5 8o 



Yearbook^ of Agriculture 1949 



numbers on the Fishlake Forest was 

 largely checked by an aggressive pro- 

 gram of controlled hunting. Even 

 there, however, some range depletion 

 occurred and losses from malnutrition 

 were not entirely prevented. 



Between 1920 and 1947, 34,000 deer 

 were harvested from the Kaibab 

 through hunting and trapping live ani- 

 mals for restocking purposes. This is 

 but 16 percent of the 208,000 herd 

 that have been removed through legal 

 hunting from the Fishlake herd during 

 the same period. Furthermore, the 

 number of deer on the Fishlake in 1947 

 was three to four times greater than on 

 the Kaibab. Thus, with a smaller herd 

 in 1920 (actually one-eighth as large), 

 the Fishlake area has produced six 

 times as many deer for the hunters and 

 now has nearly four times as many 

 deer. It is believed that had the Kaibab 

 herd been stabilized at 30,000 or so 

 (the desirable number for the range) 

 and the net increase removed annually 

 through hunting, it also could have 

 produced nearly 200,000 deer. 



WHAT CAN AND CANNOT be done is 

 shown by the experience in Utah. 



Simply to protect big game from 

 hunting will not insure a high level of 

 production in the future. Neither can 

 the number to be harvested be deter- 

 mined solely by the desires of the hunt- 

 ers. The number of big game that can 

 be maintained and produced for sports- 

 man hunting must be based upon the 

 optimum amount of feed in the form of 

 forage that the range will produce. To 

 allow our game herds to build up be- 

 yond the ability of the range to supply 

 adequate forage is a form of deficit 

 spending. It may produce good hunt- 

 ing for a few years only a few years. 

 There must be a sustained yield of 

 forage for the animals to guarantee a 

 sustained yield of big game. 



While we cannot crop our big-game 

 herds as efficiently as livestock herds, 

 the harvest can be increased if hunters 

 keep crippling losses to a minimum, 

 predators are controlled, and, most im- 

 portant of all, the number of animals 



is kept in balance with available food 

 supply. The latter can only be accom- 

 plished by the removal of the surplus 

 animals, male or female. 



Although it is generally accepted 

 that some cow elk can be hunted with- 

 out reducing an elk herd, many hunters 

 in Utah still believe that the sole 

 objective in removing doe deer is to re- 

 duce the total number of deer. Others 

 still believe that killing does is never 

 justified. It is true that does must be re- 

 moved if herds are to be reduced, but 

 even in properly managed and healthy 

 herds, removals of does are justified 

 and necessary. The annual increase, 

 which consists of both males and fe- 

 males, must be cropped by hunter har- 

 vest if the herd is to be stabilized. 



Experience in Utah and Idaho has 

 shown that healthy mule deer herds 

 can produce annually, on a sustained- 

 yield basis, approximately 25 animals 

 per 100 deer in the winter population, 

 if the kill consists of both sexes. This 

 type of removal results in maximum 

 returns in deer to the sportsmen, pro- 

 vides for perpetuation of the capital 

 resource the forage supply and in- 

 sures healthy and stabilized deer herds. 



D. IRVIN RASMUS SEN is in charge 

 of wildlife management for the Inter- 

 mountain Region of the Forest Service. 

 Since 1928, he has been engaged pri- 

 marily in research and management of 

 western fish and game animals. He is 

 a graduate of Brigham Young Univer- 

 sity and has graduate degrees from the 

 University of Illinois. 



DAVID M. GAUFIN holds a degree in 

 wildlife management from Utah State 

 Agricultural College. His first work was 

 with the Utah Cooperative Wildlife 

 Research Unit on sage grouse nesting 

 and predation studies in southeastern 

 Idaho in 1939^-0. He was with the 

 United States Corps of Engineers, 

 1941-46; and served as Federal-aid 

 project leader, Utah Fish and Game 

 Department, on big-game studies from 

 1946 to 1947. He is now supervisor of 

 game management in the Utah State 

 Fish and Game Department. 



