If human recreation doesn't harm wolverines why does it harm mule deer? Or does it?

[Fun CH]

Quote below was Posted on the other BB. Here is an example where education may help. If you see deer on hike any season, turn around, go around, don't drive them.

It's rare for me to even see a deer in the winter above 3,000 feet.

I still will be skiing on FS and DNR lands so best to learn this stuff anyway.

As long as hunting them is legal, humans will always be seen as a predator by deer.



Quote:

"Friday while out on a hike in one of the areas scheduled for closure I bumped 9 deer while treading lightly on my feet. These deer stotted (bounded) away from my perceived threat, uphill. I later came across them again and they were visibly nervous and stressed. Had this been a typical midwinter snow depth these deer would have burned some serious calories. I’m a huge user of the WDFW managed public lands and will miss winter recreation on these lands but I support the closure and believe it will benefit the herds. Plenty of other public lands and Methow Trails to burn up my calories."

The question is would this person support closing the Methow trail system? There are still dear around in those trail areas with presumably the same impact as on wdfw land.

[Fun CH]

It appears WDFW has no conclusive evidence that shutting down WDFW land during the winter affects deer population stability. Note the use of the word "may' in this WDFW quote that recreation:
"may ultimately affect survival and population stability".


Quote below is from "DRAFT 10-year Recreation Strategy for WDFW-managed Lands (May 2022) (PDF)"

https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/02293

"Impacts on wildlife from outdoor recreation can include direct mortality or manifest as changes in behavior or physiology, which may ultimately affect survival and population stability (Tablado & Jenni, 2015). Animals tend to have stronger responses to less predictable forms of recreation, suggesting that consolidating rather than dispersing use reduces the human footprint and corresponds with a reduced
overall impact on wildlife."

[pasayten]

And of course we have a helicopter zooming around the hills at low altitude by the WDFW...

Re: Helicopter Hovering Over Gunn Ranch / Rizer?
Post by karlukkid » Sat Dec 09, 2023 7:28 am

I am sure that a helicopter flying at low altitudes counting deer has no effect on the deer. Bruce Herron Wolf Creek

[Fun CH]

Quote below, I found this interesting. Its from that 2018 Federal Fish and Wildlife wolverine paper that I originally quoted. Now that wolverines are being considered for listing as threatened again, they're now saying that winter recreation does affect the wolverines.

This issue is open for public comment.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... fSPoUOUcKY


"Peer reviewers and commenters stated that the assessment in the proposed rule of the impacts of winter recreation on wolverines
understated the potential effect of this risk factor. Commenters stated that there are significant gaps in our knowledge of the potential effects of winter recreation on wolverines and recommended more caution in how we approach the subject.

(FW) Our Response:

We agree that there is significant uncertainty about many aspects of wolverine biology and the many potential risk factors that may affect the species. Our 5-factor analysis considers the best scientific information currently available. Our determination in the proposed rule was that the best available information does not indicate that winter (or summer) recreation is a threat to the DPS. As stated in the proposed rule, much of the recreational winter use by humans occurs in relatively small areas, like ski areas, that make up only a small portion of the large home range of a wolverine, and do not occur at a scale that is likely to have a population-level effect. We acknowledge that there are a limited number of studies that have evaluated the impact of human activities on wolverines (Heinemeyer
et al.
2001, Heinemeyer and Copeland 1999, Heinemeyer
et al.
2012, Pulliainen 1968); however, what information is available indicates there is no threat to wolverines from recreational activities. This does not mean that new scientific information, should it show significant impacts from this factor, would be ignored, or that the case is closed and no more research is needed. To the contrary, we hope the current research on the impacts of recreation on wolverines now taking place will shed significant new light on this issue. Until new data indicate otherwise, we stand by our assessment that the best available information does not indicate that winter recreation is a threat to the DPS."

[Fun CH]

Want to see an increase in the deer population increase the taking of "nature's predators" cougars, bears and wolves.

or reduce the number of human predators to local population only.

But that wouldn't work for tourist industry interest dollars or WDFW money interest in license fees.

Non-lethal human power doesn't pay a fee. We don't have take anything from public land except Re-creation. We are as close to nature as it gets. We observe and delight in the wonder. So yeah, we're the problem.

[mister_coffee]

Just saying, but I've never had a drunk and belligerent cougar (or wolf) trespassing on my land. Bluntly I feel more threatened by armed drunkards from Stanwood than I'd ever feel from any other charismatic megafauna.

Before you say that "not all hunters..." I can attest that one hundred percent of the hunters I have found trespassing on my land in the last twenty-plus years were liquored up. Including in one memorable case at six in the morning.

