MULE DEER WORKING GROUP MEETING Minutes
Salt Lake City, UT
February 12, 2014 (9-5pm)
Chair – Jim Heffelfinger, Arizona Game and Fish Department
Attendees – Jim Heffelfinger (AZ, Chair), Greg Sheehan (UT, Dir. Sponsor), Cody Schroeder
(NV), Ryan Darr (NM), Shawn Gray (TX), Justin Shannon (UT), Andy Holland (CO), Andy
Lindbloom (SD), Daryl Lutz (WY), Brain Wakeling (AZ), Toby Boudreau (ID), Tom Keegan,
Anis Aoude, Linda Cardenas (BLM), Elroy Masters (BLM), Steve Belinda, Neil Thagard, Joe
Loehner (USFS), Miles Moretti (MDF), MDF Board Members
Miles Moretti – Comments
 Fundraising is very important to MDF to do good things for mule deer
 Partnerships with wildlife agencies very important, MDF is a conservation partner.
 They need projects brought forward from Agencies that need funding
 Mule deer license sales are declining and that affects the good work that agencies can
do.
 Western Hunting and Conservation Expo has grown over 30% from last year
 Farm Bill passed and extended the Stewardship program to work with state, federal,
private groups for landscape scale habitat projects
Managing Deer-Vehicle Collisions Document
Brian Wakeling
 Lots of literature on this topic, but scattered widely in publications and grey
literature. There was a great need to condense all this information.
 Good introduction
 Places where there is a need to focus are:
o Monitoring information
o Eliminating barriers such as fencing (Daryl Lutz)
o Integrate Crosswalks with Fencing/Barriers section
 Andy Holland with provide input on population level effects (% mortality figures
on does and fawns).
 Justin Shannon with help provide specific data from Utah and comments
 Cody Schroeder with provide latest info from Nevada on fiscal assessment of
highway crossing and highway safety literature
 Cody Schroeder will help with the “Monitoring” section
 Cody Schroeder will provide review and write section on Crosswalks (Work with
Daryl on Fencing) and Nighttime and seasonal speed limits (WY projects Teton
Science School, Jeff Gagnon research)
o CO has speed limit restrictions (could at least add the areas and legislation
issues to get implemented) seasonal speed limits (ask WY about moose
crossing signs?) Dan Olson from Utah has been leading the research.
 Tom Keegan: will do Deer whistles
 Toby Boudreau will work on Human Safety (Direct Impacts - line 258) with input
from Andy Holland and Justin Shannon.
 Toby will also provide specific information on the Idaho 21 underpasses and any
other that are appropriate.
 Andy Lindbloom - Decoy Deterrents Section



Shawn Gray - Habitat fragmentation (Indirect effects starting on line 262)
Daryl Lutz will improve the section about WY specific information (line 241)
Brian Wakeling will coordinate these sections to provide the directors with a
complete draft by the Summer meeting.
Provide comments and writing for sections to Brian Wakeling by May 1, 2014
Range-wide Mule and Black-tailed Deer Status Kuzyk/Aoude
 Updates need to be completed by Mid-June for Summer meeting. Kuzyk will
coordinate.
 The Peer-reviewed version of this was submitted to the Deer/Elk Proceedings for
publication as a citable source.
Rangewide Survival Analysis
Jim Heffelfinger
 Paul Lukacs developed a proposal. The MDWG agreed this should be done and
identified potential funding sources.
 George Pauley was leading the effort to find funding, but has now taken a
different job and we need someone to step up and lead the charge to gather funds
to do this work.
Mule Deer Fact Sheet Status/Timelines/external reviewers
a. Doe Harvest (external comments being incorporated) Shawn Gray
b. Translocation (NEW internal review draft)
Ryan Darr/Aoude/J. Shannon
c. Health (internal review draft)
Don Whittaker/Colin Gillin
d. Urban Deer (internal review draft)
Ryan Darr/Aoude/J. Shannon
e. Fencing (internal review draft)
Daryl Lutz/Toby Boudreau
f. Winter Range Disturbance (Due June 15, 2014) Andy Holland
g. Shed antler hunting (Due June 15, 2014)
Daryl Lutz
h. Poaching (internal review draft)
Don Whittaker
i. Migration Corridors (internal review draft)
Bill Rudd (Lutz)
j. Immunocontraception (June 15, 2014)
Jim Heffelfinger
k. Forestry Practices
Laura Wolf/Doug Cottom









New deadline March 31, 2014 for Draft review comments
Facts sheets are under accomplishments on MDWG website but Heffelfinger will
reorganize the website to make those easier to find.
