# Prove Lonetree wrong



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

I am a quack, that is spreading conspiracy theories on the internet, about wildlife biology, and wildlife management. This is easy to prove. Simply post all of your data, specifically pictures, of the skinny, malnourished deer from last year. I am sure some butchers can chime in and tell us how there was not a speck of tallow on those deer last year. This should be easy, I am way outnumbered on this, just cinch up the bindings that bundle you all together, and pile on with all the evidence. Take it one step further, and post your evidence, with your posts from last year. The ones where you say that a drier year would be bad, and a wetter year would be better. This way there are corroborating hypothesis, with all of the hard tangible evidence. Doing this many times, to my one, should make it very clear that I am wrong and wearing a tinfoil hat. This should be all the proof you need to demonstrate why you and your ideas, beliefs, and feelings should be the overriding factors in the management of our wildlife. I would strongly discourage anyone from posting pictures that may support my conspiracies. Lets make this as much of a slam dunk as possible, in disproving what I have proposed.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

Please explain this Iowa white tail to me LT :mrgreen:

JK. I stole this one off of Google Images


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I'm not here to prove anyone right or wrong. Just random thoughts. Could it be that the wet conditions of 2011 allowed for plant growth which benefited mule deer, then the mild winter of 2011-12 allowed the deer to come through the winter with good body condition, thus the remainder of 2012 saw deer gain even more fat, from plants which had benefited from the 2011 wet conditions...... 

I think you earlier claimed the dry conditions is what allowed for more antler mass. Interesting, but Dr Val Geist would also say that the antler growth of 2012 would most likely have benefited from the mild winter of 2011-12, with the bucks coming through the winter in better than average condition. Thus the bucks had more energy/nutrients to grow antlers. And the deer that summer did not need to replace extreme fat/nutrient loss from the prior winter, so they just added to it.

So what helped mule deer the most? The wet conditions earlier or the dry conditions later. Or was it both? Or was it neither? I feel like watching the Princess Bride with my daughter......

I do know that fawn numbers were higher than I have ever seen (yes, I keep a data sheet while hunting, but you can call it anecdotal) going into the Fall of 2011. Winter kill was below average in the winter of 2011-12 (in my area) and the hunt the Fall of 2012 was great with a high number of yearling bucks (compared to other years). I can only assume, through logic and what I see, that there were also a large number of yearling doe last Fall, which should be fawning here in the next 2 months and possibly increasing the deer herd by much more than the 12% increase we saw last year. 

Of course, that is if we have favorable conditions.....


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Packout said:


> I'm not here to prove anyone right or wrong. Just random thoughts. Could it be that the wet conditions of 2011 allowed for plant growth which benefited mule deer, then the mild winter of 2011-12 allowed the deer to come through the winter with good body condition, thus the remainder of 2012 saw deer gain even more fat, from plants which had benefited from the 2011 wet conditions......
> 
> I think you earlier claimed the dry conditions is what allowed for more antler mass. Interesting, but Dr Val Geist would also say that the antler growth of 2012 would most likely have benefited from the mild winter of 2011-12, with the bucks coming through the winter in better than average condition. Thus the bucks had more energy/nutrients to grow antlers. And the deer that summer did not need to replace extreme fat/nutrient loss from the prior winter, so they just added to it.
> 
> ...


Winter conditions are only part of it, I like the longer term thinking though. But, in a nut shell, if wetter conditions are better, and drier conditions are not, for a variety of reasons. Then last year, the bulk of the growing season from spring through fall, should have produced smaller antlers, and skinny malnourished deer, that were not equipped to go through the 2012-2013 winter. I don't know exactly what you are referring to with your Giest reference, but deer require phosphates and protein to grow antler mass, this is found in the forage from spring through summer. Nothing personal, but your assertions are not biologically sound, and are just flat wrong. You may say you are not attempting to prove, or disprove anything, but you are absolutely attempting to cast doubt. I have already laid out the very simple manner in which everyone can do more than cast doubt, they can completely disprove.

Come on guys, you know I'm wrong. I have to be, I'm an environmentalist, tinfoil hat wearing lunatic, living in a remote unibomber cabin somewhere. Since I have not a clue about what I am talking about, this should be very easy to demonstrate.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I'm wrong? Cast doubt? Can't one be partially correct without being wrong? Or does one need to be fully correct to be right? Can't one add to another without taking away?

