TABLE III-9 - COMPARISON OFMDFWP HUNTING DISTRICT 110 ELK GOALS AND 1996 

 HUNTING DISTRICT STATUS 



Late-winter elk population 



Late-winter calfxow ratio 



Armuai harvest 



Percent bulls with branch antlers 



MDFWP GOAL 



670 



30.0:100 



170 



40 



CURRENT STATUS 



535 



12.0:100 



65 



55 



Percent buUs with 6-point antlers 



28 



36 



Hunter recreation mandays 



14,784 



7,537 



Hunters 



1,800 



1,370 



Research has shown that wolves and moun- 

 tain lions are keeping elk recruitment low (Tim 

 Thier, district wildlife biologist, DFWP, per- 

 sonal communication). 



Bull elk vulnerability 



About 97.5% of the nonlake acres in the project 

 area provides hiding cover. An analysis of 

 security cover fitting the Hillis Paradigm 

 (forest cover blocks .5 miles or farther from 

 roads and 250 acres or larger in size), however, 

 indicated that none of the area fits the criteria 

 for blocks of cover that can provide quality 

 security areas during hunting season. Only 80 

 acres has cover that is beyond the .5-mile 

 distance from roads. The potential for elk 

 security is reduced by the large amount of 

 road access to the area. 



Christensen et al (1993) emphasized the 

 importance of configuration and connectivity 

 of cover patches for elk security. Patches of 

 cover in the project area are naturally continu- 

 ous. 



MULE DEER 



Mule deer are present and, for much of the 

 year, are widely distributed on Stillwater State 

 Forest. Winter range is the primary concern 

 for managing mule deer habitat. Mule deer 

 winter range is restricted to 591 acres south of 

 Beaver Lake and overlaps the elk winter 

 range. Winter thermal cover exists on 33.8% 

 (291 acres) of the winter range. This cover is 

 well connected and well distributed on the 

 winter range. Mule deer are not so easily 

 displaced from habitat as elk by traffic on open 



roads, but snowmobile access does create an 

 energy drain on mule deer (see Figure lll-lO, 

 Mule Deer Winter-Range Map). . > 



WHITE-TAILED DEER j ; 



White-tailed deer, present and widely distrib- , 

 uted all year on the project area, are also \ 



among the most abundant and vulnerable 

 prey items for recolonizing wolves. This area 

 also has a reputation for producing the large 

 bucks prized by hunters. White-tailed deer 

 utilize a wide variety of habitats during 

 summer, but are closely associated with the 

 closed-canopy forests during winter, especially 

 when snow depths are high, as during the . 

 1996-97 winter. The removal of forest canopy ; 

 that produces effective snow interception is, 

 thus, generally detrimental to white-tailed 

 deer when it occurs on areas used by them i 

 during winter. Winter range for white-tailed '. 

 deer is widely available, covering 3,076 acres 

 of the project area. Of this, 43.5% (1,339 acres) 

 provides winter thermal cover, of which 1,275 

 acres is in patches of 40 acres or larger. Except 

 for one large patch that is disconnected in the 

 southwest corner of the project area, thermal > 

 cover is well distributed and well connected. , 

 The areas south of Beaver Lake and on the ■ 

 mountainside facing Whitefish Lake are not 

 used in winter by white- tailed deer (see Figure 

 III-ll, White-tailed Deer Winter Range Map). 



Although winter cover in high snowfall areas 

 is critical for snow interception, cover require- 

 ments at other times of year have not been ^ 

 shown by research to be so critical for white- 

 tailed deer. 



Chapter III: Affected Environment 



im-25; 



