# Interesting Article Part 2



## Vanilla

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/57761956-219/deer-permits-hunting-biologists.html.csp

Interesting that biologists are factoring in more than carbon emissions and greenhouse gases for the increase. They must be wrong.


----------



## goofy elk

Mirror's EXACTLY what I'm seeing...;-)


----------



## RandomElk16

It even addresses the roadway issue that I was proven wrong about ;-)


----------



## Lonetree

TS30 said:


> http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/57761956-219/deer-permits-hunting-biologists.html.csp
> 
> Interesting that biologists are factoring in more than carbon emissions and greenhouse gases for the increase. They must be wrong.


You can keep changing the subject, and deflecting all you want, you still don't know what you are talking about. Notice how the more information I provide, and the clearer the picture becomes, the less you can refute it, but the more you want to talk about something else. Or scream down the street, "fire over there".

And it is not carbon emmisions, or green house gases(one is the other), that is driving mule deer health, at least not in the direct ways we have talking about. You are starting to sound like maybe you don't understand the subject matter, is that maybe the bigger problem here?


----------



## Lonetree

RandomElk16 said:


> It even addresses the roadway issue that I was proven wrong about ;-)


Really, there is data to show how deer have done better in roadless areas in the last 30 years?


----------



## RandomElk16

Lonetree said:


> Really, there is data to show how deer have done better in roadless areas in the last 30 years?


There is data saying that if there were no roads in Utah, 20,000 less deer would be killed by motor vehicles.


----------



## Lonetree

RandomElk16 said:


> There is data saying that if there were no roads in Utah, 20,000 less deer would be killed by motor vehicles.


Just like with fawn mortality, you have to weight that data. And that can be achieved, by comparing roadless areas, to high auto mortality areas, and then looking at the mule deer trends. It can not be shown that deer trend numbers are better in areas with less auto mortality. Your over simplification of the issue, might make sense to you, but you can't show how it plays into the big picture of mule deer trends. And those things that actually drive mule deer declines, and hunting. Yes cars kill deer, that is a pretty simple observation.


----------



## RandomElk16

Lonetree said:


> Just like with fawn mortality, you have to weight that data. And that can be achieved, by comparing roadless areas, to high auto mortality areas, and then looking at the mule deer trends. It can not be shown that deer trend numbers are better in areas with less auto mortality. Your over simplification of the issue, might make sense to you, but you can't show how it plays into the big picture of mule deer trends. And those things that actually drive mule deer declines, and hunting.* Yes cars kill deer, that is a pretty simple observation*.


Do I even need to say more?


----------



## Lonetree

RandomElk16 said:


> Do I even need to say more?


No, because these things are obviously beyond what you can comprehend. Simple sees, what simple does, as simple was.

Show me how the deer do better across the West, in areas that have low, or no road mortaity. Show me how the population trend line is better. If it is so simple, you can corrabortae it.


----------



## LostLouisianian

RandomElk16 said:


> Do I even need to say more?


Be careful random when debating a complete idiot. People may have trouble telling who is who. Some people know everything about everything except that they're idiots. However the rest of us clearly see that.


----------



## RandomElk16

LostLouisianian said:


> Be careful random when debating a complete idiot. People may have trouble telling who is who. Some people know everything about everything except that they're idiots. However the rest of us clearly see that.


He is a genius. I just fear the unknown!

Just a simple boy with 3 degrees. I can't comprehend.


----------



## Lonetree

Two guys, 5 degrees, and no substantiation, or corroboration of their arguements. But lots of deflecting, and subject changing. Why am I not surprised.


----------



## RandomElk16

Lonetree, in two days you have said more than anyone and really haven't said s***.

You haven't presented any documentation, you ignore issues you can't address, and you discredit work of many paid and currently active biologists. Tell ya what, you are probably one of the top 10 biologists on this thread, if there are ten. You have no data, you simply say we need to look it up and open our mind. Numbers are rising but you reject that. Habitat projects are done every year, lord knows why though because Utah doesn't study habitats. Any documents we present are ignored. And you, mr no show data, keep asking for data. Deflecting? Not at all, I presented predation studies, vehicle data, and so have others. Mule presented population data. What have you presented? You deflect, thats it. Argue, but with no side, just the other side.

I can't give data. This isn't burger king. You don't get it your way.


----------



## RandomElk16

Its to bad that the DWR doesn't hire "real biologists".


----------



## Lonetree

RandomElk16 said:


> Lonetree, in two days you have said more than anyone and really haven't said s***.
> 
> You haven't presented any documentation, you ignore issues you can't address, and you discredit work of many paid and currently active biologists. Tell ya what, you are probably one of the top 10 biologists on this thread, if there are ten. You have no data, you simply say we need to look it up and open our mind. Numbers are rising but you reject that. Habitat projects are done every year, lord knows why though because Utah doesn't study habitats. Any documents we present are ignored. And you, mr no show data, keep asking for data. Deflecting? Not at all, I presented predation studies, vehicle data, and so have others. Mule presented population data. What have you presented? You deflect, thats it. Argue, but with no side, just the other side.
> 
> I can't give data. This isn't burger king. You don't get it your way.


I never said deer numbers are not rising, I predicted the rise, with other people, 4+ years ago. You want data, I referenced it, and gave sources, if you want to refute it, that is upon you. You seem to know a lot about not providing data. You have presented some numbers, but there is no case for causation, correlation, and cooraboration. And does not take into account, the big picture of the last 30 years of mule deer, and bighorn sheep, and moose. Just simple numbers, with some observaytions, that have no reference over time. Not even simple comparisons for As for auto mortality, verses no or low auto mortality. Habitat improvemnets, I am all for them, but we need to beter understand how these can benefit deer. Just planting mule deer preffered plants, can not gorw mule deer, if they are not getting the nutrition from these plants. Nor can we grow mule deer or big horn sheep, or moose, if they are not getting wha they need to maintain their health.


----------



## Lonetree

RandomElk16 said:


> Its to bad that the DWR doesn't hire "real biologists".


Its too bad "real biologists" are not the ones driving mule deer management. That has not been the case for a long, long time.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

too bad the real biologists are not putting themselves in the position to drive mule deer management too.


----------



## Lonetree

Mr Muleskinner said:


> too bad the real biologists are not putting themselves in the position to drive mule deer management too.


It does not work that way. If you are talking about within the F&G departments in Western states, you are liable to lose your job pushing some issues. Especially those that go against the special interest lobbys that survive on willdife declines. And if you are conducting research, you are likely to lose your funding for going certain places. The special interests drive the research, and the management. I have eveidence of the coordinated supression of wildlife science, that includes emails from the heads of wildlife departments, and even Governers.

This is not the fault of most Western biologists, but I can not say that for all of them.


----------



## RandomElk16

The arizona study was not correlation. Direct findings in regards to predation and mule deer.

You have not presented anything!!!


