S Florida Whitetail Deer Study - Prelim Mortality Report

spanglerspangler daBurgPosts: 802 Officer
For your convenience

"In some instances, we cannot definitively eliminate the possibility of scavenging, and the causes of all mortality data should be considered preliminary until all reviews are completed"



«1345

Replies

  • spanglerspangler daBurgPosts: 802 Officer
    Or out of the total 258 deer collared,
    these are the mortality percentages by category

  • Reel TealReel Teal Posts: 3,206 Captain
    Man hunters are a real problem lol better keep managing the hunter, so he doesn't decimate the deer herd.
  • 139sst139sst Posts: 251 Deckhand
    Thank goodness for I-4.   Keep those deer killing panthers down south!!
  • bowhunter4lifebowhunter4life Posts: 1,047 Officer
    I believe a lot of mortality occurs when the fawns hit the ground around Jan/feb in South Florida. Hard to believe pythons and coyotes didn’t make the list.
  • spanglerspangler daBurgPosts: 802 Officer
    There were a few other categories, but yeah, no pythons or coyotes.

    There was also 'Unknown Predation', 'Unknown', 'Disease', 'Study Related', 'Not Included', 'Collar Dropped'

    The 'Not Included' category consisted of mortality within 14 days of capture and collar.  Many of those were panthers.
  • Panhandler80Panhandler80 Posts: 7,911 Moderator
    spangler said:
    Or out of the total 258 deer collared,
    these are the mortality percentages by category

    So this ads up to a little over 40%.  Am I to assume that this 40% represents predation deaths and the other 60ish% can be attributed to disease, age, starvstins, drsught, exhaustion, etc.

    Seems like auto collision should be in the predspred category.
    "Whatcha doin' in my waters?"
  • Panhandler80Panhandler80 Posts: 7,911 Moderator
    Never mind... I get it now.

    258 collard.  145 dead, 94 on account of panther.  That's crazy.
    "Whatcha doin' in my waters?"
  • Florida BullfrogFlorida Bullfrog Posts: 1,758 Captain
    Putting aside the obvious elephant (panther?) in the room, its interesting that bobcats the number two predator. Were these all adult deer that were collared? 
  • spanglerspangler daBurgPosts: 802 Officer
    edited July 11 #10
    IIRC, All adults.  Fawns and some others, not suitable for collars, were ear tagged.

    And yeah, I was surprised vehicular wasn't on their either.  Had a column for it in my excel but no need..
  • H20dadH20dad Posts: 982 Officer
    Mountain lions from Texas killing all the Everglades white tailed deer. 

    These are mountain lions lions from Texas folks. Genetics can prove that fact. They don’t self identify as anything else. The state needs to push back on the federal government now and eliminate this endangered species horse manure. 
  • gladesmangladesman Posts: 1,076 Officer
    Why R the mortality percentages by category in posts #1 and #2 so different?
  • gladesmangladesman Posts: 1,076 Officer
    edited July 11 #13
    139sst said:
    Thank goodness for I-4.   Keep those deer killing panthers down south!!

    Take this to the bank - all state and federal agencies are doing everything in their power to bring them to your doorstep. Only a matter of time until  mismanagement by agencies deliver them to your area to wreck your hunting or motorized access traditions as they have down here. The destruction of what U love to do and cherish so dearly is slow and torturous - get ready to be tough or move as they approach. Most do not know what they have until they lose it. May want to consider taking political action against panther reintroduction in your area well before agencies begin seeking support with their lies - build up the political head of steam against it b4 they arrive or else accept losing a lot.

    OBTW Panther Recovery Implementation Team (PRIT) inclusive of FDOT is already developing highway plans (underpasses, shelves, corridors etc ) to assist panthers thru the I-4 corridor to you.

