does may use 200 acres.
Top that! Bucks have antlers, not horns. Horns are permanent keratin structures found on cattle, sheep, etc. Antlers, one of the fastest growing animal tissues in the world, are bones that drop off and regrow every year!
Under optimum conditions, a deer population could double in size annually. With no regulating factor (e.g., predators, hunters), a deer population would expand to the point where some resource, generally food, became scarce. Deer have few natural predators in Virginia, and other sources of mortality (e.g., diseases, injuries) are not sufficient to control populations. The maximum number of deer a habitat can support on a sustained basis is the biological carrying capacity.

Deer populations can grow rapidly because does breed early (generally at 1 year-old), have twins most years, and continue to breed into old age (often 8-10 years). One buck can breed with many does, so removing bucks impacts populations little. Does control deer populations, so deer population management must focus on does.

Straight from the deer’s mouth: Deer are aged by the number, stage of eruption, and wear patterns of their teeth, much like horses.

Deer Management 101
By law, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries has primary responsibility for managing white-tailed deer in Virginia. The Virginia Deer Management Plan, first completed in 1999 and revised in 2006, guides management of deer habitat, deer populations, damage caused by deer, and deer-related recreation in the Commonwealth.

Deer Habitat - Given the adaptability of deer, habitat management is generally less of a concern than population management. Timber harvesting, prescribed burning, planting crops, and other activities that diversify habitats are beneficial to deer.

Deer Populations - An optimum deer population balances positive demands (e.g., recreational hunting, viewing) with negative demands (e.g., agricultural and garden damage, vehicle collisions, and ecosystem impacts). The deer population level people will tolerate is the cultural carrying capacity. It varies from place to place and is generally well below the biological carrying capacity. Using the cultural carrying capacity idea, the Virginia Deer Management Plan identifies areas where deer populations should increase, decrease, or remain the same.

Stomach bigger than your eyes? Deer eat 3-5% of their body weight per day! A deer’s appetite can get it into trouble in a garden or corn field!
Regulated hunting is the most effective method available for managing wild deer populations. Experiments with contraception show that fertility control is not a viable option for controlling wild deer populations at this time. Herd density and health are best controlled by regulating the harvest of female deer. This is one reason why hunting seasons vary across the Commonwealth. The number of days when does can be killed depends on the population objectives in a given area. Since 2000, Virginia hunters have killed an average of 225,000 deer annually, nearly 45% of which were does.

Surveillance for chronic wasting disease, bovine tuberculosis, hemorrhagic disease, and other health risks to Virginia’s wild deer population has become a high priority in recent years. Chronic wasting disease, an infectious, fatal brain disorder of deer, was discovered in a hunter-killed during 2009 in Frederick County, near the ongoing disease outbreak in West Virginia. Deer held in captivity (e.g., zoos) are closely monitored for disease.
Keep wildlife wild! White-tailed deer belong to the public, and it is illegal to have one as a pet. If you find a fawn, please leave it where you found it. It is normal for female deer to leave their hidden fawns alone for long periods as they feed. When humans interfere, chances that a fawn will survive are greatly reduced. A truly injured wild animal can be taken to a licensed wildlife rehabilitator, but it can NEVER be kept by anyone else.

Damage and Human Safety – Deer damage crops, trees, gardens, ornamental plants, and low-growing forest vegetation important for nesting birds and other wildlife. Vehicle accidents involving deer are responsible for less than 2% of all motor vehicle casualties in Virginia. An average of 3 fatalities and over 450 injuries are attributed to deer-vehicle accidents annually.
On the road again: Deer move more during the breeding season (October-December) than any other time of year, so watch out for them as you drive. Slow down and stay alert!

Controlling regional deer populations using regulated hunting is the primary means of reducing deer damage. However, local deer problems can also be handled using special hunting programs (e.g., Deer Management Assistance Program), out-of-season kill permits, or sharpshooter programs. Homeowners and producers can reduce deer damage using fencing, chemical repellents, guard dogs, less-preferred plant species, and by removing food sources that attract deer (e.g., corn, grain, hay, pellets, fruit, spilt bird or pet food, garden or table scraps).