----------



## Lonetree

I have made the case that predation is not the reason for the last 30 years of mule deer declines. I have made the same claim about automobiles. I have made the case that hunter reduction can not increase deer numbers, nor can predator control, or unit management. It has not been refuted, with any substance.

I have been making the case for three years on this forum, and elsewhere, that mule deer, bighorn sheep, moose, and other wildlife declines, are driven by envromental factors. That affect the health of these animals, dictate their populations, and reduce hunting. Guys like you have attempted to prop up the status quo, and very ineffectively attampt to pick apart what I have been saying. 

Mule deer numbers, along with other wildlife, have declined severely over the the last 30 years. This is because of external, enviromental factors, that are driving the health of the greater ecosystem. The is in turn, drives the health of mule deer, and other wildlife, therefor driving their population trends, which have been down over the last 30 years. This has a negative on hunting. You can say this is not the case all you want, it does not change the reality of it, or the science that supports this.

Enclosure studies are just that.


----------



## ridgetop

Lonetree said:


> I have made the case that predation is not the reason for the last 30 years of mule deer declines. I have made the same claim about automobiles. I have made the case that hunter reduction can not increase deer numbers, nor can predator control, or unit management. It has not been refuted, with any substance.
> 
> I have been making the case for three years on this forum, and elsewhere, that mule deer, bighorn sheep, moose, and other wildlife declines, are driven by envromental factors. That affect the health of these animals, dictate their populations, and reduce hunting. Guys like you have attempted to prop up the status quo, and very ineffectively attampt to pick apart what I have been saying.
> 
> Mule deer numbers, along with other wildlife, have declined severely over the the last 30 years. This is because of external, enviromental factors, that are driving the health of the greater ecosystem. The is in turn, drives the health of mule deer, and other wildlife, therefor driving their population trends, which have been down over the last 30 years. This has a negative on hunting. You can say this is not the case all you want, it does not change the reality of it, or the science that supports this.
> 
> Enclosure studies are just that.


You keep bringing up Bighorn sheep but I know for a fact that the newfoundland, nine mile and zion herds have done really well in the past 10-15 years, while the deer herds in those same areas were not doing all so well. 
Hunter reduction was never intended to be the biggest factor for increasing the herds but you sure want everyone to believe that.
It was try and maintain the 15:100 B/D ratio within the plan. 
We were dangerously close to having several of the struggling B/D ratio units going into a LE status right before Option 2 was passed.
Now just a couple years after Option 2, we have longer season dates and we have higher B/D ratios on those struggling units.
How can that be a bad thing.
I know it's very hard for you to deal with but the social aspect is and will always be a part of mule deer management.
I'm pretty sure before the DWR started managing mule over 100 years ago, the B/D ratios were higher than 15/100.


----------



## RandomElk16

Lonetree said:


> I have made the case that predation is not the reason for the last 30 years of mule deer declines. I have made the same claim about automobiles. I have made the case that hunter reduction can not increase deer numbers, nor can predator control, or unit management. It has not been refuted, with any substance.
> 
> I have been making the case for three years on this forum, and elsewhere, that mule deer, bighorn sheep, moose, and other wildlife declines, are driven by envromental factors. That affect the health of these animals, dictate their populations, and reduce hunting. Guys like you have attempted to prop up the status quo, and very ineffectively attampt to pick apart what I have been saying.
> 
> Mule deer numbers, along with other wildlife, have declined severely over the the last 30 years. This is because of external, enviromental factors, that are driving the health of the greater ecosystem. The is in turn, drives the health of mule deer, and other wildlife, therefor driving their population trends, which have been down over the last 30 years. This has a negative on hunting. You can say this is not the case all you want, it does not change the reality of it, or the science that supports this.
> 
> Enclosure studies are just that.


I havent said predators or cars are THE reason. To think only one thing is THE reason is stupid. You reject that anything effects deer besides nutrition level that you don't have.

Thing is, I haven't rejected the very few things you mentioned. I have spent the time explaining how dumb it is you reject all these other factors even though data shows they impact deer. There is no THE ONE reason. Prove me wrong. You have no substance to prove only one thing is impacting deer. Didn't pick apart anything you said, you have hardly said anything. You just keep hating on everything. But, make it all about you 

What is this mythical case you have made about predation, unit management, and hunter reduction? You have stated opinions and called us dumb. You habe failed to properly refute it other than deflecting about nutrition and ignoring or data.

If you took a minute to read the enclosure study, you would know it was natural habitat. Opened and closed doors and even had a fire. About as controlled as it gets.


----------



## Roadlesshunter

LoneTree, Your as bad as global worming freaks. Lets take for example the Fillmore Pahvant unit. I have hunted this unit for 28 years. The unit doesn't have enough deer left on it to even scratch the winter range. If the biologist are right and the unit is near carrying capacity I will need to find another unit. I seen very few deer last year on the hunt. 
Over the 28 years I have hunted the pahvant the only tool that worked was 3 point or better. I know the 3 Point or better crowd will start crying about all the 2 point shot and left. It better a few 2 points get shot and left than for the alternative we now have, which is 90% of the two point getting shot. The elk also have grown out of control on this unit during the same time the deer have been crashing. Elk will affect the deer populations. On the Wasatch West unit the deer are rebounding in areas were they have had the cow slaughters. Just more proof on the elk. 
In other studies especial on elk they have proven that high predator numbers force the animals to feed in the area that are less productive to stay safe. Then in the winter they appear to be skinny and weak and eventual die. This happens in areas with great vegetation all year round. 
With this unit management, I would like to see area go to 3 point or better. You put in knowing the restrictions. If you want to shoot any deer put in for the any buck units.
The pour habitat is just an un-provable excuses to not address real problems like the predators.


----------



## Elkaholic2

You can't determine an entire genus is healthy based on a few isolated or localized herds! Of any species. If you looked at Utah's general season units 4,5,6. You would think we struck mule deer gold! And all of utah has been saved! 

Antler point restrictions have been proven not to work so many times that even idaho has given up on them.....and that's a social science! 

Highway mortality is a bigger issue than predators. And wyoming and utah have extensive data showing that. If I remember, I'll try to pull the research and post it here. But, that's not why the entire species of mule deer are in decline. Sure we have seen fluctuations in populations plus and minus. But the stock market fluctuates too! There are several factors that are helping right now. are they long term? Short term? 

Why not look into elk and horses? They are doing great. What's going on in the ecological side that they are benefiting from where as all the browse animals are in decline...why not put some of that coyote money into plant studies that pull mineral content data? Is that plant really healthy? If an animal eats it. What nutritional value are they receiving from it? Maybe it's way to high in zinc. And the animals that are eating it now have mineral deficiencies! What happens to humans when they have high copper? Is it an issue? Let's find out? 

There's more to the picture than the social and political aspects of mule deer. It's time to split the conversations from deer management. To mule deer research and studying the ecological aspects of mule deer. And buck management. 