    If you want to be informed of this PRIT groups activities contact Kelso, LeeAnn <[email protected]>

    Here's an excerpt below from my Jul 6, 2018 post #236 on page 8 of the Bad Ideas Never Die in Florida thread  http://forums.floridasportsman.com/discussion/259735/bad-ideas-never-die-in-florida/p8  on FS proving what I say - also see attachment below directly from the PRIT minutes for this meeting

    Excerpt (italics by me)

    I believe bgeorge is addressing how FWC arrives at predator take in his statement (italics by me) above. Using the wiggle room words "measurable take" leaves too much room to specify a wild guess as scientific fact IMHO. An example scientific defect if true to me comes from the Panther Recovery Implementation Team (PRIT) May 5, 2018 meeting report/minutes/notes I will attach here. Maybe just scroll down about 3/4 thru the pdf to the sentence highlighted by me in yellow where these minutes report PRIT being up for substituting as a "surrogate" bear movement data for lacking panther movement data in order to locate multi million highway modifications to assist panthers moving thru I-4 corridor near Orlando and points North. The word "surrogate" by PRIT is equal to "measurable take"  by bgeorge in the excerpt above in italics. OBTW the PRIT is a multi agency (USFWS, FWC, FDOT etc.) and stakeholder and NGO(e.g. Defenders of Wildlife) team not just FWC. Just included this as an example of how science can become fake science with very few knowing.



  • binellishtrbinellishtr Posts: 8,014 Admiral
    BOHICA yall
  • spanglerspangler daBurgPosts: 802 Officer
    edited July 11 #15
    The first (little) table is,
    Mortality Category/Total Mortality
    i.e. 65% of the mortalities were caused by panthers

    The second (little) table is,
    Mortality Category/Total Collared Deer
    i.e. 37% of the deer collared (studied) were killed by panthers

    The first is the percentage of each category within the mortality only data, the second is mortality within the entire sampling (including deer that didn't die). 

    Two ways of interpreting the data.  Both demonstrating the same conclusion fairly dramatically.
  • gladesmangladesman Posts: 1,076 Officer
    Reel Teal said:
    Man hunters are a real problem lol better keep managing the hunter, so he doesn't decimate the deer herd.

    Yet FWC's deer management technical assistance/advisory group dmtag has members proposing restarting the previously failed push for a tag and report system in Florida + making currently exempt oldsters and kids pay for a participation license to hunt to get some federal $$$ as discussed at length recently here - http://forums.floridasportsman.com/discussion/259735/bad-ideas-never-die-in-florida/p1

  • scoop337scoop337 Posts: 46 Greenhorn
    With the study being conducted in FPNWR, Bear Island and North Addition Unit on BCNP wouldn't the greatest percentage of mortality from Panthers be expected? 

    Per the study, up to Mar 2018, the Panther mortality is 65% (94 of the 145). There are still 65 remaining collared deer and 48 that are unaccounted for (145+65+48=258 Total).

    Unfortunately 36% mortality in post 2 in generous as this would assume that there will be no more Panther mortalities which is unlikely to be the case. Since there are 65 remaining collars and 48 that are unaccounted for, these 113 collars cannot be included in the overall Panther mortality. 

    I am no biologist but the above data can be easily misunderstood and does not provide a foundation to make a case from other than mortality percentage of the overall study to date. What will be interesting, when to study ends, is when they provide more details of the mortality variables i.e... area of Panther kills by month, number of collared deer in the area before/after deer mortality, number of collared Panther kill to collared deer kill etc. This would provide more detail that can be graphically represented on a map with time and location,which is important, rather than a pie chart showing mortality percentages which might generate a claim of imported Texas.....oh wait.   
  • binellishtrbinellishtr Posts: 8,014 Admiral
    yup.. they some BOHICA's
  • Reel TealReel Teal Posts: 3,206 Captain
    edited July 11 #19
    scoop337 said:
    With the study being conducted in FPNWR, Bear Island and North Addition Unit on BCNP wouldn't the greatest percentage of mortality from Panthers be expected? 

    Per the study, up to Mar 2018, the Panther mortality is 65% (94 of the 145). There are still 65 remaining collared deer and 48 that are unaccounted for (145+65+48=258 Total).

    Unfortunately 36% mortality in post 2 in generous as this would assume that there will be no more Panther mortalities which is unlikely to be the case. Since there are 65 remaining collars and 48 that are unaccounted for, these 113 collars cannot be included in the overall Panther mortality. 