Winter conditions are only a part of "it".... What is it? Is "It" the antler growth or the deer's health or both? Hmmmm. You stated concerning one growing season, I thought it prudent to suggest that the results we see in one Fall (your assertion fat levels of last year's Fall bucks) just might be the result of more than just one year's conditions. Not casting doubt there, unless you want to become doubtful, just pointing the same direction from a different vantage point. 

As for Geist, do you have his book on mule deer, called Mule Deer Country? It is a fascinating read, written for the lay-hunter, to help educate concerning mule deer. Well, in a nutshell, he theorizes that mule deer bucks which have energy after the winter will grow larger antlers. He says antler growth is based on a bucks physical condition and the quality of food available. That really is not difficult to understand. Though anecdotal as you may think my opinion on him may be, I'll take Dr Geist at his word.

Funny thing is, I don't think micro-buck-management will grow deer and I think that environmental conditions (mostly uncontrolled by the UDWR) are vital to understand why our mule deer are suffering. You might say it is acid rain, which may be true, but if the wet year prior to 2012 benefited mule deer then the problem may not be wet years. Where did the rain come from and where did the jet stream originate that brought the air, particulate matter, and water particles together in our rain during 2011? Was it from China, Russia, Canada? Or is all the air just the same worldwide? Hmmmmm. Wet, dry, or both? 

I can't prove you wrong, right, or where you live. You like discussions which prop your hypothesis. (We all like to be validated) I'll let you see who can prove you whatever. Oh, just spend the $15 and buy Geist's book-- that is for everyone-- it will help all understand a little more about mule deer.


----------



## gmanhunter (Dec 27, 2007)

I dont know why these posts keep being put up. It seems like everyone is wrong and you are right. Lets just all say you are right and be done with all of this. After so much of the of the back and forth of you are wrong I am right remarks, it gets rather old. Everbody has ideas of how things should be done. In the end we have a choice to hunt the state or hunt somewhere else, or not hunt at all.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Packout

The air is not the same world wide, and I appreciate your discussion on the matter. In another thread there is a link to some stuff on dust from Africa, reaching South America.

I agree with Giest, at least in the context you just presented, it has everything to do with the quality of food available. That is what "this" is about, the quality of deer feed, and what affects it. An example of anecdotal, would be to look out the window and say "the mountains are sure green this year, that will be good for deer". The range rides conducted by the DWR, essentially do just that. There is nothing wrong with observation, but if it does not correlate to something, or is not founded on some other established truth, it is just an observation.

And while we may or may not be able to control the weather, a better understanding of what is taking place, helps us do the right thing with regard to deer, which inevitably benefits us as hunters. 

I want Mule deer, and Mule deer hunters to be validated.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

gmanhunter said:


> I dont know why these posts keep being put up. It seems like everyone is wrong and you are right. Lets just all say you are right and be done with all of this. After so much of the of the back and forth of you are wrong I am right remarks, it gets rather old. Everbody has ideas of how things should be done. In the end we have a choice to hunt the state or hunt somewhere else, or not hunt at all.


Your right, why should we bother, who cares, as long as we get to hunt? Well....that is kind of the point, having animals to hunt, be able to get tags to hunt those animals. It may be tangential, but the line goes from point a to point b.

I use harsh, insulting tactics on purpose. You are suppose to recoil at what I am doing and saying. It is what you do with that information, after recoiling from it, that matters. If I wanted to sell this in a way that everyone wanted to shell out $20 for it, I could, I make this hard intentionally.

I'm guessing you don't have any pictures?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

364 views, and nothing?

Currently deer numbers are up, and the deer appear to have come through the winter(one of the coldest on record) in good shape. I will continue to contend that if it is overly wet and cold through April, and especially into May, that the deer will not do as well this year as they could. And in the fall we will see deer that do not have body condition as good as last year. If things should dry out by may, and the monsoon cycle is normal(mid August for Northern Utah) , then this should be a stellar year for the deer, and hunters alike, well...those that get tags. And the only bearing that Option WFT? will have had on any of this, is to reduce hunter numbers. And when the Option WTF? crowd start sighting any rise in deer numbers, as a sign of success because of Option WFT? All you will need to do is look anywhere else in the West, to the larger Western trend, to know otherwise.