[Jingles]

Wdfw will never admit that since the wolves were "RE"introduced to this area the ungulate population has drastically reduced accompany the increase of introduced wolves with the ban on using hounds to hunt cougars and bears and the resulting increase in big cats that will kill a deer a week per animal and yes the deer population is going to drop off drastically, but they want to blame it on human activity instead of their f up.
Want to see an increase in the deer population increase the taking of "nature's predators" cougars, bears and wolves.

[Fun CH]

Of course Wolves impact animal populations. That was the whole point of reintroducing wolves into Yellowstone. The elk populations were increasing and overgrazing much like cattle do in our area.

Once the wolves started hunting the elk again, the eco system started to come back.

Yellowstone is a great example where non lethal human recreation has little impact on animal populations.

Animals are spooked by predators, animals including us.

Non lethal Skiers and snowshoers are not the cause of decreased deer populations here.

But hey, my mind is open, prove it to me with the science and not some WDFW emotional appeal.

Note, I reread my post that Jingles quoted and autocorrect changed the word "closed'" to "close".

The sentence:

"Those areas arent close to wolves and yet they impact deer populations."

Should say

"Those areas arent closed to wolves and yet they impact deer populations."

In other words, WDFW policy has increased the predators and they have kicked out the peacefull humans out feeding their souls.

Edit auto correct.

[Jingles]

First off anything the Scott Fitkins says must be taken with a whole salt container of salt unless it is pro wolf.. maybe we'll see strange helicopters hauling griz that migrated from canada.
Also seems as though they sure made a quick decision on whether or not to close the areas when at the meeting they stated it was only being considered
Wolverines protected species? Yet in some areas still allowed to trapped, seems the Feds left hand doesn't know what their right hand is doing, but that would be par for the course with federal agencies

The wolverine ESA listing doesn't start until the new year.

I think you make a good point about introducing wolves to an area. The wolves are going to spook the deer most likely more than humans. Those areas arent close to wolves and yet they impact deer populations.

Of course the deer are only leery of humans because we hunt them.

Generally when any public Land Management agency asks for comments on a project, their mind has already been made up and they're just following procedure. That leaves the public with only one alternative and that is to sue the public agency.

@David. I don't think you're considering recreational activities such as Backcountry skiing, helicopter skiing snowmobiling and xc skiing where areas are flooded with people. We don't see wolverines, but they are there. Point is, according to that fish and wildlife listing, wolverines are not threatened by human recreational activity.

As far as I can tell the only human activity that threatens the deer population is hunting female deer and the trophy males that have the strongest genetics to pass on.

Education of how to least impact deer would seem to be a first step. Perhaps requiring permits for entering wildlife areas during the winter may also help.

Closing public land seems to be an overreaction and an overreach even though there is a law that says they can do it. But can they prove that closing public land will increase deer populations? I doubt it.

Hate to sound like chicken little but some ofthe areas they are closing do have wolves. Golden Doe, the top of Lester Road, the Finley Canyon area all have wolves already if I can get it to post I took these picture yesterday 12/6 of wolf tracks in an area adjacent to the Finley Canyon area that weren't their the day before while doing my daily trap checks and wolves don't recognize property lines. So WDFW Is good/exceptional at feeding people BULL Schit stories. Lieing to the public is their norm

[mister_coffee]

My point is, that on the average the typical human is far more likely to encounter a mule deer than a wolverine. And you are more likely to cause harm to an animal if you have a close encounter with it. All of that is basic reasoning.

You throw in simple probability and based simply on where mule deer are most of the time they encounter more people than wolverines do.

This isn't very hard. It just requires basic logical reasoning.

Also, throwing out a straw man about banning driving to protect deer isn't really on topic. Although I'd enjoy watching somebody try to do that. As long as I'd stocked up on supplies beforehand.

[Fun CH]

They catch wolverines in Cutthroat basin and other areas along the highway corridor. A high volume area for human recreation during the winter.

WDFW Wildlife lands have a low volume of users who will soon to be using the hwy 20 corridor for winter recreation. More humans in one place all competing for hazardous Mountain resources increases risk for all concerned.


WDFW is increasing human risk by concentrating human recreation instead of dispersing it.

Show me the supporting research and the environmental impact statement that proves the deer population harm from very little human powered recreation.

Take the Big Valley ranch for example. Lots of humans and lots of deer use the area during the winter. Massive amounts of both.

Sadly vehicles kill a bunch of them.
Often the younger ones following the adults.


Would you or those that support the recreation ban support a ban on night time driving to help increase deer herd numbers in the area?

Didn't think so.

[mister_coffee]

@David. I don't think you're considering recreational activities such as Backcountry skiing, helicopter skiing snowmobiling and xc skiing where areas are flooded with people. We don't see wolverines, but they are there. Point is, according to that fish and wildlife listing, wolverines are not threatened by human recreational activity.
...