    I am no biologist but the above data can be easily misunderstood and does not provide a foundation to make a case from other than mortality percentage of the overall study to date. What will be interesting, when to study ends, is when they provide more details of the mortality variables i.e... area of Panther kills by month, number of collared deer in the area before/after deer mortality, number of collared Panther kill to collared deer kill etc. This would provide more detail that can be graphically represented on a map with time and location,which is important, rather than a pie chart showing mortality percentages which might generate a claim of imported Texas.....oh wait.   
    Pretty sure we get all that its not the whole state yet lol

     it is interesting to see that where there are Panthers they seem to be, well killing quite a bit. Even at face value of the amount of collard deer to confirmed desths is well, over half. I'm no statistician, but the numbers can also be used to extrapolate what might be happening in the immediate area where Panthers are living. Meanwhile there are not many Panthers left and they are eating, consevativley, 50% of the herd. That's pretty alarming when you think about it, a few hundred cats eating 50% of a study group within 3 months. Some of your competitive data will never be known.

    How are we to know how many kills a panther has each month? Well we dont, so we radio collared deer to track them and this is what they found. Hence the study. Biologists dont go around the woods each day looking for panther kills. Essentially the study sort of shows what you are asking for, but you want to compare it to the total actual real numbers of Panthers by day, zone, kill etc. Its not going to happen. Hence the study.

    do you think Panthers are going to stay in their little zone forever? Of course they are the number 1 predator there and soon the state 

    Also look over the first chart again. It's not a pie chart. 
  • scoop337scoop337 Posts: 46 Greenhorn
    You sir have proven that selective bias can lead to misunderstanding of a provided data set. Based on the study to date 64% of the 145 mortalities are Panther mortalities which is over 50% of the mortality population of 145 (not the herd) and there are monthly recorded mortalities. Making claims that differ than the information provided is pure speculation. 


  • H20dadH20dad Posts: 982 Officer
    scoop337 said:
    You sir have proven that selective bias can lead to misunderstanding of a provided data set. Based on the study to date 64% of the 145 mortalities are Panther mortalities which is over 50% of the mortality population of 145 (not the herd) and there are monthly recorded mortalities. Making claims that differ than the information provided is pure speculation. 


    Calling Florida mountain lions (cougar or puma) an endangered species is a flat out lie. 

    Statistics up for debate vs political/environmental terrorism. 

    This is chocolate is better than vanilla vs there are only two genders. 

    Data vs provable scientific fact. 

    Calling them panthers is even a lie. Panthers are a group of cats that can roar. Cougars are not a member of Panthera. 

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panthera
  • Reel TealReel Teal Posts: 3,206 Captain
    edited July 11 #22
    Well then provide the other data and compare. If you believe the data presented is not valid, causing us to speculate. Then let's compare. I think its pretty clear they are hungry animals. And that kind of impact on just 258 deer is crazy.

  • H20dadH20dad Posts: 982 Officer
    Reel Teal said:
    Well then provide the other data and compare. If you believe the data presented is not valid, causing us to speculate. Then let's compare. I think its pretty clear they are hungry animals. 
    The study is a diversionary tactic to take everybody’s focus off the problem. 

    The problem is a political designation of an animal as endangered when science easily proves it is not, which leads to one species management and the destruction of the ecosystem. 

    This study gets everybody to focus on the details of the **** study instead of the elimination of the political designation of the cat. 

    The state needs to quit wasting money on a study to show cats eat deer (we all know that) and needs to focus on a congress and administration willing to listen to the “cats aren’t a species” argument and fix the problem. 

    Paying biologists around a study  related to this just gets jobs linked to the cats and makes more people on the side of keeping the cats endangered for political reasons “more biologist jobs”
  • H20dadH20dad Posts: 982 Officer
    This study is in summary a laser pointer in front of a bunch of dumb cats or dogs which will chase it for the amusement of the holders of the laser pointer (the study originators.)
  • scoop337scoop337 Posts: 46 Greenhorn
    Reel Teal said:
    Well then provide the other data and compare. If you believe the data presented is not valid, causing us to speculate. Then let's compare. I think its pretty clear they are hungry animals. And that kind of impact on just 258 deer is crazy.

    Haha, The data is valid, making claims that differ from the data is speculation, tread lightly. Using the information provided the only take way, with regard to panthers, is that in total to date 64% of the total mortalities (145) were due to panthers. Again, you can't use 258 total deer, because 65 are still remaining and 48 are unaccounted for. 
  • Reel TealReel Teal Posts: 3,206 Captain
    edited July 11 #26
    scoop337 said:
    Reel Teal said:
    Well then provide the other data and compare. If you believe the data presented is not valid, causing us to speculate. Then let's compare. I think its pretty clear they are hungry animals. And that kind of impact on just 258 deer is crazy.

