The deer population in Nevada has been stagnant for five years, but the Nevada Division of Wildlife continues to expand the number of tags available to hunters

This year is no exception; NDOW recommended 29,195 tags for 1998, a sharp increase over the 21.820 they recommended last year. They do so on the assumption the stage is set for rapid expansion of the deer herd, based mainly on the condition of deer habitat.

Critics of NDOW, including myself, have predicted the very high predator populations, including coyotes, bobcats and mountain lions, were having a limiting effect on deer herd growth, in spite of the excellent habitat conditions. NDOW has publicly mocked the mere suggestion of predators limiting herd growth and treated the idea as a scapegoat for uneducated simpletons. But an unbiased review of NDOW's own published year by year summaries, called the "Big Game Status and Quota Recommendations" clearly make a strong case the so-called simpletons are right on the money, and show it's the NDOW biologists with their heads in the sand.

Let's take a little historical trip into the past and look at the numbers, NDOW's assessment of range conditions, and their predictions for deer herd growth. First a brief bit of background: Deer herds reached a recent peak in 1988 when their numbers were 251,326. By the spring of 1992, their numbers had declined to 183,494. According to the NDOW Big Game Status and Quota Recommendations for 1993: "The winter of 1992-1993 was exceptional for both snow and cold throughout most of northern and western Nevada. These conditions were catastrophic for many deer populations.

The estimated deer population left after the severe winter was 148, 658—down from the spring of 1992 by 35,000. NDOW felt the population was probably

even lower than the computer-generated estimate.

In short, 1992-93 wiped out the deer herds

According to the NDOW Big Game Status and Quota Recommendations, 1994 "The statewide deer population is estimated to be about 120,000 animals." The bad winter of 1992 and 1993 had one positive impact - range improvement. NDOW mentions "excellent habitat conditions" and "good range and water distribution."

It is important to remember that deer are "density dependent," meaning when deer populations are low and habitat conditions are good, rapid population growth is to be expected.

In effect, NDOW feels they have reached the bottom, with a turnaround expected.

According to NDOW Recommendations, 1995: "Prospects are definitely improving...(the deer population has increased) for a total of over 137,000 adults. Considering the excellent range conditions...further deer population recovery can be expected."

Things are looking up.

According to NDOW recommendations, 1996: "(The deer) population is estimated to be 133,000 adults. This was a 3 percent decline from last year." Range conditions, according to NDOW: "Prospects for population growth are the best-seen in nine years."

Note that in 1995 NDOW's population estimate was 137,000, with "excellent range conditions." NDOW predicted further population recovery," yet the population not only failed to grow, it actually declined to 133,000.

According to NDOW Recommendations, 1997: "Our 1996 deer population estimate may have been too optimistic. The deer population estimate (for 1997) is 132,000." Range conditions that winter (1996-97) were mild, with abundant moisture, good conditions for continued herd growth,

although interestingly, NDOW does not mention range conditions in their summary. NDOW boss Willie Molini in a May 2, 1997 interview with the Elko Daily Free Press was more open: "Frankly, we were anticipating a recovery in our deer herds. We had a very good winter in terms of moisture and snow pack. There was not prolonged deep snow, and there was not prolonged cold, so we anticipated pretty good fawn survival and recruitment."

According to NDOW Recommendations, 1998: "Deer population, 132,590. "The stage is now set for significant population growth after four years of average or better fawn recruitment and the excellent habitat conditions following a wet, mild winter."

Let's summarize their numbers:

1993 population: 148,658. Fawns to adults 19 per 100. Buck/Doe ratio: 24 per 100.

1994 population: 120,000. Fawns to adults 25 per 100. Buck/Doe ratio: 23 pr 100

1995 population: 137,000. Fawns to adults 34 per 100. Buck/Doe ratio:22 per 100.

1996 population: 133,000. Fawns to adults 38 per 100. Buck/Doe ratio: 24 per 100.

1997 population: 132,000. Fawns to adults 38 per 100. Buck/Doe ratio: 21 per 100.

1998 population: 132,520. Fawns to adults 41 per 100. Buck/Doe ratio: 23 per 100.

So, after five consecutive years of "good", "excellent" and "extraordinary" habitat conditions, our deer herd has exploded from a measly 137,000 in 1995, (compared to 251,000 in 1987-88), all the way up to 132,520, a massive increase of -whoops-actually a loss of 4,480 deer!

Every year since 1995, NDOW has predicted a turnaround in our depleted deer herds. This year, 1998, number wise, compares closely to 1996, when the herd again declined. Yet, NDOW's 1998

recommendations are gushing about how great 41 fawns per 100 adults and 23 bucks per 100 does are. Actually, both numbers are mediocre at best.

The bigger question is why? If deer populations are far below what the habitat can sustain, and habitat conditions are excellent, what is stopping the herd from rapid expansion?

The answer to anyone but an NDOW biologist is plain and simple—predators. A solution to the problem of excessive predation is not easy to come up with, but it is time for NDOW to swallow their pride, read their own predictions and admit their critics may have raised some valid concerns after all.

HUNTER'S ALERT COMMENT: Last year's deer harvest was the fourth lowest in the last twenty years. So what does NDOW recommend for this year? A whopping 8000 more tags or an increase of 38% over last year. This is nothing more than selling out our deer for money because of years of NDOWs mismanagement!

Ira Hansen

Reprinted from the Daily Sparks Tribune May 31, 1998