Links to other publications
Heffelfinger will find an author for “Forestry”
We need a facebook page or social media interface for MDWG. Heffelfinger will meet
with Neil Thagard and his wife Catherine to discuss a Facebook page.
Mass publication (possibly bound version on smaller scale)
Otherwise leave up to individual states to print
Maybe add Habitat Manipulation or P/J thinning fact sheet
MDF will work on drafting fact sheet on mule deer and sage-grouse (ecosystems)
Reseeding Guidance Document
All
Heffelfinger distributed the outline for the reseeding document and the MDWG discussed
changes to the outline.
 Ag Extension counties may have species they don’t want . This might be different in
every county.















USFS has “Regional Directives” and BLM has guidelines in Land Use Plans.
One important point is that practitioners have to ask whether reseeding is even needed.
There are usually a lot o native seeds in the seed bank so in some cases it may be be
necessary to add seed.
The South Texas Natives has a document about reseeding on their website.
Post-planting maintenance is important because reseeding is not a one-time deal.
During planning establish attainable goals
A useful reference would be “Who to contact” – maybe even a flow chart
Should focus on USDA “Ecological Site” information.
Energy companies could buy lots of seed all at once.
2 questions: is it good for mule deer and is it available to use (and will it propagate)
Monitoring should include monitoring erosion
Danielle Johnson has specific knowledge
Jim Garner is at the Native Seed Warehouse (P-J and Browse coordinator)
Cory Jones (UT)
The MDWG discussed a table with 4 rows – one for each season and 2 columns:
“Preferred” and “Additional plants that can be used”
Heffelfinger will contact several names that have been mentioned in past meetings to see
if there is someone in the business that can take the lead to put this together. If
unsuccessful, someone will have to step up in the MDWG or in an agency with
encouragement from their director.
Translocation Updates (UT/NM)
Ryan Darr/Justin Shannon
 New Mexico (increased urban deer problems) Ryan Darr
 Education campaign
 Not feeding, exurban hunt, translocation project
 First and foremost Translocation is a research project co-op with University
 NM has drastic deer population declines, but still have abundant habitat in some areas
 Two sites selected based on habitats with little to no deer remaining
 Does received Zapron while Bucks received Haldol for transport
 See NM and UT translocation summaries appended to these minutes
Status of NAMDCP MOU signatures
Jim Heffelfinger
Larry Kruckenburg has been busy since the mid-winter and has not been able to get the MOU
with cover sheet out to the signatories. He will do that very soon. Heffelfinger will check up
on that in a month.
Website Suggestions
All
 Separate page for all the Fact Sheets to make them easy to find
 More pictures
 Research priorities (needs updating/re-vamped)
 Statistics on page views
 Get a link to the MDWG website added to state agency websites (maybe also MDF)
Video Footage Transfer
Jim Heffelfinger
If you want all the video footage from the making of the mule deer program, send a 1 TB
external drive to:
Carol Lynde
Video Production Specialist II
Information Education – AV
Arizona Game and Fish Department
5000 W. Carefree Highway
Phoenix, AZ 85086-5000
There is undoubtedly good stuff for your AV people to use and WAFWA has the rights to all of
it.
Mule Deer Focal Areas
Steve Belinda
 Priority Maps for State Agencies
 Primary point is to influence policy issues within states
 Need to visually represent where the priorities are within each state
 Help show Governors where the priority areas can be identified
 This will foster the implementation of mule deer habitat guidelines and leverage money with
ecosystem level projects (esp. Sage-grouse issues) across state lines (cross boundary
coordination)
 Still some states missing (AK, MT, CO, WA, AZ, NM, Ok, KS, NE)
 Comments
o Challenges with how to define “Focal Areas”
o Hard to implement due to within state differences –Andy Holland
o Issues with energy developments, state policies etc.
 Brian Wakeling AGFD looked at hunt units with most difference between deer harvest 20
years ago and today as an index of potential for improvements in deer populations and
hence a good place to focus on habitat improvements.