Don’t feed the deer! Concentration of deer around human food sources leads to increased risks of disease transmission, local habitat destruction, aggression among deer, and the potential for deer-human conflicts.

Recreation – Providing diverse opportunities for deer hunting, viewing, and photography that are safe, ethical, and compatible with land uses are important objectives in the Virginia Deer Management Plan. Deer hunting is a deeply-rooted social tradition in Virginia. The economic impact of deer hunting in Virginia is over $250 million annually.


For more information about deer history, biology, hunting, management programs, damage prevention and much more, please visit http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/hunting/va_game_wildlife/index.html.

"The Landscape of Fear" biologist and our friend John Laundre periodically directs his insightful prose on "all things carnivore" our way....................Today John focuses on the conceit of a large percentage of hunters who in their self righteous desire to justify their rationale for limiting Wolf, Puma, Bear, Coyote, Bobcat and Lynx populations(so that hoofed browsers galore can grace their trophy shelves) cite the NORTH AMERICAN MODEL FOR WILDLIFE CONSERVATION as the "bible" that justifies their actions..........And yet the 4th rule of the NAM model is that WILDLIFE CAN ONLY BE KILLED FOR LEGITIMATE PURPOSES..................As John so aptly points out-----An age old rule of the hunt is that "if you shoot, it you eat it" ............Most State Game Commissions have a rule that states that "a person will get fined heavily if he or she just kills a deer or even a squirrel and "wastes" the meat"............ "Worse yet, such an act earns disdain from fellow hunters".............. "This is one of the hallowed doctrines held high by the hunting community"............... "Most hunters abhor the idea of wantonly discarding the unused carcass of game animals"................. (However), "when it comes to the undesirable species (predators and vermin), all this moralistic crap flies out the window".............. "From killing ground squirrels to coyotes, this tenet is violated daily in America".............. "Each year millions of pounds of animal flesh is left in the field, dumped in the ditch, or worse yet, hung on fences as warnings to other varmints".............. "If this is not casual killing of wildlife, I don't know what is".............. "And this wanton killing is condoned by the very same agencies that will throw you in jail for "wasting" a deer"............. "Where is the consistency in this tenet?"............. "The answer is that there is none"

Hunting predators and other "varmints" violates the North American Model for Wildlife Conservation

by---John W. Laundré

We here more and more lately about the hallowed North American Model of Wildlife Conservation (NAM), mainly being touted by hunting groups.  They proudly point to this model to try and demonstrate that hunters are indeed "conservationists" (and in their minds, the only true conservationists). 

 They insist that it was the NAM that "saved" wildlife from the many abuses of past hunters (like themselves?) and has led to the recovery of many wildlife species that we enjoy today.  What they fail to point out however, is that as they interpret and unfortunately implement via wildlife agencies, the principles of the NAM, it is far from a conservation document.  It is not a conservation model but instead it is a hunting document designed by hunters, for hunters to justify hunting. 

mass coyote killing

Why do I say that?  We only have to look at the 7 "sisters" the hallowed tenets of the NAM, to understand what a self-serving NON-conservation model it is.

Briefly put the tenets are:

1)     Wildlife is held in the Public Trust

2)     There should be a prohibition of commerce in dead wildlife

3)     The use of wildlife should be allocated by law

4)     Wildlife can only be killed for legitimate purposes

5)     Wildlife is considered to be an international resource

6)     Science is the proper tool to discharge wildlife policy

7)     Democracy of hunting: hunting opportunities should be available to all

shooting Bison from a train late 1800's

As one can see, just by the nature of over half of the tenants, it indeed is a hunting model, that is to say the only legitimate use of wildlife is to hunt and kill them.  These tenets then are set up to try to regulate the killing of them.  What this means is that if a species is not a game species, it falls outside of the protection of the NAM principles. 

 The cases in point are predators, large and small, and other "vermin" species ranging from ground squirrels to crows.  If we would apply the same principles of the NAM to these species, we can easily see that our "management" of them indeed violates many of the NAM's very tenets.

