Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > General Hunting Forums > Wildlife Management / Food Plots
The Perfect Storm, The Texas pronghorn >

The Perfect Storm, The Texas pronghorn

Wildlife Management / Food Plots This forum is about all wildlife management including deer, food plots, land management, predators etc.

The Perfect Storm, The Texas pronghorn

Old 12-10-2014, 04:23 PM
  #1  
Spike
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Brenham, Texas
Posts: 12
Default The Perfect Storm, The Texas pronghorn

Since the late 1980’s Trans-Pecos pronghorn antelope populations have experienced mean-average decline (Gray 2012). The culprits accused vary from drought and predation (Harveson) to Blue tongue virus, Barber Pole worms and habitat fragmentation. These potential agents have been examined as independent factors however; they do not describe the epizoology or pathogenesis that follows the population data. What do ya'll think is causing the decline?
http://www.highdesertwma.com/blog/th...ght-to-survive
aoudadhunter is offline  
Old 12-27-2014, 09:58 AM
  #2  
Nontypical Buck
 
Mickey Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,952
Default

Originally Posted by aoudadhunter
Since the late 1980’s Trans-Pecos pronghorn antelope populations have experienced mean-average decline (Gray 2012). The culprits accused vary from drought and predation (Harveson) to Blue tongue virus, Barber Pole worms and habitat fragmentation. These potential agents have been examined as independent factors however; they do not describe the epizoology or pathogenesis that follows the population data. What do ya'll think is causing the decline?
http://www.highdesertwma.com/blog/th...ght-to-survive
Marginal habitat. Texas is a case book study of what happens when you allow individuals to manage the environment. If they could remove unneeded fencing, replenish grasses, and kill more coyotes. Then they could expect to see an increase in fawn production, and survival.

ATB

Last edited by Mickey Finn; 12-27-2014 at 12:08 PM. Reason: removed a portion which didn't serve the conversation.
Mickey Finn is offline  
Old 12-29-2014, 12:16 PM
  #3  
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mi.
Posts: 250
Default

Originally Posted by Mickey Finn
Marginal habitat. Texas is a case book study of what happens when you allow individuals to manage the environment. If they could remove unneeded fencing, replenish grasses, and kill more coyotes. Then they could expect to see an increase in fawn production, and survival.

ATB
Texas is in fact a case book study on private management......but this is due to the fact that unlike other western states almost no public lands exist in Texas. So private management is a condition that is permanent for the most part.

What is needed is better education of the ranch/farm owners in how to best manage for wildlife, which some would embrace if given a better chance to do so in a inclusive manner that respects the rancher/farmers needs to make a living off the land also.

Where possible it's clearly desirable to remove some fences entirely, but this isn't going to be possible in many areas. The land owners don't spend money of fencing they don't have a real need for. BUT, alterations in the types of fencing should be more possible. Just a few sections of net style fence could be replaced by 5 strands or so of barbed wire fence, which antelope can slide under so as to allow them to move from ranch to ranch much more easy, or even within some of the larger ranches.

Cleaner, fresher water sources are greatly needed, as pointed to in the article & photos of a degraded common stock watering location. In some areas additional water sites may also be a help, but in many areas it's the quality of the water that needs improved.

More and higher quality graze is also needed in many areas. Overgrazing of cattle & other stock needs to stop. In the long term such overgraze isn't in the interest of the land, wildlife, livestock.

Pathogen control as indicated in the article are also needed. Degraded watering sites are a part of this, but reduction or elimination of supplemented feeding areas (this includes mineral sites) that concentrate both the game & the pathogens that will kill them is also needed. You'll not control the various pathogens while continuing to concentrate the game through feeding & water sites polluted with pathogens. Pumped watering sites need to be allowed to dry up on a regular bases & rotation to mimic natures own controls of pathogens.

Ranches where the owners are interested in increasing wildlife should be helped through state programs to work with these owners & help them establish improved graze & watering conditions.

