A PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE October 1999 Chet Friday, Folsom, California

The afternoon of August 31, 1999 found me grocery shopping in Elko in preparation for my muzzle loader deer hunt in the East Humboldt Range, just south of Wells, Nevada. While pushing my shopping cart through the store aisles, I noticed a large, heavy-set gentleman wearing a shirt with several mountain lions elegantly embroidered on it. To me, the shirt seemed to impart a special merit to lions, as to infer that they were somehow more deserving than other wildlife species. I remember contemplating if this individual had spent much time in the field and concluded he was probably unaware of the potential adverse impact that an unmanaged lion population can have on a managed mule deer herd. During the following week I hunted the same drainages and ridges that I had successfully hunted in 1989-92, however, I only saw approximately a third of the deer that I had encountered during my previous excursions. More significantly, unlike these earlier hunts, I was unable to locate any older age class bucks (I did nonetheless, notice significantly more coyote activity). Time and time again, the better bucks 1 saw in most of the drainages I examined were relatively young and had medium-sized racks that barely reached their ear tips. Clearly, both the quality and quantity of mule deer in Nevada's East Humboldt Range had endured a severe decline during the past 7 years.

Obviously, mule deer herd dynamics are influenced by many factors including habitat, weather, competition with various classes of animals, disease, predators, and interaction with humans. Since 1988, Nevada's statewide deer numbers have declined from approximately 250,000 to 120,000 animals. As far as the East Humboldt's are concerned, the Nevada Division of Wildlife (NDOW) has recently indicated that "not enough mortality was included in population estimates immediately following the severe winter of 1992-93," thus inferring they have since inadvertently issued too many deer tags for that region of the state. Perhaps a more significant factor is the relatively high "winter" fawn losses in the East Humboldt Range in recent years. This, combined with a lack of an aggressive predator management program, is in my opinion, the root cause of Nevada's low deer numbers in that portion of the state.

Several western wildlife watchers have implied that the winter of 1992-93 was not overly severe and did not ravage big game herds to the extent that the killer winters of 1978-79 and 1983-84 did during which long cold spells of-30 degrees were combined with huge snow packs. The weather of these winters persisted for months and took a horrible toll on deer. Others, however, contend that the winter of 1992-93 was deadly on western deer because it followed eight mild winters in a row and many of the deer had never had to travel to the winter range and simply did not know where the winter range was. At the same time, these individuals argue that the drought had hammered the forage on the range, which created a poor quality food base. In any case, many "local" mule deer herds throughout the west have since rebounded from any losses they incurred during the winter of 1992-93 and with the implementation of effective predator management measures are in better shape today than they have been throughout the 1990's.

Typical overwinter fawn mortality for the East Humboldt region of Nevada is 20 to 30 percent. Research in the area has found that fawns subject to unfavorable overwinter nutritional conditions may incur mortality rates as high as 45 percent. Given the fact that temperatures during the 1998-99 winter in the East Humboldt area were relatively mild, snow depths on winter ranges were below-average and precipitation was average, why was the winter fawn loss 39 percent in the East Humboldt Range when the deer exited the winter in excellent condition? Could this "winter" fawn loss be a reflection of the effects of predators?

LESSONS LEARNED

Thanks to an electorate whose opinion can be manipulated by whatever group has the most advertising dollars, in 1990 Proposition 117 passed in California which outlawed all sport hunting of lions. Today, biologists report mountain lion numbers at an all-time high across the West with California having more lions than any other Western state (from about 600 in 1970 to approximately 10,000 today) and everywhere they are found, lions are preying on domestic pets. The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) files are literally bulging with reports of dogs and cats being snatched from backyards, from beside their owners, from porches and doorways, and even from inside residences. In one case, a Glendora homeowner found a lion sitting on his Jacuzzi deck eating his Doberman. CDFG biologists have told me that it appears that the classical relationship between predator and prey is no longer valid as far as many California mountain lions are concerned. Specifically, the biologists claim that due to the large number of "ranchettes" that have been constructed in the foothills, lions now have a permanent year-round food source in domestic animals that is independent of their traditional prey.

Consequently, lion populations have exploded and they have been able to increase their numbers, density and range throughout the state. Coincidentally, a property owner living at the base of the East Humboldt's claims that unlike the past, during recent years it has become virtually impossible to keep small domestic animals due to lions - particularly during the winter months.