Remember, it is not the rain, it is what is in it, when we get it, and how much we get. We'll know this fall...... 

Any betters for the other side?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> If things should dry out by may, and the monsoon cycle is normal(mid August for Northern Utah) , then this should be a stellar year for the deer, and hunters alike, well...those that get tags.


What happens, then, if we get a dry spring and then a exceptionally wetter than normal monsoon cycle (like southern Utah's last summer)?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

wyoming2utah said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A normal or, drier spring is the most important part, because this time of year is more critical for deer, and there is a lot more plant development going on. A wetter monsoon cycle could be beneficial to Southern Utah, because their water cycle monsoonal dependent, where as Northern Utah relies on snow pack for its hydraulic cycle.

Remember, it is not the rain, it is what is in it, when we get it, and how much.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

so the snow pack doesn't carry the same effect interesting. why? 

so we need to keep praying for a dry spring all for mule deer. Id rather have the moisture so I can water my lawn


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> so we need to keep praying for a dry spring all for mule deer. Id rather have the moisture so I can water my lawn


A good snowpack is essential for filling lakes and reseviours for the summer and will ensure you can keep your grass green throughout the summer months. Spring rain will have little impact in that regard. The late summer moisture will play a far more vital role in ensuring that plants avialable to mule deer and other ungulates contain the necessary nutrients that will allow them to continue building energy stores for the cold winter months.

Yellow and dying grasses and forbes in July is a bad omen for mule deer. Snow pack and early spring rains will be long gone by then and will provide no benefit during that time of year.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Dalmer I get what your saying. I agree with it. Im being a smarty to lonetree because what he is saying about rain is an act of god. Nothing we can do about it.


----------



## grizzly (Jun 3, 2012)

Lonetree, You proffered the theory... The burden of proof is on you.

You haven't met it.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

gmanhunter said:


> I dont know why these posts keep being put up. It seems like everyone is wrong and you are right. Lets just all say you are right and be done with all of this. After so much of the of the back and forth of you are wrong I am right remarks, it gets rather old. Everbody has ideas of how things should be done. In the end we have a choice to hunt the state or hunt somewhere else, or not hunt at all.


I think you were talking to lonetree or packout with your post but
I think there is a lot to be learned by these posts. I dont think anyone is totally right or totally wrong all the time. Its post like this that actually give you a glimpse of the bigger picture.

It might look like im being a dork with my posts at times with lone tree but im actually helping him prove some of his points which i also agree with.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

grizzly said:


> Lonetree, You proffered the theory... The burden of proof is on you.
> 
> You haven't met it.


  Still no pictures of skinny deer? The science on this is not mine, there are "bone fide biologistists" that have done the actual work on this, I'm just putting pieces together.

I called last years season(last spring), against the conventional wisdom, based on this theory. Now the overwhelming numbers of people that said otherwise, can't back up all their claims from last year? Really, the burden is on me? I'm calling it again this year, care to place your bet? The bucks have fawns crowd, needs to put up, or shut the **** up!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

While bucks indeed do not have fawns. They DO, in-fact, make fawns


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> While bucks indeed do not have fawns. They DO, in-fact, make fawns


Yes, they do in fact make fawns, but they actually make fewer fawns if they represent 40% of the herd rather than 20%. Additionally, they will out compete fawns for limited resources further impacting the overall health of the herd.

The theory that bucks ratios were high at the height of the mule deer boom is a myth. I have found no evidence to support that notion. That may be because that data was not collected, but annectodal data does not support that hypothesis. Most bucks killed were yearling bucks. More big bucks were killed, but that was primarily a result of much higher deer numbers.

Biological data indicates that 5-7 bucks per doe is sufficient to breed the population. I accept that it is socially necessary that numbers be managed to a higher ratio than that. However, are ratios north of 20-25:100 necessary? Worse, are they healthy? I've not seen data that supports anything of the kind. Colorado's own biologists will happily inform you that high buck:doe ratios have contributed significantly to the crash in deer numbers they have experienced following recent heavy winters.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

What is the B/D ratio in places like Yellowstone or AI where hunters are not altering it? 