Greater control of predation is desirable where it's possible. But such is far easier to say than to do. Without return to use of poisons like compound 1080 & Stricknine (sp?) you'll not see extended time periods with significant reduction of coyotes in a area. Past experience shows that we can't greatly suppress coyote numbers with conventional sport hunting & trapping. Sport hunting & trapping can, at best, prevent yotes from reaching & maintaining maximum coyote numbers. And a certain level of predators is in fact needed to remove as quickly as possible animals that become sick in spite of all other efforts.

The problems described are broad spectrum in nature and require a multifaceted approach to address them. There is no easy answer to this set of problems. Restoration of a population now below 3K to above 15K is going to take time & a well focused effort over a extended time.

One thing I did not see mentioned in the article posted by the OP, is the issue of exotic game. Some ranches manage for as many of these animals & that practices impact also needs to be considered & allowed for. This is NOT a condemnation of the exotics ranching in Texas. Just a call to give it also consideration in the overall picture of conditions.

Last, the state of Texas may need to establish a extra $2 habitat charge to the base hunting license. This is to fund the state agencies charged with assisting land owners in how to implement the improved habitat conditions needed to first stabilize & then restore speed goat numbers. I know suggesting any added charges are never real popular with some, but it may be the only way to get the job done in a case such as this where numbers of animals are this low. Once the program is well underway, or the habitat is in place, this fee could be halved or eliminated.

No easy answers........

Last edited by craig; 12-29-2014 at 12:47 PM. Reason: Better clarity
craig is offline  
Old 01-08-2015, 03:46 PM
  #4  
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mi.
Posts: 250
Default

I'd also like to add this thought to this thread regarding private management of game in Tx. and to a lessor degree other states.

The Tx. ranchers have embraced having & managing for, exotic game such as Black 'buck from India & numerous other African antelopes. They have done so in a very few cases due to the love of these antelope types by the ranch owners. But the vast majority of ranches that have & manage for exotic antelope types, do so due to the fact that these animals literally pay their own way. They pay their own way as they bring in to the ranch owner(s) a greater amount of income than does beef cattle or other domestic meet animals. A single good Black Buck pays the ranch more $$ than do cattle for the forage consumed, even when you add in the extra hassle of guides being employed ect. It does not cost the rancher much to provide that service & in fact usually is another income stream as is lodging & meals provided to hunters to these exotics.

1.) But what about native game on these ranches? Can they not also generate just as much income as exotics?

A 1.) The answer is, sadly, no they do not. The reason they don't is that native animals like desert Bighorn sheep are game which the state of Tx. sets regulations on & sets fees for the hunting of these animals. And that fee/license is paid 100% into the state of Tx, not to the ranches that the animals live on.........so they provide NO incentive to the rancher to try to improve things for these native game animals in a meaningful way.

If these ranchers were able to see a return/profit for efforts they could make to support the Pronghorn with better habitat they'd be vastly more inclined to do so. But it is unrealistic to expect these ranchers to do such habitat work when it would in fact work against them by reducing the amount of other exotic antelopes that DO provide a meaningful income to the rancher.

This is simple economics 101 folks & is just the plain hard truth. Money talks and the growth in the population of many different types of exotics proves that. Consider 3 types that are nearly extinct in their native lands........

In 1979, Texas had less than three dozen scimitar-horned oryx, just two addax and nine dama gazelles, according to the Exotic Wildlife Association. But by 2010, the state had more than 11,000 scimitar-horned oryx, about 5,100 addax and nearly 900 dama gazelles, according to the association

However due to lawsuits by animal rights groups, the USFW is now moving to make it much harder to offer hunting to these animals under the Endangered species Act. The result of this action by USFW is the rapid reduction of those very populations by the ranchers who developed these populations as they can't afford to maintain them on the ranches when they will now offer no return to the ranches owners. Hunts are being greatly discounted to encourage as many hunters as possible to come shoot these rare animals before the protection measures went into effect.

One of the leaders of these animal rights groups has publicly stated that she'd prefer to see them go fully extinct than to continue to be hunted for profit. She claims the ranchers should be forced instead to provide these animals for return to the animals native lands......FREE of course.

