Pages

Thursday, June 6, 2013

Activity In North Dakota Oil Patch Associated With Record Number Of Deer Despite One Of The Most Severe Winters On Record

Updates

June 7, 2013: see first comment.  I corrected the post below. It looks like there may be differing opinions on overall "health" of the mule deer population in North Dakota.

Original Post

Not entirely accurate, but something tells me one could write that headline based on data points in an article posted by The Dickinson Press. Data points from the article:
  • the 2012-13 winter in western North Dakota may have been one of the most severe in decades
  • mule deer population surged in western North Dakota; up 15%
  • increased to more than 5 mule deer per square mile
  • project in place to see how oil activity is affecting mule deer population
Risk: with the surge in mule deer population this past winter, a drop in population is likely next year; oil patch activities could be wrongly blamed if population drops.

Comment below: apparently the historical average is about 7.5 mule deer / square mile; last year things were particularly tough and the density / population dropped to around 4 mule deer / square mile. With restrictions on hunting (and other possible factors) density is back up to about 5 mule deer/square mile. I hope I got that right this time.

4 comments:

  1. The issue here is that it is still down 22% from where average is. Last year and this year have had no mule deer doe tags for hunting in ND. So that is the reason for 15% increase, and a severely limited buck tags. The unit I hunt only had a couple hundred available last year and about the same this year. You have the bullet on increase of 5 mule deer per square mile is wrong because you misinterpreted the article's point on it. Should read as "increased to over 5 mule deer per square mile". Last year I think it was down to 4.something and average is 7.5? Doug Lier state biologist has blamed the weather. Floods in spring of 2011 out that way couldn't have helped at all especially after a fairly harsh winter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you very much. I corrected the "5 mule deer per square mile" comment.

      (I had to laugh: "bullet" is absolutely the correct word for data points but for a split second my mind visualized the "bullet" a mule deer might visualize.)

      I really appreciate you taking time to comment. I also appreciate the suggestion that the state biologist feels the weather/harsh winter was the issue and not necessarily the oil patch.

      I'm still waiting for the word to get out among the mule deer that a safe place to hang out is next to oil tanks on oil pads. I can already imagine Gary Larson's "Far Side" cartoon of same.

      I'll have to go back and read the original story. I must have misread the story; I thought the writer was telling us things had improved; perhaps so, but not as much as one might think.

      Delete
    2. They are improved... but from nearly the worst numbers ever recorded in the last 40 years from what I hear. Kind of like the US economy has "improved" from 2008..

      Delete
    3. Yes, everything is relative.

      I felt a bit bad about being so "negative" today in my postings about the current leadership in Washington, but I truly believe a lot of our economic problems are self-inflicted.

      [And worse: the gap between the "haves" and the "have-nots" seems to be widening; look at the market today.] But I digress. Again, I really appreciate you taking time to write.

      Delete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.