My guess is 50,000 yrs of trial and error puts the B/D ratio in those places at a sustainable level.

Are there any studies that show 5 2pt buck are sufficient to breed 100 doe in a timely fashion? Because that's what is happening in some units. And also is there any studies that show those 5 buck that had to breed 100 doe in fall wintered very well. It seems to me those buck would be run ragged after chasing that many doe. 

And doe don't care who breeds them? Any male will do? Natural selection doesn't apply to mule deer?

I think its silly how we like to apply only certain biological rules to mule deer while ignoring others.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Dahlmer said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > While bucks indeed do not have fawns. They DO, in-fact, make fawns
> ...


Dalmer isn't 18-20 bucks per 100 does 20% Isn't that what they made our general deer units? Yes id vote to make the whole state 18-20% if they wanted to give the majority of the tags to archery. You could always have an archery tag and when you actually drew a rifle tag you could find a decent deer to shoot.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> What is the B/D ratio in places like Yellowstone or AI where hunters are not altering it?
> 
> My guess is 50,000 yrs of trial and error puts the B/D ratio in those places at a sustainable level.
> 
> ...


But, but, but, no, no....maybe if I cast doubt on this in some other fashion? You do not know what you are talking about.

I think its silly how we like to apply only certain biological rules to mule deer while ignoring others.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I do agree, BD ratios do not need to be north of 25:100 ...

BUT, wouldn't it be nice to see 20:100 state wide on all genral units?
And I meen literaly, See it.

I think so 8)


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> I do agree, BD ratios do not need to be north of 25:100 ...
> 
> BUT, wouldn't it be nice to see 20:100 state wide on all genral units?
> And I meen literaly, See it.
> ...


Depends, are you talking about a herd of 100,000, or 500,000?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

funny 100,000 deer. you said the herd grew what 150% of normal in another post on three units in a three year time frame? Just think if the rest of the general units keep growing that same amount. I think we could start having doe hunts again and actually see 500,000 deer.

O id love to see 20 bucks per 100 does with 500,000 deer. Heck I wouldn't mind seeing 15 bucks per 100 on 500,000. 

Lone tree as long as we keep seeing growth like you said in that other post whats the problem?


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

High buck to doe ratios=High volatility... It is a temporary fix. Once the buck to doe ratio is up to the number that you want it to be it at it can be reduced by hunter harvest.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

"Lone tree as long as we keep seeing growth like you said in that other post whats the problem?" You have to understand what is driving that growth, and what is creating declines. The growth is not the problem, it is those things that limit the growth. If you understand what is limiting the growth, like say nitrate deposition causing a shortage of selenium, then you are better equipped to manage those declines and growth restrictions, and possibly come up with solutions. Any policy that attempts management without this understanding is just arbitrary and capricious regulation that attempts to deal with something, that it is not equipped to. This is a waste of time, money, and resources. This is not good for deer or deer hunters. 

Growth is good, nothing wrong with it. What happens when the trend shifts, and numbers start to go down. Will it be because of Option WTF?, or other reasons, will we really know why? Will there be anything that can be done about it, if we don't know what the root of it is. Will it lead to more unrest and uncertainty in the hunting community?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

I propose we collect all the deer and elk bones "not antlers" that we normally throw in the trash and grind them up and dump them in the hills when there doing the helicopter deer counts. This way they can kill three birds with three stones. 

Stone one the selenium will be recycled back into the system

Stone two it will get rid of the bones collecting at the dumps

Stone three it will end this discussion about selenium causing our buck deer to eat there young.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> I propose we collect all the deer and elk bones "not antlers" that we normally throw in the trash and grind them up and dump them in the hills when there doing the helicopter deer counts. This way they can kill three birds with three stones.
> 
> Stone one the selenium will be recycled back into the system
> 
> ...


First, antler and horn are not the same thing. Second, all that bone is of no use, if it came from mineral deficient animals.

It is not selenium per se, it is nitrate deposition(acid rain), combined with wet springs, that lower the Ph of the soil(raising acidity), that sequester minerals in the soil, including selenium. This makes the nutrients unavailable to plants, ie. making them unavailable to deer. Long, and even short term nutrient deficiencies, then have the affect of reducing the over all vigor and health of the deer, causing low fawn recruitment, and making them vulnerable to predation. This leads to long term population declines. The deer being predated, are sick or declining anyway, which is why there is no population increase when predators are removed.