If prognhorn are to prossper in much greater numbers then what is needed is to award the ranchers 50%, (or whatever the percentage needed to make them a profitable item of interest to these ranchers.) of the license sold to hunt those animals on those private ranch lands. This WILL get the ranchers co-operation in fast forward, again simple economics driven

NOT a easy sell answer, but also there is no free lunch.......
craig is offline  
Old 01-09-2015, 04:55 AM
  #5  
Nontypical Buck
 
Mickey Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,952
Default

Originally Posted by craig
I'd also like to add this thought to this thread regarding private management of game in Tx. and to a lessor degree other states.

The Tx. ranchers have embraced having & managing for, exotic game such as Black 'buck from India & numerous other African antelopes. They have done so in a very few cases due to the love of these antelope types by the ranch owners. But the vast majority of ranches that have & manage for exotic antelope types, do so due to the fact that these animals literally pay their own way. They pay their own way as they bring in to the ranch owner(s) a greater amount of income than does beef cattle or other domestic meet animals. A single good Black Buck pays the ranch more $$ than do cattle for the forage consumed, even when you add in the extra hassle of guides being employed ect. It does not cost the rancher much to provide that service & in fact usually is another income stream as is lodging & meals provided to hunters to these exotics.

1.) But what about native game on these ranches? Can they not also generate just as much income as exotics?

A 1.) The answer is, sadly, no they do not. The reason they don't is that native animals like desert Bighorn sheep are game which the state of Tx. sets regulations on & sets fees for the hunting of these animals. And that fee/license is paid 100% into the state of Tx, not to the ranches that the animals live on.........so they provide NO incentive to the rancher to try to improve things for these native game animals in a meaningful way.

If these ranchers were able to see a return/profit for efforts they could make to support the Pronghorn with better habitat they'd be vastly more inclined to do so. But it is unrealistic to expect these ranchers to do such habitat work when it would in fact work against them by reducing the amount of other exotic antelopes that DO provide a meaningful income to the rancher.

This is simple economics 101 folks & is just the plain hard truth. Money talks and the growth in the population of many different types of exotics proves that. Consider 3 types that are nearly extinct in their native lands........

In 1979, Texas had less than three dozen scimitar-horned oryx, just two addax and nine dama gazelles, according to the Exotic Wildlife Association. But by 2010, the state had more than 11,000 scimitar-horned oryx, about 5,100 addax and nearly 900 dama gazelles, according to the association

However due to lawsuits by animal rights groups, the USFW is now moving to make it much harder to offer hunting to these animals under the Endangered species Act. The result of this action by USFW is the rapid reduction of those very populations by the ranchers who developed these populations as they can't afford to maintain them on the ranches when they will now offer no return to the ranches owners. Hunts are being greatly discounted to encourage as many hunters as possible to come shoot these rare animals before the protection measures went into effect.

One of the leaders of these animal rights groups has publicly stated that she'd prefer to see them go fully extinct than to continue to be hunted for profit. She claims the ranchers should be forced instead to provide these animals for return to the animals native lands......FREE of course.

If prognhorn are to prossper in much greater numbers then what is needed is to award the ranchers 50%, (or whatever the percentage needed to make them a profitable item of interest to these ranchers.) of the license sold to hunt those animals on those private ranch lands. This WILL get the ranchers co-operation in fast forward, again simple economics driven

NOT a easy sell answer, but also there is no free lunch.......
As they say, everything in Texas has a price tag on it.
Mickey Finn is offline  
Old 01-10-2015, 06:47 PM
  #6  
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mi.
Posts: 250
Default

Originally Posted by Mickey Finn
As they say, everything in Texas has a price tag on it.
True, but also pretty much true all over.
craig is offline  
Old 01-13-2015, 10:45 AM
  #7  
Nontypical Buck
 
Mickey Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,952
Default

Originally Posted by craig
True, but also pretty much true all over.
Not so sure about that. I've hunted, and fished in many other states for the price of a License. Always able to shoot what I wished. In Texas x dollars buys you x buck Y dollars... You get the idea.
Mickey Finn is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.