Okay, people. Your turn to manage some of the West's wildlife. A herd of about 2,000 mule deer. A herd where some 900+ people indicate they want to hunt every year. Over 750 hunters listed this as the number one place they want to hunt (including me).

Our winter helicopter surveys found only 22 bucks in the population for every 100 does. The lowest ratio in six years, and well below the 30:100 we had last winter. This, despite a 1/3 cut in licenses in 2001. All of the decrease is from low numbers of yearling bucks.

Basically, we lost a lot of fawns in the tough 2000-01 winter, so there aren't many yearlings running around now. Not really a surprise. Expected this, which is why we cut licenses in 2001. (Always fun to brag when you do your job right.) The good news is we have an average supply of fawns this year, which is better than most neighboring herds, and so far it looks like winter losses will be light to average.

When you crunch the numbers, they come back saying that having 200 licenses again in 2002 will essentially keep the buck:doe ration where it is. At the lowest level in six years.

Lower ratios = fewer bucks, harder hunting, and fewer old, mature bucks.

The reason we started limiting the number of hunters in this herd was to improve that ratio, and try to increase the number of mature bucks in the population. Yes, hunters like more mature bucks, as do tourists, but most importantly, so do mule deer does.

During the rut, which arrives at the beginning of winter, young bucks tend to pursue and harass does until they finally submit to being bred. Wasting the doe's fat reserves, and keeping her from eating until the young buck is satisfied.

Mature bucks, on the other hand, court the does more gently, and don't get really pushy until she is totally receptive. While at the same time driving off all the pesky young bucks. He sacrifices the fat he built up being lazy all summer so that she can regain the energy she spent nursing fawns.

So, having a reasonable supply of mature bucks improves survival of does through tough winters, and also increases the birth weight of their fawns. Which improves fawn survival.

What is a reasonable supply of mature bucks? Colorado intentionally allowed hunters to seriously harvest the mature bucks in a couple herds as an experiment. What they found is that fawn production and doe survival were not noticably affected until the ratio got near 4:100. So we're a long way from having a problem that will affect deer.

Just people.

Dropping the licenses to 150 should allow the buck:doe ratio to jump back up near 30:100. But also cut out another 50 of those 900+ hunters, who already have crappy odds of getting to hunt here. And force them to hunt in an area that does not limit the number of hunters, complicating management in those herds. Compromising with 175 licenses saves about 20 more bucks and will split the difference in the ratio.

Dropping license numbers also reduces the funds available to our outfit, which is currently fiscally strapped and eating quickly into our operating surplus. As it is, we are already going to see major cuts in our flight monies, which we need to collect the data needed to properly manage the herds. So every dollar counts. Those 50 licenses could bring in over $4,000, enough for 12 hours of helicopter time.

Now the complicating factors.

So far this winter has been mild. We can still lose a lot of animals to spring snowstorms (happening in April 1984), but if it stays mild, the recruitment of new bucks from the fawns on the ground right now will be better than I predicted, and the 200 licenses will have less of an impact on the buck:doe ratio. Two hundred would be just fine.

Mild winters usually mean less snow, which is the case for us. Just over 60 percent of normal snowpack. Right now our river basins are the worst in the state. Already talking water restrictions for this summer. Less snow will also mean drier range, and less deer food growing to support the herd through next winter. So, having fewer deer out there eating that food would be a good thing.

And thirdly, there are always questions about how good our data really is. We got a good sample of deer classified from the helicopter, with good snow cover (which helps you spot the dinky little antlers on the yearling bucks in the 3.4 seconds you have to look at them). But it was exceptionally dry this summer, and most of the yearlings out there just barely made it through last winter. As a result, many of them are sporting unusually small antlers, some shorter than the ears. So our real buck:doe ratio may be a little better than 22:100.

What would you do?

The game warden for this herd and I spent about 20 minutes discussing this herd (one of 13 I'm involved with), and all of those factors and options yesterday. Our final discussion before Monday, when we have to convince our bosses that our solution is the best. A week or two later, they will have to convince their bosses. And if all these people agree, our proposal goes to public hearings across the state for a month, along with all the other seasons for ~170 deer areas, ~115 antelope areas, ~125 elk areas, and all the other areas for bighorn sheep, moose, mountain goat, etcetera, etcetera.

The crux of my job is basically going on right now. The rest of the year is mostly just data collection.