Buck management is not deer management. Buck to doe ratios, tag numbers, are buck management terms( social science) It can be manipulated short term to grow more bucks. It is not a long term solution. 

Deer management( biological and ecological science) is long term and it will change the buck hunting throughout the west if we were able to achieve objectives. 

In other words. Fix the overall deer population issue. And you fix the buck management issues. I think the spotlight needs to move around more!!!


----------



## Lonetree

ridgetop said:


> You keep bringing up Bighorn sheep but I know for a fact that the newfoundland, nine mile and zion herds have done really well in the past 10-15 years, while the deer herds in those same areas were not doing all so well.
> Hunter reduction was never intended to be the biggest factor for increasing the herds but you sure want everyone to believe that.
> It was try and maintain the 15:100 B/D ratio within the plan.
> We were dangerously close to having several of the struggling B/D ratio units going into a LE status right before Option 2 was passed.
> Now just a couple years after Option 2, we have longer season dates and we have higher B/D ratios on those struggling units.
> How can that be a bad thing.
> I know it's very hard for you to deal with but the social aspect is and will always be a part of mule deer management.
> I'm pretty sure before the DWR started managing mule over 100 years ago, the B/D ratios were higher than 15/100.


I'll hit a few of these before I have to disappear for a few days.

Bighorn sheep: What about the pilot peak herd, the deep creeks, Goslin mountain, and Provo peak? What about the Whiskey mountain herd in Wyoming, and the Thompson falls herd in Montana. What about the Hells canyon sheep. What about the fact that overall bighorn numbers have declined across the board, over the last 30 years, just like mule deer, and moose. You might be able to find some exceptions, but not very many. How come in the 50s and 60s we could grow herds from transplant stock to over 500 animals very easily. But now breaking 200 animals is almost impossible. And don't hold your breath on the New Foundlands. When you start seeing ram numbers like that, you are probably set up for a crash. I once thought otherwise myself. But with that many mature rams, but sluggish growth rates of the whole herd, you have a ewe and lamb problem, which is where it shows up in bighorns. The rams are not affected like the ewes and lambs. Because unlike big horn ewes, buck and doe mule deer, and bull and cow moose, bighorn rams do not have the same nutritional requirements that pregnant and nursing ewes, does, and cows have, nor do they have the nutritional requirements that buck deer, and bull moose have every year, because of antler growth. Much different nutritional requirements to grow and maintain sheep horns.

Hunter reduction: Am I missing something? It has been the center piece for 20 years. Yes there is a social aspect to deer management, but I prefer to call it hunter management, because it has nothing to do with growing deer. Option WTF? is not helping deer, or deer hunters. It reduces hunting, and does not grow deer. And the increases we are seeing in deer numbers are rooted in things that predate Option WTF?, that is not what is driving current increases. Also, as B-D ratios are increased, productivity of herds has been shown to decline, or at least not keep pace with other herds, that have lower B-D ratios. While simple hunter reduction, can increase B-D ratios, I think it is very interesting that you also see incidences of sterile bucks, suffering from congenital abnormalities, in areas with higher B-D ratios, with lower productivity rates. There are external health problems, that have shown to drive higher B-D ratios, and simultaneously reduce productivity. So show me that it is a good thing. When deer numbers have been at their best, we had relatively low B-D ratios. Tying the micro management of mule deer to B-D ratios, has no biological basis for furthering mule deer. It is hunter management, with game farming nomenclature, passed off as deer "management".


----------



## swbuckmaster

Funny I cant think of one cwmu that practices low buck to doe ratios to grow their deer herds. Nope they practice low buck harvest and the deer numbers on those units are always higher than surrounding public areas. The buck hunting is also better if you draw a tag.


----------



## goofy elk

Dr LT Gore ... -- DWR QUOTE

"
There are more deer in Utah than there have been since 2000 and state biologists are proposing more hunting permits as a result.
Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR) officials say surveys after the 2013 hunts estimate a population of 332,900 mule deer. The deer population hasn't been this high since 322,000 deer were estimated at the turn of the century.
DWR Big Game Coordinator Justin Shannon said mild winters have helped deer herds in recent years, but better habitat and other efforts like highway fencing, wildlife underpasses and predator control have also played a role in the rebound."

DR LT Gore, If this trend contiues for 2-3 more years, Deer herds could approach
AMAZING numbers !!!!! Hunting permits WILL INCREASE !!!!

"
Biologists set a population goal of 350,000 in the Utah Deer Management Plan and are now just 17,000 animals from achieving the tally."

^^^^^ Post 2014 counts will likely reach this goal ^^^^

"
The first two years of a study showed just more than 50 percent of fawns survived to become yearlings. The number has grown to almost 80 percent the last two years."

^^^ IMO, This is directy related to coyote removal ^^^^^^^^


----------



## LostLouisianian

Elkaholic2 said:


> You can't determine an entire genus is healthy based on a few isolated or localized herds! Of any species. If you looked at Utah's general season units 4,5,6. You would think we struck mule deer gold! And all of utah has been saved!
> 
> Antler point restrictions have been proven not to work so many times that even idaho has given up on them.....and that's a social science!
> 
> Highway mortality is a bigger issue than predators. And wyoming and utah have extensive data showing that. If I remember, I'll try to pull the research and post it here. But, that's not why the entire species of mule deer are in decline. Sure we have seen fluctuations in populations plus and minus. But the stock market fluctuates too! There are several factors that are helping right now. are they long term? Short term?
> 
> Why not look into elk and horses? They are doing great. What's going on in the ecological side that they are benefiting from where as all the browse animals are in decline...why not put some of that coyote money into plant studies that pull mineral content data? Is that plant really healthy? If an animal eats it. What nutritional value are they receiving from it? Maybe it's way to high in zinc. And the animals that are eating it now have mineral deficiencies! What happens to humans when they have high copper? Is it an issue? Let's find out?
> 
> There's more to the picture than the social and political aspects of mule deer. It's time to split the conversations from deer management. To mule deer research and studying the ecological aspects of mule deer. And buck management.
> 
> Buck management is not deer management. Buck to doe ratios, tag numbers, are buck management terms( social science) It can be manipulated short term to grow more bucks. It is not a long term solution.
> 
> Deer management( biological and ecological science) is long term and it will change the buck hunting throughout the west if we were able to achieve objectives.
> 
> In other words. Fix the overall deer population issue. And you fix the buck management issues. I think the spotlight needs to move around more!!!


According to the latest data, predators kill more big game than vehicles. It is predators, vehicles, then hunting as the 3rd leading cause of big game deaths. So hunting accounts for less than 1/3 of the deaths of big game animals in Utah.


----------



## RandomElk16

LostLouisianian said:


> According to the latest data, predators kill more big game than vehicles. It is predators, vehicles, then hunting as the 3rd leading cause of big game deaths. So hunting accounts for less than 1/3 of the deaths of big game animals in Utah.


