1950 - "Reports of heavy deer losses on the Game Range and 

 vicinity have been investigated and almost without 

 exception we find these reports to be greatly 

 exaggerated..." (winter 1949-50) 



"Upon receipt of reports from the Hedman Brothers, 

 local ranchers in Petroleum County in mid-March that 

 winter loss of deer in that area was extremely heavy 

 and would probably amount to 30 or 40 percent of the 

 fawns and yearlings, we again conducted an aerial 

 survey in Petroleum County on March 30 through 

 cooperation of Don Brown and the State Fish and Game 

 Department. Therefore, a resurvey was made of the 

 entire area and the count came out so close to that of 

 the previous census in February and due to the fact 

 that only one dead deer was seen from the plane, we 

 came to the conclusion that the loss could not be 

 nearly so heavy as reported." 



"It is quite possible that winter losses in certain 

 localities of the Game range may have been heavier 

 last winter than was indicated in previous reports." 

 (summer-fall 1950) 



"The most noticeable fact is that many of the [deer] 

 fawns were dropped later than usual this summer." 

 (May-August 1950) . 



"At the close of the report period [Aug. 1950], a high 

 percent of the fawns are still heavily spotted. We 

 feel that the exceptionally severe past winter is 

 closely tied in with this fact." 



"Coyotes - The time is here when this species could be 

 dropped from mention in the Narrative Report. They 

 are now reduced to such an extent on the Game Range 

 that observing one is cause for special comment." 



[Author's Note:] An aerial mule deer census was again 

 conducted during early February 1950. Viewing conditions were 

 good because of 16 inches of snow on the ground. The survey 

 area was larger than that of previous surveys and included 

 areas that, at present, have mule deer densities about half 

 that on the study area. One hundred thirty-two (132) mule 

 deer were observed on 157 miles of strips that covered an 

 estimated 39.25 mi 2 . Observed density was 3.4 mule deer/mi 2 . 

 If 50% of the mule deer present were observed, the estimated 

 density was 6.7/mi 2 . If mule deer density distribution was 

 the same in 1950 as at present, then the density estimate for 

 our current study area may have been higher, at about 8- 

 10/mi 2 . We believe that 7-10 mule deer/mi 2 ( 2 . 7-3 . 9/km 2 ) is a 

 reasonable estimate for February 1950. The recensus flown on 

 30 March, 1950, apparently had nearly the same results, but 

 the data for that flight were not found. These data indicated 

 a probable decline in density, compared to 1947-48. Such a 

 decline is reasonable because the February 1950 census 

 occurred after the severe winter of 1948-49 and during the 



373 