Each tenet has its weakness but the two most glaring ones I will touch on here are tenets 2 and 4.  Under the second tenet, we can get a fine or go to jail for selling meat (venison) from deer or elk that we kill.  This was in response to the market hunting of our ancestors.  However, there seems to be no problem ripping the skins off of the carcasses of all the fur-bearing species, most of which are predators, for the prime purpose of selling it.

There are some hunters who understand that Carnivores have their place in natural systems

  

From fox to mink to bobcats, the fur "industry" 

worldwide is a multi-billion dollar business where about 15% comes from the commercial trapping of millions of wild animals.  So, does not fur trapping violate this tenant of no commercial trafficking in dead wildlife?  Maybe their skin does not count?  If not, then why can we not just shoot a deer for its skin and throw the carcass away? How do hunters (trappers are hunters, they just use traps instead of guns) reconcile this with the NAM?  They don't even try!  It seems that past market hunting for meat was a despicable practice but market hunting for fur is an honored tradition!

Commercial hunting is commercial hunting be it for meat or for fur. I should point out that I am not taking a stand here as to whether we should trap animals for their fur or not, that is another topic.  What I am arguing here is that killing animals for the commercial sale of their fur is as wrong under the NAM as killing of deer for the commercial sale of their meat.  If a person wants a fur coat they should have to do the same as the person who wants venison has to do, hunt it themselves.  If the NAM was indeed a conservation model that disavows commercial hunting, it should do the same for commercial sale of all parts of the animal.  It however, does not and so the NAM is NOT a conservation model.

Coyotes mate for life......One half of a mated pair

shot dead and left to rot

The  second and largest gapping fallacy of the NAM is tenet 4 (legitimate purposes for killing wildlife).  As the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation points out on their interpretation of the NAM, this means there should be strict guidelines for legally killing wild animals including "Laws restricting against the casual killing of wildlife merely for antlers, horns, or feathers".  

Why are we so proud of killing Wolves?

Again, this tenet sounds good. True, there are many rules and regulations against the frivolous killing of wildlife. One of the most universal is the "if you shoot, it you eat it" regulation that most state game agencies have.  A person can get fined heavily if he or she just kills a deer or even a squirrel and "wastes" the meat.  Worse yet, such an act earns distain from fellow hunters. This is one of the hallowed doctrines held high by the hunting community.  Most hunters abhor the idea of wantonly discarding the unused carcass of game animals.

 

 When it comes to the undesirable species (predators and vermin), all this moralistic crap flies out the window.  From killing ground squirrels to coyotes, this tenet is violated daily in America. Each year millions of pounds of animal flesh is left in the field, dump/ed in the ditch, or worse yet, hung on fences as warnings to other varmints.  If this is not casual killing of wildlife, I don't know what is.  And this wanton killing is condoned by the very same agencies that will throw you in jail for "wasting" a deer.  Where is the consistency in this tenet?  The answer is that there is none. 

Is this not murder?---Mass Wolf killing

 It again is aimed at those favoured species.  Favoured based upon some specific criteria, a criteria defined by the 10% of the American population that hunts and consistently violates tenet #2. 

 How can this tenet be adhered to so strictly for one set of wildlife but totally ignored for another and still be a viable part of this great wildlife conservation plan?  The answer is simple, it can't!  This tenet is a hunting tenet not a conservation one.  It is designed to boost our acceptance of reasonable use of certain species but ignore or worse encourage excessive waste of all the rest.

Why is Puma killing justified when no one is in danger?

One could argue that the wanton wasting of many of these animals is for self-defence or property protection, e.g. protecting domestic animals or plants and thus it is ok.  It is true that any person has the right to protect themselves and their livelihood, when it is being directly threatened.  But are the killing of millions of these varmint species related to direct threats to humans or their property?  Since when have ground squirrels, crows, and other smaller varmints been a serious threat to humans?  Yet we kill millions yearly. 

 As it goes, even the larger ones, up to wolves and cougars don't pose a significant threat to us.  On rare occasions people can be threatened by some of these species, and those animals should be killed.  But does the slim possibility that a species will threaten you justify killing individuals on a large scale across whole landscapes?