Here comes lone tree to ask for that data, then when you show it he will be sure to let you know that their is a political agenda going on 

"Those are not limiting factors, the habitat is what is killing the mule deer. Has nothing to do with booming population, pollution, vehicles, predators, or anything of the sort! They simply do not kill deer!"


----------



## Lonetree

swbuckmaster said:


> Funny I cant think of one cwmu that practices low buck to doe ratios to grow their deer herds. Nope they practice low buck harvest and the deer numbers on those units are always higher than surrounding public areas. The buck hunting is also better if you draw a tag.


You can not demonstrate that mule deer have done better on CWMUs over the last 30 years. Their numbers have risen and fallen with the rest of mule deer numbers across the West. Yes you can always show that one area has more deer than another, especially if it has better conditions. There are plenty of public lands that out produce many of the CWMUs. You make a false argument in the big scheme of mule deer conservation, but that does not surprise, that's not what you guys are about.


----------



## swbuckmaster

LT every piece of privite property ive been on has higher deer numbers not just higher buck numbers. I seriously doubt the plants inside the property have less acid rain then outside the property. They are just managed better!


----------



## Lonetree

goofy elk said:


> Dr LT Gore ... -- DWR QUOTE
> 
> "
> There are more deer in Utah than there have been since 2000 and state biologists are proposing more hunting permits as a result.
> Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR) officials say surveys after the 2013 hunts estimate a population of 332,900 mule deer. The deer population hasn't been this high since 322,000 deer were estimated at the turn of the century.
> DWR Big Game Coordinator Justin Shannon said mild winters have helped deer herds in recent years, but better habitat and other efforts like highway fencing, wildlife underpasses and predator control have also played a role in the rebound."
> 
> DR LT Gore, If this trend contiues for 2-3 more years, Deer herds could approach
> AMAZING numbers !!!!! Hunting permits WILL INCREASE !!!!
> 
> "
> Biologists set a population goal of 350,000 in the Utah Deer Management Plan and are now just 17,000 animals from achieving the tally."
> 
> ^^^^^ Post 2014 counts will likely reach this goal ^^^^
> 
> "
> The first two years of a study showed just more than 50 percent of fawns survived to become yearlings. The number has grown to almost 80 percent the last two years."
> 
> ^^^ IMO, This is directy related to coyote removal ^^^^^^^^


1. So tags will increase back to where they were. This is like a department store rising prices, and then lowering them, and calling it a sale. Its a scam, and you bought it.

2. Yeah they set a goal of 350,000 at the beginning of an upswing. So what its an arbitrary number that they have no control over. because it is not "deer management" that is driving the numbers. So we have more deer than we did after three major population crashes, so what, that is not hard to reach, it is still not a recovery. Those statements are very out of context.

3. Goof, fawn numbers always increase at the beginning of predator control studies. If you had read any, or understood the biology, you would understand why this is not cause for instant celebration, it is expected. Nothing new or ground breaking. Have all opinions about it you want.


----------



## Lonetree

LostLouisianian said:


> According to the latest data, predators kill more big game than vehicles. It is predators, vehicles, then hunting as the 3rd leading cause of big game deaths. So hunting accounts for less than 1/3 of the deaths of big game animals in Utah.


But as a biologist, can you explain to me how these things all affect the long term trends of mule deer. Because it is that dynamic of ecological and biological influences that dictate mule deer numbers. So by all means elucidate for us the last 30 years of mule deer declines. You do understand that sharp crashes followed by sub par recoveries, can not be the result of many, many factors. Because if those factors existed before the crash, and after the crash, they are not responsible, for sharp declines, or population suppression. As a biologist you of all people can probably explain the trophic dynamic at work here, have at it, learn us.


----------



## Lonetree

swbuckmaster said:


> LT every piece of privite property ive been on has higher deer numbers not just higher buck numbers. I seriously doubt the plants inside the property have less acid rain then outside the property. They are just managed better!


So they are doing as good as they were in 1990? And you can show us the number to prove this. You are making micro unit arguments, that have no bearing on overall mule deer health and numbers in the West. You guys are stuck in the "management" box, that is not what we are talking about. Mule deer have decline across the board, regardless of CWMUs, private property, unit management, hunter management, predator control, etc.


----------



## Lonetree

RandomElk16 said:


> Here comes lone tree to ask for that data, then when you show it he will be sure to let you know that their is a political agenda going on
> 
> "Those are not limiting factors, the habitat is what is killing the mule deer. Has nothing to do with booming population, pollution, vehicles, predators, or anything of the sort! They simply do not kill deer!"


Can you show us that the nutritional value of the forage, is not the limiting factor, driving mule deer numbers via forage carrying capacity? I have cited multiple sources for the actual science on this, not articles, and not single pieces, multiple works of science. Can you show otherwise? Do you know why you guys keep looking at hunting, predators, and cars? that is because _you_ can see and touch it. That makes it real for _you, you_ guys can grasp things on that level. It is _simple_.


----------



## Lonetree

RandomElk16 said:


> I havent said predators or cars are THE reason. To think only one thing is THE reason is stupid. You reject that anything effects deer besides nutrition level that you don't have.
> 
> Thing is, I haven't rejected the very few things you mentioned. I have spent the time explaining how dumb it is you reject all these other factors even though data shows they impact deer. There is no THE ONE reason. Prove me wrong. You have no substance to prove only one thing is impacting deer. Didn't pick apart anything you said, you have hardly said anything. You just keep hating on everything. But, make it all about you
> 
> What is this mythical case you have made about predation, unit management, and hunter reduction? You have stated opinions and called us dumb. You habe failed to properly refute it other than deflecting about nutrition and ignoring or data.
> 
> If you took a minute to read the enclosure study, you would know it was natural habitat. Opened and closed doors and even had a fire. About as controlled as it gets.


It is one study, and it never addressed the nutritional or forage factors involved, even though it mentions the interconnectedness of it. It is also an old study, for desert mule deer. Contemporary studies conducted in ID, WY, and CO, have come to very different conclusions, and the Colorado study did address forage at the same time.


----------



## swbuckmaster

Lt I read an article today where
The hippies are now telling us the bison are leaving yellowstone because they sense a volcano is about to blow. The elk were so smart they left earlier.

Lt animals arent that smart the elk left because they were harnessed by wolves or were killed by wolves. Same thing happend to our deer numbers after 1080 went away. 

Lt did you know mule deer numbers were low in the early part of the century across the west. How could acid rain affect them when there weren't cars.


----------



## Lonetree

swbuckmaster said:


> Lt I read an article today where
> The hippies are now telling us the bison are leaving yellowstone because they sense a volcano is about to blow. The elk were so smart they left earlier.
> 
> Lt animals arent that smart the elk left because they were harnessed by wolves or were killed by wolves. Same thing happend to our deer numbers after 1080 went away.
> 
> Lt did you know mule deer numbers were low in the early part of the century across the west. How could acid rain affect them when there weren't cars.