You are trying to argue against something you know nothing about. While I am arguing for and against things I do know, and understand. Your position is foolish, but it is good entertainment.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

http://planetdiary.com/archive12/atmo1020612.html


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Iron Bear said:


> What is the B/D ratio in places like Yellowstone or AI where hunters are not altering it?
> 
> My guess is 50,000 yrs of trial and error puts the B/D ratio in those places at a sustainable level.
> 
> ...


None of the 5/100 B/D ratio guys want to tackle this. o-||



Lonetree said:


> But, but, but, no, no....maybe if I cast doubt on this in some other fashion? You do not know what you are talking about.
> 
> I think its silly how we like to apply only certain biological rules to mule deer while ignoring others.


Is that some kind of concession that you don't know the answers to my questions? :roll:

I'm confused by your sophomoric reply. :?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> [quote="Iron Bear":h519cqcc]What is the B/D ratio in places like Yellowstone or AI where hunters are not altering it?
> 
> My guess is 50,000 yrs of trial and error puts the B/D ratio in those places at a sustainable level.
> 
> ...


None of the 5/100 B/D ratio guys want to tackle this. o-||



Lonetree said:


> But, but, but, no, no....maybe if I cast doubt on this in some other fashion? You do not know what you are talking about.
> 
> I think its silly how we like to apply only certain biological rules to mule deer while ignoring others.


Is that some kind of concession that you don't know the answers to my questions? :roll:

I'm confused by your sophomoric reply. :?[/quote:h519cqcc]

Its irrelevant conjecture, YNP mule deer numbers have followed the same long term trends that Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Nevada, California, Oregon, Washington, North Dakota, etc have followed. So hunters, or no hunters, apex predators or not, the numbers rise and fall in unison. Because it has nothing to do with having higher buck to doe ratios, and fewer hunters. Buck to doe, hunter management is all about closed system, full capacity, enhanced game farming. It has no bearing on actual, real world, large scale, deer biology. Yes, if they are too low, this may have negative consequences, raising them too high will have the same effect. Option WTF?, and its proponents, are all about low hunter numbers, and higher buck to doe ratios. This only has the effect of theoretically raising the number of bucks, with fewer hunters, hunting them. It in no way, does anything to increase actual deer populations, which should be the goal. Further more, it reduces hunting opportunity, and drives hunters, many of them young aspiring hunters, out of hunting. This in turn has a long term detrimental effect on an already declining and stagnating community. Buck to doe, hunter management is bad policy, based on made up arbitrary goals, that have no scientific basis, positive outcomes, goals, or plans to reach them. It is an incomplete, one way road.

Go ahead, keep trying to push other peoples agendas, that are detrimental to our deer and our hunting.

You did not post any pictures? Care to cast a bet on this season?


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I don't recall YNP ever being over run with deer like Utah had. 

In the 70's we used to go to Yellowstone to see elk never to see deer. Not that we didn't see them there but they where never there in numbers like back home. Elk we didn't have so it was a real treat to go check them out. Funny now I don't go to YNP to see anything because I can see more elk on Monroe then YNP. 

I'm not a betting man so you'll have to find someone else. Especially since I have no idea what you want to bet on.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> I don't recall YNP ever being over run with deer like Utah had.
> 
> In the 70's we used to go to Yellowstone to see elk never to see deer. Not that we didn't see them there but they where never there in numbers like back home. Elk we didn't have so it was a real treat to go check them out. Funny now I don't go to YNP to see anything because I can see more elk on Monroe then YNP.
> 
> I'm not a betting man so you'll have to find someone else. Especially since I have no idea what you want to bet on.


YNP, is still irrelevant to your buck to doe ratios argument. There were more deer in all of the West in the '70s and '80s, that is a scientific fact, regardless of whether you noticed it or not.

The bet is the same as the prediction I made last year. I say a dry spring/year will benefit the deer, and grow the herd, and that an overly wet spring will not help, and even hurt the deer. There was no shortage of people last year, willing to declare the contrary. No takers this year. This is Mormon betting, we're OK.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I don't have a horse in that race. Mormon betting or not.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> I don't have a horse in that race. Mormon betting or not.