If it does then, how about those deer?  They kill us at the rate of 200-300 people a year via car-deer collisions.  Based on those figures, it would seem justified to just go out and kill a bunch of deer to protect ourselves and our children, let them lay in the ditch as a warning to other road happy deer.  But do we do this?  Of course not, any attempt to even reduce deer herds through the only-eat-them rule is confronted by angry gangs of hunters, screaming about the ethics of such wanton slaughtering. 

and it is somehow more humane that a woman killed this rare Lynx?????

 Where are those angry voices when other less threatening wildlife are killed and left to rot?  These voices are there but on the other side, kill more, not less!

According to the RMEF interpretation of this tenet, the ban on wanton waste of animal flesh does not pertain to furbearers. "… individuals may legally kill certain animals… for food and fur…".  Of course this is the self-serving interpretation of the hunting/trapping community.   Even here the tenet is steeped in hypocrisy. If we can kill an animal just for its fur, why can't we kill an animal just for its antlers, horns, or feathers?  Why is ok to kill and skin a cougar and discard its 120 lb carcass to rot in the field but not do the same with a similar weight deer just for its hide or antlers? 

 Why can we kill, skin, and let rot weasels, beavers, fox, bobcats, fishers, martins, etc. but not shoot a pheasant, an exotic species, just for its feathers?   What is the difference?  The meat all smells the same when it is rotting away.  Where are the high brow ethics here?  

Ok Grizzly Adams,,,,,,,,,why is this something to brag about?

 Trappers kill and discard millions of pounds of animal flesh yearly.  Are they distained by the rest of the hunting community who righteously eat what they kill?  No!  Many of them also are these moralistic hunters of these other game species, being able to switch from outrage at wanton waste to perpetrators of the same acts they abhor with other game species.  Again, this points out the hypocrisy of the application of this tenet.  Thus, this tenet again has nothing to do with wildlife conservation but with somehow trying to morally justify the wanton hunting and killing of specific species.

I have discussed here how just two of the 7 sisters are sufficiently violated to nullify them as any reasonable tenet of a North American model for conservation.  Unfortunately, the other five tenets are just as hypocritical and designed to not extend the conservation of wildlife in America to all Americans but to concentrate that "right" into the hands of the self-serving special interests of a relatively small percentage of Americans.  I will address those weaknesses in the NAM in future posts.

Nine environmental groups in Southwestern British Columbia, Canada have banded together to form the COAST TO CASCADES GRIZZLY BEAR INITIATIVE,..................The goal of this initiative is to help recover the populations in five areas covering five per cent of the province: Squamish-Lillooet (with 59 grizzlies), Garibaldi-Pitt (two grizzlies), South Chilcotin Ranges (203 grizzlies), Stein-Nahatlatch (24 grizzlies) and North Cascades (six grizzlies).........................In some ways, the southwest B.C. grizzlies are cut off from the rest of the province in Canada by a large area running from Williams Lake to the Okanagan, where grizzlies have disappeared almost entirely........................Many of these grizzly populations are hanging on in the back end of the valleys......................... The more of their remaining habitat gets affected through direct habitat loss or too much human activity, the more frequently) bears leave because they are alienated from the habitat................. Without a plan to deal with those issues, the probability of the Bears blinking out goes sky high

New Coast to Cascades grizzly initiative aims to save bears 

Environment groups band together to support southwest B.C. population

by Cathryn Atkinson; piquenewsmagaz, Coast to Cascades Grizzly bear initiative

• 
  
• 
  

Calling it possibly the last chance to save the grizzly bear species in southwest B.C., nine local and provincial environmental groups are creating the Coast to Cascades Grizzly Bear Initiative (CCGBI).The Sierra Club BC, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, BC Nature, AWARE, Conservation Northwest, Pemberton Wildlife Association, Lillooet Naturalist Society and Whistler Naturalists announced the launch of the outreach and advocacy group on Tuesday, Sept. 24.

Johnny Mikes, who is CCGBI's field coordinator, said grizzlies are not only threatened, they are disappearing from areas like Garibaldi Provincial Park just outside Whistler.