1. Funny

2. Completely unfounded rhetoric, as I have come to expect from you. The last three major elk/wolf studies out of WY, MT, and ID do not support your claims, in any way shape or form. There is no correlation for 1080 use, it was used up into the '90s, through some of our biggest mule deer declines.

3. When you say the early part of century, are you speaking of pre 1930s increases, yes I knew that, they were even lower in the last part of the 1800s. Did you know that in the winter if 1825, there were even fewer deer to be had in Northern Utah, and that bison were already gone? Do you know why? :mrgreen: just kidding that's a little advanced.

Do you know what the biggest difference between the low numbers of the early 1900s and now is?


----------



## Dahlmer

Lonetree said:


> 3. When you say the early part of century, are you speaking of pre 1930s increases, yes I knew that, they were even lower in the last part of the 1800s. Did you know that in the winter if 1825, there were even fewer deer to be had in Northern Utah, and that bison were already gone? Do you know why? :mrgreen: just kidding that's a little advanced.
> 
> Do you know what the biggest difference between the low numbers of the early 1900s and now is?


I have seen these numbers, but have not yet researched the reasons for populations being so low during the 1800's and early 1900's. I understand the cause for large bison declines came as a result of the large and unregulated slaughter of herds. Given, mule deer don't generally congregate in large herds it would seem more difficult to wipe them out. I guess you could find them congregated on winter grounds though.


----------



## swbuckmaster

Lt let me guess it was valcanos spewing acid rain?


----------



## Lonetree

Dahlmer said:


> I have seen these numbers, but have not yet researched the reasons for populations being so low during the 1800's and early 1900's. I understand the cause for large bison declines came as a result of the large and unregulated slaughter of herds. Given, mule deer don't generally congregate in large herds it would seem more difficult to wipe them out. I guess you could find them congregated on winter grounds though.


The Bison slaughters occurred from the 1840s-1860s. But here in Utah the bison were already gone before this. Bison were the most abundant animal on earth at one time. If you look at larger ecological dynamics, you had the near extinction of one of the most abundant animals on earth, coupled with a fur trade that did almost the same thing with beavers. The almost complete removal of these two species, that have a very pronounced affect on their surrounding environments, would most certainly have larger affects on the greater ecosystem, and the other wildlife that inhabited it. American trappers in the 1840s lamented that the West was losing all of its wildlife, and that the lifestyle of the trapper could not be sustained. It has been shown, that some of this can be brought back, in some cases to higher than historical levels. But the last 30 years of wildlife declines in the West, rank up there with events and declines of the last 200 years. Things have been bad for so long, some people think it is normal, they have lost site of the bigger context. Especially how that context affects the culture, heritage, practice, and future of hunting.


----------



## Lonetree

swbuckmaster said:


> Lt let me guess it was valcanos spewing acid rain?


They do create a lot of acid rain, but from a wildlife point of view you are probably overlooking the greater problems of skeletal fluorosis from volcanic emissions. Never mind, what am I saying, you are overlooking everything, because all of this is way over your head. And guys like you would rather stay ignorant, and ideologically isolated, rather than see advancements in wildlife or hunting. As evidenced by these kinds of reply's about things you can not comprehend, and so therefor try to dismiss.


----------



## RandomElk16

Lt, you seriously need an evaluation. You are so lost in your own head. You have stated multiple sources? Obviously you failed to cite any of these so it just sounds like you are highly opinionated on the matter. You keep saying "I have shown." You have not. I have asked multiple times for a recap, of sources, not just what you are saying. 

You also make heavy assumptions about us. I believe forage is an issue. I also think that it is ignorant to believe that one single thing limits deer numbers. 

I am lost on these threads but now you are stating you predicted increased numbers. You are all over the place with your "points" yet keep saying that we are. I have accepted forage and habitat multiple times, and have told you that, multiple times. I reject to believe that it is the only factor and further have been going back and forth because you have yet to disprove anything we have said. Even now, you reject the ONGOING Arizona study because it is old? Before that it was because it was an enclosure? Then you mention studies that you don't cite. 

It is ridiculous talking to you. I appreciate it only because it has allowed many forum members to engage in a discussion. At this time I must bow out because you are presenting, well, nothing. You act like you have stated all this data and studies on forage. The only one I remember you saying anything about is a hyjacked backyard study that you yourself admitted to learning very little from. You continuously reject the fact that Utah has and does look at habitat and habitat conditions. You presented an idea, in a negative manner. That is all. Haven't disproved anything.


I hope that one day you do discover something to benefit mule deer, I really do. That hasn't happened though, so for now I will stick with the many, many practicing Utah biologists and continue to follow real studies.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

This forum is about the only place I have seen so many people openly criticized for overlooking something that has been overlooked. The people that are criticizing for the overlooking define that which has been overlooked as "something else" but it is certainly not "this" or "that".

Take off your blinders people it is right there............ Look.

No not there.....over there............idiots


----------



## Lonetree

RandomElk16 said:


> Lt, you seriously need an evaluation. You are so lost in your own head. You have stated multiple sources? Obviously you failed to cite any of these so it just sounds like you are highly opinionated on the matter. You keep saying "I have shown." You have not. I have asked multiple times for a recap, of sources, not just what you are saying.
> 
> You also make heavy assumptions about us. I believe forage is an issue. I also think that it is ignorant to believe that one single thing limits deer numbers.
> 
> I am lost on these threads but now you are stating you predicted increased numbers. You are all over the place with your "points" yet keep saying that we are. I have accepted forage and habitat multiple times, and have told you that, multiple times. I reject to believe that it is the only factor and further have been going back and forth because you have yet to disprove anything we have said. Even now, you reject the ONGOING Arizona study because it is old? Before that it was because it was an enclosure? Then you mention studies that you don't cite.
> 
> It is ridiculous talking to you. I appreciate it only because it has allowed many forum members to engage in a discussion. At this time I must bow out because you are presenting, well, nothing. You act like you have stated all this data and studies on forage. The only one I remember you saying anything about is a hyjacked backyard study that you yourself admitted to learning very little from. You continuously reject the fact that Utah has and does look at habitat and habitat conditions. You presented an idea, in a negative manner. That is all. Haven't disproved anything.
> 
> I hope that one day you do discover something to benefit mule deer, I really do. That hasn't happened though, so for now I will stick with the many, many practicing Utah biologists and continue to follow real studies.


There are plenty of people that can support my claim of predicted mule deer increases. And my predictions were weighted, and based on certain conditions driving them. Not just the observation that it was occurring.