    Haha, The data is valid, making claims that differ from the data is speculation, tread lightly. Using the information provided the only take way, with regard to panthers, is that in total to date 64% of the total mortalities (145) were due to panthers. Again, you can't use 258 total deer, because 65 are still remaining and 48 are unaccounted for. 
    Then what's your point? 94 out of 258 are confirmed panther deaths over a 3 year study. 

    I think that is quite the impact in an area where Panthers are present. Especially conpared to the other groups, it really stands out. Makes me "speculate" what might happen in the future as the overall plan is to increase their range. So if Panthers establish a large population somewhere else, I'm crazy to think deer populations might decline, if they didnt have any Panthers before?
  • H20dadH20dad Posts: 982 Officer
    Reel Teal said:
    scoop337 said:
    Reel Teal said:
    Well then provide the other data and compare. If you believe the data presented is not valid, causing us to speculate. Then let's compare. I think its pretty clear they are hungry animals. And that kind of impact on just 258 deer is crazy.

    Haha, The data is valid, making claims that differ from the data is speculation, tread lightly. Using the information provided the only take way, with regard to panthers, is that in total to date 64% of the total mortalities (145) were due to panthers. Again, you can't use 258 total deer, because 65 are still remaining and 48 are unaccounted for. 
    Then what's your point? 94 out of 258 are confirmed panther deaths over a 3 year study. 

    I think that is quite the impact in an area where Panthers are present. Especially conpared to the other groups, it really stands out. Makes me "speculate" what might happen in the future as the overall plan is to increase their range. So if Panthers establish a large population somewhere else, I'm crazy to think deer populations might decline, if they didnt have any Panthers before?
    Realtors love it. Where deer on undeveloped land give land vale and make the price higher and slow development and profit. Panthers remove land value and make further development easier and profits higher. 
  • scoop337scoop337 Posts: 46 Greenhorn
    Reel Teal said:
    Then what's your point? 94 out of 258 are confirmed panther deaths over a 3 year study. 

    I think that is quite the impact in an area where Panthers are present. Especially conpared to the other groups, it really stands out. Makes me "speculate" what might happen in the future as the overall plan is to increase their range. So if Panthers establish a large population somewhere else, I'm crazy to think deer populations might decline, if they didnt have any Panthers before?
    Try again, 94 out of the 145 total deaths are confirmed panther deaths to date. Please revisit post #1. 

    Point is there are more unknowns about this study than the known mortality rates by species presented. 
  • FLherritageFLherritage Posts: 218 Deckhand

    H20dad said:
    Reel Teal said:
    scoop337 said:
    Reel Teal said:
    Well then provide the other data and compare. If you believe the data presented is not valid, causing us to speculate. Then let's compare. I think its pretty clear they are hungry animals. And that kind of impact on just 258 deer is crazy.

    Haha, The data is valid, making claims that differ from the data is speculation, tread lightly. Using the information provided the only take way, with regard to panthers, is that in total to date 64% of the total mortalities (145) were due to panthers. Again, you can't use 258 total deer, because 65 are still remaining and 48 are unaccounted for. 
    Then what's your point? 94 out of 258 are confirmed panther deaths over a 3 year study. 

    I think that is quite the impact in an area where Panthers are present. Especially conpared to the other groups, it really stands out. Makes me "speculate" what might happen in the future as the overall plan is to increase their range. So if Panthers establish a large population somewhere else, I'm crazy to think deer populations might decline, if they didnt have any Panthers before?
    Realtors love it. Where deer on undeveloped land give land vale and make the price higher and slow development and profit. Panthers remove land value and make further development easier and profits higher. 
    What?  Realtors are pro panther because they hate deer because the deer keep them from selling property?
  • Reel TealReel Teal Posts: 3,206 Captain
    Yes 94 mortalities of 145 are due panthers.

    94 out of 258 deer collared are confirmed panther deaths. How is that not true according to the data presented?
  • FLherritageFLherritage Posts: 218 Deckhand
    I'd say that realtors would rather not have panthers on a piece of property they are working with.  Panthers are used as a barrier to development not the other way around.
«1345
Sign In or Register to comment.