"The government is doing some of the right things," said Mikes. "These populations are not hunted, which is good because they can't sustain that. There has been some good work done by government staff on identifying wildlife management areas for grizzly bears, though they have been small, specific areas... there just needs to be an overall comprehensive plan.

"We have many, many (run-of-river) IPP concepts that have water licences or investigative permits to look at energy, and there are all kinds of recreation demands and forestry activity. These activities are being carried out without there being a comprehensive set of plans for these bears."

The remit of the group is to help recover the populations in five areas covering five per cent of the province: Squamish-Lillooet (with 59 grizzlies), Garibaldi-Pitt (two grizzlies), South Chilcotin Ranges (203 grizzlies), Stein-Nahatlatch (24 grizzlies) and North Cascades (six grizzlies).

"The Sea to Sky Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) five years ago said there should be plans for the recovery for the populations of four of these five grizzly bear populations, those four overlap the LRMP area," Mikes said.

"The recovery plans have not been written; they haven't been done, let alone implemented."

Mikes said the mandate to create and implement the plans lies with government, which could work with industry, ranchers and farmers, local communities and First Nations to ensure the successes of a recovery plan. Environment groups alone do not have the same mandate, he added, though CCGBI will be reaching out to these groups.

"What we are hearing from some of the scientists and researchers is that some of the populations, like the Stein-Nahatlatch population (east of Whistler, Squamish and Pemberton), have seen a high degree of mortality," he said.

"We're talking about using provincial grizzly management plans — using the existing tools that the province has."

Humans have killed three breeding-age females from the Stein-Nahatlatch region, out of just 24 grizzlies, since 2006.

The official number of grizzlies for the Squamish-Lillooet region alone is estimated to be 59, but Mikes said numbers may have changed and new research on populations is due to be published in the spring of 2014.

Mikes wanted to emphasize that the species was not at risk in Canada overall, the recovery in the Coast to Cascades Plan is specific to those populations. In some ways, the southwest B.C. grizzlies are cut off from the rest of the province in Canada by a large area running from Williams Lake to the Okanagan, where grizzlies have disappeared almost entirely.

"Many of our grizzly populations are hanging on in the back end of the valleys. The more of their remaining habitat gets affected, either through direct habitat loss or too much human activity, the (more frequently) bears leave because they are alienated from the habitat. Without a plan to deal with those issues, we won't keep them," Mikes said.

"It's a pro-grizzly initiative. We think there is real opportunity for a conservation success story around these bears."

The CCGBI has also launched a website:www.coasttocascades.org.

A hiker in Colorado walking in Puma country stupidly put his Labradoodle pet in danger.....................No reason to take a small dog with you when hiking where wolves, bears and pumas are present...............You are unwittingly baiting these Carnivores and then when they do attack and kill your pet, you and the media make the bear, wolf and puma out to be a monster....................Wise up urban hikers and leave your pets at home when going into the outdoors

Colo. hiker encounters mountain lion, records instead of running as he stares death in face

nydailynews.com

Cary Leppert, of Denver, was hiking with a friend and his Labradoodle, Tieg, on Sunday along Three Mile Creek Trail when the pet narrowly avoided an attack by the cougar. Instead of retreating, the fearless — and perhaps foolhardy — Leppert climbed a tree and filmed the beast.

CARY LEPPERT

The mountain lion is hardly the first predator Leppert has encountered: The frequent hiker recalls brushes with other big cats and bears.

An avid hiker put his camera — rather than his legs — to work when he came face-to-face with a massive mountain lion.

Cary Leppert, 43, of Denver, was hiking with his friend and pet Labradoodle, Tieg, in the Mount Evans Wilderness of Colorado on Sunday when he heard a cougar's ferocious roar.

"Instantaneously, I knew what it was," Leppert told the Daily News on Thursday. "I saw a 150-pound-plus lion chasing down Tieg through the trees."

CARY LEPPERT

Tieg ran wildly with the mountain lion a foot or 2 behind.

Tieg, at 65 pounds, weaved in and out of trees at full speed with the lion a mere foot or 2 behind him, Leppert said.

"I just yelled 'Tieg' at the top of my lungs! Right when I yelled, (the lion) turned and stopped," Leppert said. Tieg finally ran up to his owner's feet.