If you are a hunter you do, _weather_ you know it or not.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I'm not quite sure what your asking?
If weather patterns should be concidered when deciding tag numbers each year?
If research shows that weather patterns reflect the health of deer in general, then I would support this type of management along with other factors too.
But there is still a need for hunter management in some specific areas.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> Dalmer isn't 18-20 bucks per 100 does 20% Isn't that what they made our general deer units? Yes id vote to make the whole state 18-20% if they wanted to give the majority of the tags to archery. You could always have an archery tag and when you actually drew a rifle tag you could find a decent deer to shoot.


Actually, 18-20 bucks/100 does is about 15%. A ratio of 18/100 would mean that you have 18 bucks in 118 deer (because you have 100 does)....a buck/doe ratio of 25/100 would be 20%.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

Ok goofy, stop holding back and give ole Lonetree's theory hell. I keep looking in everyday to see if you've unleashed yourself on this thread.. 

Mormon bet LOL.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Personaly, I believe we are going to see a nice rebound in deer herd numbers.

Opt2 , coyote managment , Habitat restorantion, and good ol Mother nature ALL
looking favorable for a nice increase in overall deer numbers in the near future .....

And , as deer herd numbers continue to increase , Lonetree will go away .. 8)


----------



## shortbreath54 (Apr 23, 2009)

Will he really go away or just move to the trib comment boards and start all over?


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Personaly, I believe we are going to see a nice rebound in deer herd numbers.
> 
> Opt2 , coyote managment , Habitat restorantion, and good ol Mother nature ALL
> looking favorable for a nice increase in overall deer numbers in the near future .....
> ...


So you admit the numbers are increasing? Wasn't it chicken little goofy a few weeks ago saying, " i used to see a bazillion deer and last week i only saw two. Big cuts coming fellas." I told you so this, and i told you so that. Mark my words all the deer died during the winter. So which is it?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

No true'er words have I wrote,,,, Mcfly is clue-less.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

Lonetree might go away but the science he speaks of will never go away. Sooner or later you Option 2 guys will have to deal with the science.

Goofy, that's all you got? Kind of weak if you ask me. I am used to a little more spirit in your debates.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> No true'er words have I wrote,,,, Mcfly is clue-less.


Lmao! Yep I'm the clueless one


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

jhas
Even if lonetree is correct and acid rain is the problem with our deer what are you going to do about it? What are you going to do about dust bowls, selenium deficiencies, wet springs, dry springs, ect.

Truth is there is nothing you can do about it! No amount of habitat projects will fix this problem if lonetree is correct. Why because if it is the soils ph thats the problem then the same native plants were planting right now will still have the same problem. Its my experience if you have poor soil the plants you do plant in that poor soil will be basically on life support. They will need the perfect amount of rain, right kind of fertilizer or they will die or look anemic. The real solution is to fix the soil. How the crap can you fix millions and millions of acres of mineral locked up or deficient soil? You cant without dumping trillions and trillions of tons of fertilizer or fixing the acid rain problems. 

Lonetree has spewed a bunch of problems but hasn't said what his solution to these problems are. Until he comes up with a plan to fix his problems or even says how to fix the problems nothing will change! 

If the bucks are the problem and eating all the forage and causing the rest to starve we will have the same problem with our does eating the forage from the fawns. The fawns will eat the forage from their mothers ect. It goes both ways and herd growth will always be stagnant. 

The truth to all this is option 2 appears to be working with the rest of the hunting community. Lonetree said there are 3 deer herds at or above objective and have grown 150% in three years. I wish my back account would grow 150% in 3 years.

It also looks like the bucks don't have fawns people are in the minority. Why do I say this? Because there is only about 1-10 people going to the rac's voicing there opposition to option 2. 

Jhas id like anyone like lonetree or w2u or yourself to prove me wrong and go the the rac's in numbers and go up one at a time and say bucks don't have fawns hunter management is the problem and we need to fix the environment ect. The whole rac process is political anyways. If enough of you show up they will issue millions of more tags to grow the herds. This is Utah though and the next year guys that hate the millions of tag increase will show up and it will swing the other way. I could care less about the process anymore ill just sit on the side lines and try and figure out how and where im going to hunt this year. I can guarantee you I will be hunting something somewhere. The sky is not falling hunting opportunity is all around you if you open your eyes!