Last year a co-worker in the Sacramento office where I work commented to me that he had seen a lion and coyote within 10 feet of one another just a few yards from his house. This individual lives on 2-1/2 acres in the foothills of the western slopes of the Sierras; about a 30 minute drive from Downtown Sacramento. These types of sitings are now commonplace and according to one CDFG report, a lion has even been reported roaming the streets of Sacramento.

The impact of policy shifts or legislation resulting in increased predator populations can be devastating on deer herds. Recently, after a deer herd reduction in the Round Valley area of California, the CDFG secured radio collars to deer and found that 51% of deer mortalities were due to mountain lions, 22% from coyote kills, 14% from road kills, 7% from hunting and 6% from other factors. In the Kings' Canyon area of California, deer declined in the 1980's from about 19,000 to around 1,500. In this area, mountain lions were found to be responsible for 49% of the fawns killed by predators, and lion predication was thought by the authorities to have been an important factor in preventing the recovery of the deer population. Research showed that, in some cases, lions may kill a deer every other day when hunting a herd that is already otherwise depressed.

It is my fear that the ignorance of the public in the West's urban areas concerning the necessity for properly managing predators could ultimately decimate many western deer herds. In many urban communities, where opinions concerning wildlife issues are driven by emotions and perceptions rather than facts and logic, predators have been placed on

a pedestal and elevated above other wildlife and in some cases, even humans. For example, during 1994 in the community where 1 reside, a small lion cub that was being kept in the town's zoo received more sympathy, media attention and financial donations from the public in an adjacent urban area than the husband and two young children of the local woman that the cub's mother had killed and partially consumed!

POLITICAL BIOLOGY

Trendy wildlife graduates who are products of the suburbs and the largely anti-hunting public school/university system frequently express predator-prey relationships in idealistic (let's pretend man doesn't exist) or overly complicated (gee, it can't be as simple as less predators equates to more ungulates) terms which lack common sense. This new breed of wildlife professionals appear determined to reduce mule deer numbers. Several experienced western wildlife professionals are however, very much aware of the necessary steps that must be taken to keep predator populations down enough to allow depressed deer herds to recover. These wildlife managers know that such an approach would be politically difficult in today's pro-coyote, pro-mountain lion, pro-predator society. I sense that these individuals and others who work for government agencies feel their hands are tied and that they cannot restrain ever increasing predator numbers o it is never an option and it is never discussed in public. This type of distorted approach to wildlife management is intellectually dishonest and simply unacceptable. Similar to registered engineers, certified accountants and other professionals who are required to adhere to the moral standards of their professions, it is time for wildlife officials to do the same and publicly acknowledge that predators are a significant factor in declining deer herds instead of talking and hiding behind comments such as "predators ere also present when we had high deer numbers." Although 1 have met several dedicated,

knowledgeable and professional NDOW employees, it is ludicrous for NDOW to continue to suggest that the winter of 1992-93 as being principally responsible for the lack of deer. It is my understanding that Nevada Assemblyman David Humke has requested a bill be drafted for the next legislative session that will take the NDOW out from under the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and put it back into its own department, a Department of Fish & Game. I urge all Nevadans to support this bill which would take NDOW funding out of the state's general fund and thus hold NDOW at least partly responsible to sportsmen, who continue to contribute the most to conserve Nevada's wildlife.

Politically motivated wildlife management, especially when driven by the media in urban communities, has resulted in mule deer being considered a lesser value species than predators and consequently they have been intentionally managed to attain lower numbers (i.e., fewer hunters) while predator populations have been encouraged to grow beyond the historic caring capacity of their habitat. If our challenge is to simply educate the public concerning the principles of sound wildlife management techniques and assist the NDOW to get back on track, then supporting Assemblyman Humke's bill is a good start. If however, a large segment of the general public has elevated predators to a status above humans, it will take something dramatic and tragic, such as viewing a video of a lion taking a small child, to make them reconsider their position on the issue. Unfortunately, I know from experience that even if such a film was available the media would be reluctant to show it and there would be many people whose first comment upon viewing the film would be "what was the kid doing in the cougar's territory anyway?"

As for the gentleman I encountered in the grocery store, while I was exiting the store's parking lot in my vehicle I noticed him placing his bagged groceries in the back of a pick-up - with the NDOW name

back of a pick-up - with the NDOW name and logo on the driver's side door. Unless the public becomes educated and active on wildlife issues, more of these "enlightened" types of individuals will continue to infiltrate our western wildlife agencies, manage our nation's deer herds and set big game quota recommendations.