 Acknowledge that other areas may still need funding but ID the priorities first
 Need consistency in number of areas, reason for identifying regions so it doesn’t look like
one part of the country needs more work than others just because more areas were defined
there.
 When you designate a “Priority Area” that will lead some people to think that implies other
areas are not important and you may have a harder time fighting against things that are bad
for mule deer. Others will argue that is not a “Priority” area. It was decided by the MDWG
that a lot of this concern can be alleviated by using a name like “Habitat Improvement
Areas” or “Opportunity Areas”. That will better-describe what we are doing and reduce the
chance it can be used against us.
 Timeline 3 yrs min. for federal guidelines, NEPA processes etc.
 Off-site mitigation and separation from T&E species or other species of concern –Elroy AZ
BLM
“Mule Deer Working Group Purpose: “To find solutions to our common mule deer management
problems and to optimize cooperative research and management in the Western states and
provinces.”
Utah Summary of Translocation activities – Justin Shannon
Project Goal—Evaluate the habitat use, movements, and survival of transplanted deer. The
primary questions of interest surround the overall success of transplants and any potential
difference in timing of release (early winter, late winter) to determine if deer in relatively good
condition (early January) move more or survive differently than deer in relatively poor (March)
condition. We chose to initially use a hard release for all deer because such a practice represents
the most likely (quickest, easiest, cheapest) method to be used in the future to address
overabundance of local populations. The capture area was chosen because of long-term damage
to winter range by over abundant deer. The release location was selected because of ample
winter range and similar topography (I-15 highway with deer fencing on the west of winter
range, migration upslope towards the east during summer, etc.).
Sample—The sample used to evaluate habitat use, movements, and survival includes the
following:
2013
 50 adult female resident deer captured and released on the Pahvant Range near Fillmore,
Utah in January of 2013
 51 adult female deer captured near Cedar City, Utah and moved north to the Pahvant
range (approximately 160km; 100 miles) near Fillmore, Utah during January of 2013.
 51 adult female deer captured near Cedar City, Utah and moved north to the Pahvant
range (approximately 160km; 100 miles) near Fillmore, Utah during March of 2013.
2014
 20 adult female resident deer captured and released on the Pahvant Range near Fillmore,
Utah in January of 2014
 51 adult female deer captured near Cedar City, Utah and moved north to the Pahvant
range (approximately 160km; 100 miles) near Fillmore, Utah during January of 2014.
 50 adult and juvenile deer captured on Antelope Island, Utah and moved south to the San
Juan Elk Ridge unit in extreme southeastern Utah in early February of 2013.
 49 adult and juvenile deer captured on Antelope Island, Utah and moved south to the Oak
Creek unit near Delta, Utah in early February of 2013.
Capture and transplant-related mortalities—One of the initial questions with the transplant
was whether or not transplanted deer would suffer increased risk of capture myopathy (death due
to stress associated with capture). To date, there has been no difference between translocated
and resident deer in terms of the percentage that die due to capture-related causes. Eight of 153
transplanted deer (5.2%) moved from Cedar City, Utah to Fillmore, Utah have died as a result of
capture-related causes (e.g., injuries from capture or capture myopathy). By comparison, 8 of
163 (4.9%) resident deer captured as part of this project and the Monroe Mountain fawn survival
project have died due to capture. The majority of these deaths have been related to injuries
sustained during capture (e.g., broken backs, punctured lung, etc.).
Annual Survival—Eight of 50 (16%) resident deer died during 2013 compared to 26 of 51
(51%) transplanted deer from January of 2013 and 21 of 51 (41%) transplanted deer from March
of 2013. There may be another mortality or two before the March 2013 deer reach a full year
and thus we do not expect to find a significant difference in survival between January and March
2013 transplants.
Reproduction—We carefully (large amounts of time) observed 29 translocated deer during late
summer/early fall of 2013 and noted the presence of a single fawn with 7 deer and twins with 1
deer (28% of tranpslants observed with fawns). This observed percentage was not different for
that of resident deer suggesting that surviving transplants reproduced at a similar rate to resident
deer. As a side note, fawn:doe ratios for resident deer on the Pahvant unit were relatively low at
47 fawns per 100 females in 2013.