I don't buy it.

Helicopter skiing and snowmobiling are not allowed in designated wilderness. The vast majority of wolverine habitat in the North Cascades (again, wolverine habitat is mostly high-elevation forests and subalpine regions) is in designated wilderness.

Outside of some relatively narrow corridors and weather windows, most of the high subalpine regions in the North Cascades are only accessible to the most fierce ski mountaineers during the winter months. And there aren't that many of them and never have been that many of them (hard-core ski mountaineers).

Outside of some fairly narrow corridors in the Park, the Pasayten Wilderness, and the Glacier Peak Wilderness most of the high-elevation regions in the North Cascades aren't very heavily traveled even in the summer. So again we are only talking about a relatively small number of wolverines (on the order of a few dozen) and it would seem that they have plenty of room to do wolverine stuff without encountering humans very often.

Limited trail maintenance by the USFS in recent years makes it harder still to even visit a lot of places in the summer, much less winter. And on the west side fierce brush means you will be like a bug in a big salad bowl for a long time before you get any place where you might encounter a wolverine. Most non-crazy people don't think bushwhacking through devil's club all day is a fun activity.

Yes, we have kind of a biased view from the valley because we are right next to the Donut Hole where you can use a snow machine or aircraft to more easily access high elevation terrain during the winter months. But if you go just a little bit further North (or South or West) there are pretty vast areas that are rarely visited by humans, and have never been flooded with human visitors.

[Fun CH]

First off anything the Scott Fitkins says must be taken with a whole salt container of salt unless it is pro wolf.. maybe we'll see strange helicopters hauling griz that migrated from canada.
Also seems as though they sure made a quick decision on whether or not to close the areas when at the meeting they stated it was only being considered
Wolverines protected species? Yet in some areas still allowed to trapped, seems the Feds left hand doesn't know what their right hand is doing, but that would be par for the course with federal agencies

The wolverine ESA listing doesn't start until the new year.

I think you make a good point about introducing wolves to an area. The wolves are going to spook the deer most likely more than humans. Those areas arent close to wolves and yet they impact deer populations.

Of course the deer are only leery of humans because we hunt them.

Generally when any public Land Management agency asks for comments on a project, their mind has already been made up and they're just following procedure. That leaves the public with only one alternative and that is to sue the public agency.

@David. I don't think you're considering recreational activities such as Backcountry skiing, helicopter skiing snowmobiling and xc skiing where areas are flooded with people. We don't see wolverines, but they are there. Point is, according to that fish and wildlife listing, wolverines are not threatened by human recreational activity.

As far as I can tell the only human activity that threatens the deer population is hunting female deer and the trophy males that have the strongest genetics to pass on.

Education of how to least impact deer would seem to be a first step. Perhaps requiring permits for entering wildlife areas during the winter may also help.

Closing public land seems to be an overreaction and an overreach even though there is a law that says they can do it. But can they prove that closing public land will increase deer populations? I doubt it.

[Jingles]

First off anything the Scott Fitkins says must be taken with a whole salt container of salt unless it is pro wolf.. maybe we'll see strange helicopters hauling griz that migrated from canada.
Also seems as though they sure made a quick decision on whether or not to close the areas when at the meeting they stated it was only being considered
Wolverines protected species? Yet in some areas still allowed to trapped, seems the Feds left hand doesn't know what their right hand is doing, but that would be par for the course with federal agencies

[mister_coffee]

Wolverines are a apex predator species at very low population densities. And in Washington they tend to be denizens of high-elevation landscapes.

So just on simple probability you will, on the average, have fewer interactions with wolverines than with mule deer.

Think of it this way, I guarantee you we have all seen a mule deer this week sometime, somewhere in the valley. How many wolverines have you seen? Given what we know about where wolverines hang out you aren't likely to encounter them in Twisp.

https://wdfw.wa.gov/species-habitats/sp ... desc-range

Human recreation probably doesn't harm wolverines because there is so very little interaction and opportunity for interaction.

[Fun CH]

"Mule deer are stressed by anything unpredictable, like off-trail use, quick movements and dogs. Even though vehicles and snowmobiles are loud, deer seem to adapt to them and know to keep their distance." This is a quote by Scott Fitkin in the MVN Nov. 29th issue. One of the key words here is, "seem". Quite scientific, huh. And I wonder if using drones for monitoring can affect them? We were at Crater Lk this fall and dang if someone wasn't flying a drone. It had this buzzy sound that made me want to shoot it down. Uh, I couldn't as I don't have a firearm that I take with me anyway.
I do agree that dogs, if not leashed, and many aren't and are not under control of their owners can be very distruptive to the deer. Do ya think gunshots might be disruptive as well? Fitkin did suggest "eliminating the antlerless deer hunt to decrease the loss of does and fawns." Yep, one deer killed is one less deer.
WDFW has said that does and fawns to have a hard time in the winter.
"We are committed to public engagement as we learn form this effort and plan for the long term management approach". And it appears they are committed to ignoring the public's comments.
Also it says that "the majority of respondents to a survey about the proposal also supported the closure." Many people I talked to did not support the closure.
Maybe they did what reviewers do for a product. People working for the comopany submit all positive reviews.