In recent conversations I pointed you to work conducted in Utah by Chris Petersen, go look it up. I pointed you to work done in Colorado by Chad Bishop, go look it up. I have pointed to studies in South Eastern ID that support the Colorado study, and studies conducted in WY, that support the before mentioned studies, go look it up. I have cited work on Bighorn sheep conducted in WY by John Mionczynski, go look it up. I have referenced moose studies from the upper Midwest, go look it up. There is corroborating data from UTAH posted by others here, go look it up. I can point you to 20 plus year enclosure studies in WA, that counter the one single study you posted. That is the best you have done is the AZ study, and we have already explained that it is just a small piece of information, in a much bigger, much more comprehensive understanding of the matter. But it seems to be all you have.

You are bowing out, because like everyone else propping up more of the last 20 years as an answer, you can not support it. The "backyard" study you remember was only initiated last fall, there is no data because it has barely begun. My prior experimental efforts have burned, that is just my stuff. There are several other, more qualified people working on some of these things. You can dismiss me on some level, but the science of many as a whole, you can not refute.

Yes, Utah does look at habitat, and habitat "conditions", but can you show me the numbers on nutritional quality, and how that plays out with mule deer. Define "habitat condition" I have explained some of the work conducted on this, and how it relates to specific nutrition, and cited the researchers that conducted the work. You are the one providing nothing but conjecture, feelings, and beliefs on the matter. Oh , and ONE single study from AZ, that you do not understand. You have not come close to knocking even a dent in anything I have said. The simple fact here is that you don't know much about mule deer, or the last 30 years of Western wildlife declines, or how it relates to the fate of hunting.

You can stick to the status quo, it can promise one thing, predictable results. If you want to know what the next 20 years will look like, just look at the last 20 years.


----------



## Lonetree

Mr Muleskinner said:


> This forum is about the only place I have seen so many people openly criticized for overlooking something that has been overlooked. The people that are criticizing for the overlooking define that which has been overlooked as "something else" but it is certainly not "this" or "that".
> 
> Take off your blinders people it is right there............ Look.
> 
> No not there.....over there............idiots


That goes for you too. If you are not grasping it, that is on your end. Show me otherwise.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

I am certain of that. I am just trying to get my arms around the "fact" that nutrition is the only limiting factor.


----------



## Lonetree

Mr Muleskinner said:


> I am certain of that. I am just trying to get my arms around the "fact" that nutrition is the only limiting factor.


It is the one factor, where several things intersect, and becomes the defining driver. There are lots of things that come into play, but it is at this intersection that we can see the cumulative affects play out.


----------



## ridgetop

Lonetree said:


> Hunter reduction: Am I missing something? It has been the center piece for 20 years. Yes there is a social aspect to deer management, but I prefer to call it hunter management, because it has nothing to do with growing deer. Option WTF? is not helping deer, or deer hunters. It reduces hunting, and does not grow deer. And the increases we are seeing in deer numbers are rooted in things that predate Option WTF?, that is not what is driving current increases. Also, as B-D ratios are increased, productivity of herds has been shown to decline, or at least not keep pace with other herds, that have lower B-D ratios. While simple hunter reduction, can increase B-D ratios, I think it is very interesting that you also see incidences of sterile bucks, suffering from congenital abnormalities, in areas with higher B-D ratios, with lower productivity rates. There are external health problems, that have shown to drive higher B-D ratios, and simultaneously reduce productivity. So show me that it is a good thing. When deer numbers have been at their best, we had relatively low B-D ratios. Tying the micro management of mule deer to B-D ratios, has no biological basis for furthering mule deer. It is hunter management, with game farming nomenclature, passed off as deer "management".


You really have lost all sense of what's going on around you. 
It's really too bad. You could offer so much to the real cause.

Also, what does WTF stand for. 
can you please spell it out?


----------



## Lonetree

ridgetop said:


> You really have lost all sense of what's going on around you.
> It's really too bad. You could offer so much to the real cause.
> 
> Also, what does WTF stand for.
> can you please spell it out?


I can see what is going on around me quite well. I presume you think the real "cause" is the status quo, right? News flash, that is not a cause, or a solution, it is part of the problem. Your position of I have lost all sense, but I could offer so much, makes about as much sense as everything else you come up with. It is contradictory.

What do you have to contribute? to the "cause"? The cheering section for more of the same, is pretty full. Do you have anything besides those cheers to offer? Do you even understand what has occurred over the last 30 years?

Coming at me does not support your position, or refute mine, it is just the only argument you can muster.

WTF? :mrgreen:


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Lonetree said:


> No, because these things are obviously beyond what you can comprehend. Simple sees, what simple does, as simple was.
> 
> Show me how the deer do better across the West, in areas that have low, or no road mortaity. Show me how the population trend line is better. If it is so simple, you can corrabortae it.


LONETREE IF YOU HAD MADE A GROUND BREAKING DISCOVERY WE WOULD HAVE HEARD OF YOU. There is more to deer management than one simple solution that just magically fixes everything. Even if your idea is the fix-all, it is the least plausible to do anything about. Our world is more and more polluted every day, we are working towards cleaning up our society but the world isn't going to be pure. We have to many things in this world now. The only thing we can do is fix what is plausible, and whether you like it or not is shown to work. Habitat improvement, reduce highway mortality, protect wildlife habitat areas, and even predator control in some instances. Oh ya and the biggest factor of all you discredit pray for perfect weather to create the perfect storm.


----------



## ridgetop

Lonetree said:


> I can see what is going on around me quite well. I presume you think the real "cause" is the status quo, right? News flash, that is not a cause, or a solution, it is part of the problem. Your position of I have lost all sense, but I could offer so much, makes about as much sense as everything else you come up with. It is contradictory.
> 
> What do you have to contribute? to the "cause"? The cheering section for more of the same, is pretty full. Do you have anything besides those cheers to offer? Do you even understand what has occurred over the last 30 years? *Yes, I understand that the hunter management for the struggling units has not worked. So they changed things up a little with the new 30 sub-units. Which has started to work and will continue to work concerning the 15/100 B/D ratio. *
> *I said before that option 2 was nothing more than to help balance the bucks being killed within the state but your the one that keeps bringing up the fact that it won't grow more deer. *
> *Most people realize that.*
> 
> Coming at me does not support your position, or refute mine, it is just the only argument you can muster. *Oh but calling a bunch of people 6th grade retards is all you can muster.*
> 
> WTF? :mrgreen:


You seem to have a hard time answering many questions people have too.


----------



## Lonetree

#1DEER 1-I said:


> LONETREE IF YOU HAD MADE A GROUND BREAKING DISCOVERY WE WOULD HAVE HEARD OF YOU. There is more to deer management than one simple solution that just magically fixes everything. Even if your idea is the fix-all, it is the least plausible to do anything about. Our world is more and more polluted every day, we are working towards cleaning up our society but the world isn't going to be pure. We have to many things in this world now. The only thing we can do is fix what is plausible, and whether you like it or not is shown to work. Habitat improvement, reduce highway mortality, protect wildlife habitat areas, and even predator control in some instances. Oh ya and the biggest factor of all you discredit pray for perfect weather to create the perfect storm.