Condition—Average body fat estimates were 9.37% for 20 resident Pahvant deer captured in
January of 2014, 8.08% for 20 transplants from 2013 that were recaptured in January of 2014,
and 7.97% for 51 newly captured (2014) deer from the Parowan front.
Site Fidelity—We have observed very high fidelity of transplanted deer to the winter range
where they were released. Despite ranging far and wide during the summer of 2013, the vast
majority of transplanted deer from 2013 have returned to the winter range in 2014 (and often the
very same couple of square miles) where they were released the year before. For a few of these
deer, it would have been easier (and closer) to return to the Parowan front. Translocation of
mule deer to unused winter ranges may be a way to reestablish use of these ranges.
Future Monitoring—We will continue to intensively monitor transplanted deer and expect
some of the most interesting information to arrive in 2014 as we monitor deer initially
transplanted in 2013 through a second summer.
New Mexico Summary of Translocation Activities – Ryan Darr
1. Background
a. 2012: Silver City, NM contacted NMDGF on urban deer problem (deer-vehicle
collisions, damage to ornamental landscapes, concerns over human safety and
health).
b. In addition to increased hunts in the area, the Department implemented an urban
deer translocation project. Taking deer to areas of quality habitat with extremely
low populations; where native deer were all but extirpated.
c. This project was first and foremost a research project; secondarily a management
action. Cooperation with Dr. James Cain and New Mexico State University:
looking at mortality (adults and eventual fawns), movements, and habitat
selection
2. Two release sites: Peloncillo Mountains (southwestern NM; “Boot Heel”); San Francisco
River Valley (Gila NF; western NM). Great habitat and poor deer numbers. Both had
significant mountain lion control in recent years to support bighorn sheep relocation
efforts.
3. Capture with drop nets at baited sites. Process. Give collars, ear tags, and drugs (to
negate capture stress): Ivermectin (Wormer), LA 200 (Antibiotic), Azaperone (sedative
given to all deer), Haldol (Second sedative – given to select bucks captured).
4. First Capture, Feb 2013: 110 Deer (11 B; 60 D; 39 F). 67 Adults Collared. Distributed
among 2 release sites (33+34 Collared). Preliminary findings:
a.
3 lost due to spinal injuries at trap site; <2% mortality (2 of 110) due to capture
myopathy
b. Peloncillos: 68% (23 of 34) survival to one year (removing hunter harvest).
Mortality Sources: 36% Mountain Lion Predation (4 of 11); 10 % Fence Injury (1
of 11); 18% Unknown (2 of 11); 36% (4 of 11) Suspected EHD/BTV: Occurred in
August after record monsoon rains…10% of nearby bighorn sheep herd also lost
at this time from disease. Were it not for naturally-occurring disease, survival
would have been very high!
c. San Francisco River: 58% (19 of 33) survival to one year (removing hunter
harvest). Mortality Sources: 79% Mountain Lion Predation (15 of 19); 21%
Unknown (4 of 19).
d. Movements (rough estimates from graduate student):
i. San Francisco River - Most movements >5 miles with extremes at 20 and
40 miles.
ii. Peloncillo Mountains: Most deer remained within 5 miles of release site
with no movement over 20 miles.
iii. 3 consistent water sources in Peloncillo Mountains and lack of consistent
water in San Francisco River Valley may have influenced movements.
Mountain lion pressure in San Francisco River Valley may also have
impacted movements.
5. Second Capture, Jan 2014. Coincided with an urban edge deer hunt in Silver City.
Captured 49 deer; low capture success. This year 30 were given VIT’s. Half placed in
soft-release pen in Peloncillo Mountains; Half hard released in Peloncillo Mountains.
Plan to capture additional deer to release in the San Francisco River Valley also using the
soft-hard release comparison.
a. 1 lost at trap site due to spinal injuries. 2 lost due to capture-related complications
(broken leg and capture myopathy).
6. What we are learning so far:
a. Survival is reasonably high with the technique of removing from urban areas and
releasing in quality habitat with low deer densities.
b. Vast majority of public opinions about translocation from Silver City are positive.
c. The proper drug combination appears important for safe transport and reduced
capture myopathy.
d. Mountain lion predation is a concern with survival even when control efforts are
in place.
7. Looking forward to:
a. Understanding if soft release pens may help reduce dispersal from release site.
b. Observing survival and productivity of future generations.