The lion crouched down low to the ground about 20 feet away and locked eyes with Leppert. It hissed and growled but did not move.

PHOTOS: GERMANY'S CIRCUS KRONE INTRODUCES ADORABLE NEW LION CUBS

CARY LEPPERT

'I saw a 150-pound-plus lion chasing down Tieg through the trees,' Leppert said of the frightening encounter.

"At that moment, I gave my dog to my friend and thought 'I'm going to get some pictures,'" Leppert said.

He took out his iPhone at first and recorded some footage. Then he got his SLR camera and climbed a tree, where he shot pictures of the big cat for about 10 minutes.

"He wasn't happy," Leppert said, "and he was really big. ... Some of the pictures you can't quite tell, because you can't get a frame of reference."

PHOTOS: 'THE SERENGETI LION' FEATURED IN NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC

CARY LEPPERT

Cary Leppert said he knew immediately he had encountered a mountain lion when he heard its roar.

Leppert, who works in environmental consulting, said he has scaled about half of Colorado's fourteeners, a mountaineering term for a mountain that exceeds 14,000 feet. But he has not come this close to losing his dog before. He shared the encounter with a friend who in turn alerted local CBS affiliate KCNC, the first station to report the story.

Leppert thinks the lion was stalking Tieg as they hiked along Three Mile Creek Trail, was waiting for an opportunity to strike when the dog separated from the group, or just saw Tieg running and got nervous when he saw him join two adult humans.

The lion likely saw Leppert and his friend as an annoyance but was not in "attack mode," he said. Leppert, who goes backpacking or hiking nearly every weekend, has had several run-ins with predators, including other big cats and even grizzly bears, and says he can tell whether or not an animal is aggressive.

But later on the trail, Leppert started reviewing the day's events in his mind and realized just how close to danger he came.

"Tieg was a foot to 2 feet away from being dead," he said. "If the mountain lion caught him, I would have run over there, and there would have been a big incident at that point."

PROJECT COYOTE is asking all California residents to join them in Sacramento on Wednesday Oct 2 to demand that USFW not delist Wolves across the USA......................."The rebound of gray wolves in the western Great Lakes and northern Rocky Mountains has been a boon for local economies, wildlife enthusiasts, and the ecosystems of these areas that have benefitted from the return of this keystone predator...................... Studies in Yellowstone National Park found that the presence of wolves benefitted a myriad of species from pronghorn antelope, to songbirds, to beaver and fish................... While there is much to be proud of, there remains considerable progress to be made towards wolf recovery in the lower 48 states................. In particular, we are concerned that the same prejudice towards wolves that led to their extirpation across nearly the entire coterminous United States is still present today and, not only is threatening to undo the gains achieved in the northern Rocky Mountains and western Great Lakes, but will prevent their recovery in additional areas.................. We believe that federal protection continues to be necessary to ensure that wolf recovery is allowed to proceed in additional parts of the country." ~Congressional letter to FWS Director Dan Ashe, signed by 52 members of Congress

Speak Out  for Wolves!  October 2nd is a critical day  for endangered and  ecologically vital gray wolves. Don't miss this opportunity to speak out on their behalf. Your presence is needed and will make a difference. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife  Service (FWS) is proposing  to remove Endangered Species  Act (ESA) protection  for most gray wolves throughout  the United States.  Please join Project Coyote to  demand continued federal  protection for gray wolves.  Stand with Wolves  Hearing and Rally Sacramento, CA Wednesday, October  2nd,  3:30 to 8:30 pm Clarion Inn, Comstock  Room 1401 Arden Way, Sacramento,  CA (Pre-hearing events begin at 3:30 pm;  public  hearing begins at 6:00 pm) MAKE YOUR VOICE  HEARD!  Please join us by  submitting a comment  (here) to the FWS in  opposition to the  delisting of gray  wolves from the ESA.  The public hearing  period has been  extended through  October 28th. Your  voice matters! For questions, please  send an email to   info@projectcoyote.org. Thank you for showing up &  speaking out for wolves! The Project Coyote Team