And if you could actually refute what I am saying you would, rather than going the route, of "there is nothing we can do". Don't you think habitat improvements would work better, if we took these things into account, and helped counter the affects of pollution on these habitat improvements? So deer got the maximum amount of nutritional benefit that they can.

I have not come up with any of this, but you have not heard of any the multiple other people that have.

LostLA, why don't you learn us some on this, seeing as how you have a degree in wildlife biology, it should be put to better use that liking one eyes posts. I'm guessing you two have about the same level of understanding on the last 30 years of Western wildlife.


----------



## Lonetree

ridgetop said:


> You seem to have a hard time answering many questions people have too.


If the shoe fits.......

I'm glad that you understand that your approach to mule deer management does not grow deer, or hunting.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

and your approach right now is successful how Lonetree?

at least when a person pisses up a wet rope the rope gets wet.


----------



## Lonetree

Mr Muleskinner said:


> and your approach right now is successful how Lonetree?


:mrgreen: On what level?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

On about any level. Unless you have a story of success that you would like to share with all of us imbeciles.


----------



## Lonetree

Mr Muleskinner said:


> On about any level. Unless you have a story of success that you would like to share with all of us imbeciles.


:mrgreen: I love the fact, that you still can't get past me. Not what I present, but me. That is built into what I do, for that very reason.


----------



## ridgetop

Lonetree said:


> If the shoe fits.......
> 
> I'm glad that you understand that your approach to mule deer management does not grow deer, or hunting.


Your math must be your weekness. 
Since the Option 2 change, we have nearly doubled the available days to hunt deer with a rifle.
How is that lost oppertunity?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Lonetree said:


> :mrgreen: I love the fact, that you still can't get past me. Not what I present, but me. That is built into what I do, for that very reason.


I love how you take things out of context every chance.

Now how about sharing a success story with regards to the implementation of your studies on wildlife management? It's not about you. There are plenty of Lonetrees in this world. More of them then there are deer.


----------



## Lonetree

ridgetop said:


> Your math must be your weekness.
> Since the Option 2 change, we have nearly doubled the available days to hunt deer with a rifle.
> How is that lost oppertunity?


Ask the guys that got cut out of tag.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Lonetree are you kidding me? This fairy tale you've engraved into your head you also have NO **** PROOF IT HAS ANYVRELEVANCE. Show me statistical data that a study has shown pollution decreased and nutrients increased. Then prove with statistical data that deer numbers were as durastically effected. I want proof that MULE DEER population numbers exploded in an area where your BS idea proved true. But let's be honest you'll just find an excuse to twist your way back into your close minded corner. Kinda like you did with Mr Muleskinner, you gave no proof just threw more BS into the make up. There is no one reason why mule deer have been on the decline, if it was that simple we would have figured it out and fixed it . Despite what you may think I am probably younger than you think and more educated than many of you would guess.


----------



## ridgetop

Lonetree said:


> Ask the guys that got cut out of tag.


The deer tags have been increasing the last couple years. 
Keep trying.
Soooo, did poor little Lonetree not get his way and not get a tag for his honey hole one year?
Is that what all this is really about?-O,-


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

And lonetree I'm not saying you're completely wrong, I'm saying you're not the only one who's right.


----------



## Lonetree

Mr Muleskinner said:


> I love how you take things out of context every chance.
> 
> Now how about sharing a success story with regards to the implementation of your studies on wildlife management? It's not about you. There are plenty of Lonetrees in this world. More of them then there are deer.


Seriously? Am I limited to mule deer "management"? If not, several years ago I developed novel technology, for portable bear deterrents, to protect backpackers food from bears. I was able to work this into other areas of nuisance bears, such as tents and coolers. I was hired by Yellowstone National park to provide them this technology, which was successfully implemented to break habituated bears that targeted specific items, such as tents. The development of this included several years of field trials conducted by biologists in Canada, and ID. We skipped all preliminary phases of black bear testing and went straight for Grizzly bear testing. Our captive Grizzly testing passed two grizzly bears, right out of the box. This kind of success had been not seen up until then, and has yet to be repeated.

I'm only three years into mule deer, outside of hunting them my whole life.

I have been in contact with wildlife biologists, and researchers for years, all over the West. And many of them called me first.


----------



## Lonetree

#1DEER 1-I said:


> And lonetree I'm not saying you're completely wrong, I'm saying you're not the only one who's right.


Nice back down.


----------



## Lonetree

ridgetop said:


> The deer tags have been increasing the last couple years.
> Keep trying.
> Soooo, did poor little Lonetree not get his way and not get a tag for his honey hole one year?
> Is that what all this is really about?-O,-


No, deer tags took a big cut with the implementation of Option WTF? They have gone up in some areas, while being cut in others. It has been an overall loss of tags, from day one.

I, so far, have not lost a deer tag. But I hunt a very public unit, that is not easy, and has fairly low numbers of deer. Not about me, but rather the future of hunting as a whole.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Lonetree said:


> Seriously? Am I limited to mule deer "management"? If not, several years ago I developed novel technology, for portable bear deterrents, to protect backpackers food from bears. I was able to work this into other areas of nuisance bears, such as tents and coolers. I was hired by Yellowstone National park to provide them this technology, which was successfully implemented to break habituated bears that targeted specific items, such as tents. The development of this included several years of field trials conducted by biologists in Canada, and ID. We skipped all preliminary phases of black bear testing and went straight for Grizzly bear testing. Our captive Grizzly testing passed two grizzly bears, right out of the box. This kind of success had been not seen up until then, and has yet to be repeated.
> 
> I'm only three years into mule deer, outside of hunting them my whole life.
> 
> I have been in contact with wildlife biologists, and researchers for years, all over the West. And many of them called me first.


Oh Lonetree what a world you live in. Doesn't look like those biologists have taken the highest point of interest in your ideas.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Lonetree said:


> Nice back down.


You know that's not like me.


----------



## Lonetree

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Oh Lonetree what a world you live in. Doesn't look like those biologists have taken the highest point of interest in your ideas.


??????....huh.......Go check the blinker fluid in your truck. Remember to taste test it.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Lonetree said:


> Seriously? Am I limited to mule deer "management"? If not, several years ago I developed novel technology, for portable bear deterrents, to protect backpackers food from bears. I was able to work this into other areas of nuisance bears, such as tents and coolers. I was hired by Yellowstone National park to provide them this technology, which was successfully implemented to break habituated bears that targeted specific items, such as tents. The development of this included several years of field trials conducted by biologists in Canada, and ID. We skipped all preliminary phases of black bear testing and went straight for Grizzly bear testing. Our captive Grizzly testing passed two grizzly bears, right out of the box. This kind of success had been not seen up until then, and has yet to be repeated.
> 
> I'm only three years into mule deer, outside of hunting them my whole life.
> 
> I have been in contact with wildlife biologists, and researchers for years, all over the West. And many of them called me first.