I'm guessing that not closing the Big Valley ranch was a strategic move even though public land there supports Mule Deer.

Perhaps if the MT trail system was closed to protect deer habitat more people would not support the closure. I suspect those who support the closure do don't use those areas anyway. Few people do except perhaps Lewis Butte.

The wildlife area behind me sees around 50 user days during the WDFW closure period and mostly confined to the road. One report I read states that deer are less bothered if humans stick to Trails and roads where they're used to seeing us.

Lots of mitigation measures to try first before an overreaction complete closure.

WDFW first needs to be use it's agricultural land to only grow crops that support deer habitat. Or restore that land to its natural grass lands and dedicate the water saved to support stream flows that benefits fish and our aquifer.

Cattle grazing on wdfw land needs to end if their goal is to increase the herd. There is research to shows cattle and deer compete for the same food.

There is also research to support only culling Spike males from the herd and leave the "trophy" deer to pass on their strong genetics.

But I guess human powered recreation was an easy target to place blame.

Did Scott Fitkin cite any research in the Methoe Valley news article that supports the closure? I agree with Pearl, using words like "seem" are not scientific.

[PAL]

"Mule deer are stressed by anything unpredictable, like off-trail use, quick movements and dogs. Even though vehicles and snowmobiles are loud, deer seem to adapt to them and know to keep their distance." This is a quote by Scott Fitkin in the MVN Nov. 29th issue. One of the key words here is, "seem". Quite scientific, huh. And I wonder if using drones for monitoring can affect them? We were at Crater Lk this fall and dang if someone wasn't flying a drone. It had this buzzy sound that made me want to shoot it down. Uh, I couldn't as I don't have a firearm that I take with me anyway.
I do agree that dogs, if not leashed, and many aren't and are not under control of their owners can be very distruptive to the deer. Do ya think gunshots might be disruptive as well? Fitkin did suggest "eliminating the antlerless deer hunt to decrease the loss of does and fawns." Yep, one deer killed is one less deer.
WDFW has said that does and fawns to have a hard time in the winter.
"We are committed to public engagement as we learn form this effort and plan for the long term management approach". And it appears they are committed to ignoring the public's comments.
Also it says that "the majority of respondents to a survey about the proposal also supported the closure." Many people I talked to did not support the closure.
Maybe they did what reviewers do for a product. People working for the comopany submit all positive reviews.

[pasayten]

Same reason WDFW hunting and fishing regulations are BOOKS and not pamphlets... They even had to make a WDFW fishing phone app to keep up with ever changing regulations.

[Fun CH]

Here's a quote from the US fish and wildlife research summary that will soon place wolverine's as a protected species under the endangered species act (threatened). But don't worry about public land closures based on this listing as there's no evidence that winter recreation hurts wolverine populations.

"While population information is lacking for this subspecies in some parts of its range, the best available
information does not indicate that, winter recreational activities, infrastructure features, mortality
from road crossings or trapping (authorized and incidental), currently or in the future will result
in a decline in the subspecies across its range"

We often watch Deer graze in close proximity to our house. I wasn't able to find any research that concludes non-lethal human winter recreation hurts deer populations. Yet WDFW went ahead and closed public land. Why?

Also Mule Deer seem to have no problem living in town. There is a false narrative out to that says they're not part of the migratory herd so that fact can't conclude that human recreation doesn't harm deer. However, when the deer come down out of the hills for the winter, I notice an increase in population of the Town deer both in and around the town. Seems to me that they are part of the herd and some choose to live in town for food and protection.

And why did The Big Valley ranch remain open? Lots of mule deer in that area that come up to the HWY, some getting killed by cars. Why no hwy wildlife overpass which are an effective Public safety and wildlife protection mitigation method? Shouldn't WDFW start with known and effective measures to protect deer populations?

Humans are a part of nature, so why exclude us from witnessing it's winter time beauty that many of us require to enrich our souls? Recreation is after all Re-creation.

While I agree with many of the WDFW policies such as purchasing private land to enrich wildlife habitat, closing public land to human powered recreation without supporting research of harm is not one of the policies I support.

The WDFW closure signs are an abomination.