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

The numbers seem to suggest that Utah's deer herds are at or near capacity. Numbers bottomed in 1993 falling just south of 250,000. Data indicates that our herds have remained relatively stable since that time, fluctuating at 300,000 +/-. The only factor showing any long-term correlation from that time period with herd population has been weather patterns. I don't know anything about selenium or nitrate levels and cannot have an intelligent conversation in that repect. However, I can clearly see that nothing we have done in the past 20 years has had any lasting impact with regard to sustained growth of deer numbers. Option 2 won't solve it either. Colorado is clear proof of that.

Simplistic answers will not solve the problem. I'm not suggesting we can control the weather or that we should even try. I am suggesting funding and research should be focused solely on habitat. Outside of human encroachment, what is different today from the 40's, 50's and 60's? What do we do to solve that? What factors led to the population explosion following the turn of the 20th century?

Keep in mind any real solutions will be long-term in nature, potentially 20+ years before significant and measurable progress is made. The facts are proven out that predator management (including hunters) produces at best only short-term and unsustainable gains. That may be generous too, many of those percieved gains may actually a result of positive weather trends.

I would be really interested in hearing what lonetree has to offer as a solution. In truth, I get tired of the cryptic questions/statements you throw out and the caustic nature you present your arguments in. However, it is a free country, far be it from me to criticize your methods. If you prefer PM I'll be happy to chat civilly there.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Umm we have 2000 more cougar then we had in the 40s 50s and 60s they can kill upwards of 100,000 or more deer per yr you know. 

ANd who know how many coyote we have.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Remove predators from a unit for 20+ yrs and then declare predation a non factor.

Rather than a one time reduction then neglect and then declaring predators a non factor when populations didn't double in one yr.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

If predation is the issue then why has the population stabalized at 300,000? Did the predators decide that was the appropriate number of deer and voluntarily cut back to ensure that their food source did not disappear?


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Has it stabilized? 

I'm no scientist and I only have the resources of a hillbilly to back up my theories. 

It could be for the same reason there were deer here before the white man showed up. The same reason there are still elk in YNP. I dont know the biological term for it but it's a balance. I'm guessing just like its harder for a human to harvest a deer today its also harder for predators. 

I believe predator/prey ratios (in terms of deer) are probably close to what they were pre settlement. Which is all fine and dandy for long term sustainability without human influences. My issue is I want to manage for 100,000 hunters not 2000 cougar and umpteen 1000 coyotes you can throw bear in there also. Hunters are predators and as such we are in direct competition with them. If we harvested over 100,000 deer per yr and predators only where killing 25,000 deer would you turn a blind eye to the hunters and want to limit predation? I'm guessing not.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

The option 2 crowd taking credit for one season of decent deer numbers. Those numbers happened because of something much larger than the option 2 supporters. If those numbers would have been bad you would have once again blamed it on guys like me. 

And if I don't agree with the option 2 crowd it must be because I do not attend the RAC meetings blah blah blah and I don't participate blah blah blah. SW I am all too familiar with this part of the dance so save your wind for the rookies out there.

What am I going to do about it? I am going to hunt big bucks and enjoy myself. Why? Because I know I am totally unqualified to manage deer herds much like most of the option 2 crowd. 

Let the biologists do their work (I think that might be Lonetree's point).


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

What is the margin of error for a statewide deer population estimate? 

Probably more than the increase shown in the latest count.

It's too soon to tell, after the bow hunt I will let you all know if the deer herd increased. :mrgreen:


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Has it stabilized?


Yes, I would say the last 20 years of data indicates that it has. Take a look at page 45.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggam ... report.pdf

I don't know what the margin of error for one year might be, but over a 20 year time frame I am pretty comfortable with the accuracy of the numbers.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

In my neck of the woods the deer herd has steadily declined over the last 20 yrs. I hope its bottomed out but every yr I think it couldn't get any worse then it seems to prove me wrong. I have no reference for a statewide figure so I cant speak to that.


----------

