and left the area by 1940. These people had to a large extent 

 depended on deer for subsistence and hunted yearlong. The 

 onset of World War II further reduced the population of young 

 men living near the area and war-time rationing of ammunition, 

 tires, and gas further reduced hunting pressure by people from 

 the surrounding area. As Holibaugh (1944) stated, "Perhaps 

 the tire and gas situation has eliminated to a certain extent 

 the hunting, both illegally and legally." 



Many factors, including illegal hunting; habitat 

 disruption by homesteading, plowing, and timber harvest; 

 severe drought; and vegetation depletion by domestic livestock 

 grazing and grasshoppers (Murie 1935) probably contributed to 

 the decline in deer numbers. The increase in mule deer 

 probably resulted from a decrease in the influence of the 

 above factors, and especially from improved forage conditions. 

 The increase in mule deer numbers coincided with the improved 

 forage conditions that resulted from increased precipitation 

 during 1938, 1941-44, and 1946. 



Predator control is the most often cited reason for the 

 increase in deer and antelope during the 1940s, both locally 

 and throughout the western United States. Information from 

 this area indicated that mule deer on this area had reached 

 historically high levels by autumn 1947 and possibly as early 

 as 1944. However, the narratives indicate that no 

 substantial, effective coyote control program began until 

 December 1946. Sporadic trapping and very limited poisoning 

 in local areas took place prior to that. Indeed, the 

 narratives and coyote damage complaints indicate that coyote 

 populations and depredation increased from 1940-1946! Mule 

 deer populations had apparently reached such high levels prior 

 to 1947 that Federal biologists already considered the deer 

 range to be approaching "overuse". 



The evidence did indicate that intensive predator control 

 during the late 1940s and early 1950s resulted in increased 

 mule deer fawn survival, at least through 1956. This increase 

 in fawn survival, however, apparently did not result in much, 

 if any, increase in mule deer populations within the 

 riverbreaks habitat. Our recent information on mule deer 

 dispersal does substantiate, however, local suspicion that 

 predator control may have helped create an "excess" that 

 successfully recolonized surrounding areas of less secure 

 habitat. Although mule deer population recovery occurred 

 within the riverbreaks habitat prior to effective predator 

 control, it may have occurred even faster had predator control 

 been implemented earlier. 



Yearlong subsistence hunting undoubtedly contributed to 

 low deer populations in the 1920s and 1930s. It is unlikely 

 that the restrictions on hunting effectively protected deer to 



80 