Yea I was talking about wildlife management and increasing populations or bettering the herd. Good on ya with the bear deterrent though.

Having somebody call you though............doesn't really get butter on the bread does it? Tons of people call me first. It doesn't mean that I have an answer though and right now neither do you.

The people that have worked at it and "failed" for the past 30 years and beyond gain a bit more credit than those that can only point to failures in 3. In a nutshell, with regards to deer, pointing at failures appears to be your greatest accomplishment to date.......well that and drawing conclusions from the work of others.


----------



## Elkaholic2

Mule Deer Research in Utah, April 2011 - SlideShare
www.slideshare.net/UtahDWR/mule-deer-research-in-utah-april-2011
Apr 12, 2011 - Mule Deer Research in Utah Mule Deer Plan Population Objective Strategies ... We initiated a study through USU to estimate highway mortality ...


----------



## Lonetree

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Yea I was talking about wildlife management and increasing populations or bettering the herd. Good on ya with the bear deterrent though.
> 
> Having somebody call you though............doesn't really get butter on the bread does it? Tons of people call me first. It doesn't mean that I have an answer though and right now neither do you.
> 
> The people that have worked at it and "failed" for the past 30 years and beyond gain a bit more credit than those that can only point to failures in 3. In a nutshell, regards to deer, pointing at failures appears to be your greatest accomplishment to date.......well that and drawing conclusions from the work of others.


And your solution is........? And you have done what?, besides point out my supposed failures? Seems like you know a lot about how that goes. You know how this works. Be dismissive all you want, you are still just supportive of status quo failure, over forward progress, driven by your feelings about me. Like I told you before, Ohan, hiya wacon!?


----------



## Elkaholic2

[PDF]Highway mitigation fencing reduces wildlife-vehicle ... - ResearchGate
www.researchgate.net/...of_highway.../72e7e5278f93405c1b.pdf
by AP Clevenger - ‎Cited by 222 - ‎Related articles
some species, such as white-tailed deer. (Odocoileus virginianus) ... studies have reported on technical aspects of miti- gation fencing (Jones and ... Abstract Road mortality can significantly impact some wildlife populations. However, few stud-.


----------



## Lonetree

Elkaholic2 said:


> Mule Deer Research in Utah, April 2011 - SlideShare
> www.slideshare.net/UtahDWR/mule-deer-research-in-utah-april-2011
> Apr 12, 2011 - Mule Deer Research in Utah Mule Deer Plan Population Objective Strategies ... We initiated a study through USU to estimate highway mortality ...


"5. Is habitat limiting? Utah Range Trend Studies have documented a steady decline in the quality of mule deer habitat We currently have no research looking at how habitat quality and quantity limits population growth Recent studies in Colorado and Idaho have shown that habitat quality and quantity is the main factor limiting population growth"


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Lonetree said:


> And your solution is........? And you have done what?, besides point out my supposed failures? Seems like you know a lot about how that goes. You know how this works. Be dismissive all you want, you are still just supportive of status quo failure, over forward progress, driven by your feelings about me. Like I told you before, Ohan, hiya wacon!?


I never claimed to have one. I think it is a combination of many things. I figured that would have sunk in by now. For a self educated man your retention abilities are not all that great. I imagine life has been a bit of struggle at the school of hard knocks for you. Keep your nose to the grindstone though. That light bulb will sustain light before you know it.


----------



## Elkaholic2

[PDF]Deer-predator elationships: a review North American studies with ...
www.researchgate.net/...Deer-predator...studies...mule...deer/.../9c960528b...
by WB Ballard - ‎2001 - ‎Cited by 135 - ‎Related articles
We reviewed 17 published studies concerning mule deer. We found only 4 pub- ..... mountain lion predation on mule deer populations, but only one of these ...


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Lonetree said:


> "5. Is habitat limiting? Utah Range Trend Studies have documented a steady decline in the quality of mule deer habitat We currently have no research looking at how habitat quality and quantity limits population growth Recent studies in Colorado and Idaho have shown that habitat quality and quantity is the main factor limiting population growth"


Encroachment of cheat grass and notxious weeds have been a big part of the range trend decline.


----------



## Elkaholic2

Mountain Lions vs. Deer - USDA Forest Service
www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/Popular/mtnlions.html
o predators cannot control a healthy deer population, and ... apparently mountain lion numbers have increased while deer numbers declined to about ... Neal, along with George Steger (also with PSW), studied the California mule deer in the ...


----------



## Elkaholic2

[PDF]A review of the population dynamics of mule deer and black-tailed ...
www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/.../ForresterWittmer2013-MammalReview.pdf
by TD FORRESTER - ‎Cited by 3 - ‎Related articles
We reviewed 48 studies on Odocoileus hemionus survival and predation from the past 30 years ...... showed that both coyote and mountain lion predation was.


----------



## Lonetree

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Encroachment of cheat grass and notxious weeds have been a big part of the range trend decline.


Same problem I'm talking about.


----------



## Lonetree

Elkaholic2 said:


> [PDF]A review of the population dynamics of mule deer and black-tailed ...
> www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/.../ForresterWittmer2013-MammalReview.pdf
> by TD FORRESTER - ‎Cited by 3 - ‎Related articles
> We reviewed 48 studies on Odocoileus hemionus survival and predation from the past 30 years ...... showed that both coyote and mountain lion predation was.


The link does not work.


----------



## Lonetree

Elkaholic2 said:


> Mountain Lions vs. Deer - USDA Forest Service
> www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/Popular/mtnlions.html
> o predators cannot control a healthy deer population, and ... apparently mountain lion numbers have increased while deer numbers declined to about ... Neal, along with George Steger (also with PSW), studied the California mule deer in the ...


From the study: "The bottom line is that in the study area, mountain lions appear to be controlling an already depressed deer herd, and they are apparently not benefiting the population by taking only the weak and old. The density of the lion population is not limited by the need for exclusive territories, and reproduction is continuing within this high-density population."

But there is no follow up, or mention of reduced predation, increasing deer numbers. Nor does it look at deer health, it assumes they are healthy.

In Northern California in the same time frame, a large study was conducted that showed that micro nutrients could increase black tailed deer numbers. The Black tailed numbers were also depressed, with high predation.


----------



## Elkaholic2

For the ones that don't come up. Just search for them. Just a few interesting reads.


----------



## Lonetree

Elkaholic2 said:


> [PDF]A review of the population dynamics of mule deer and black-tailed ...
> www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/.../ForresterWittmer2013-MammalReview.pdf
> by TD FORRESTER - ‎Cited by 3 - ‎Related articles
> We reviewed 48 studies on Odocoileus hemionus survival and predation from the past 30 years ...... showed that both coyote and mountain lion predation was.


From the referenced paper:

"Some modelling suggests that predation may
exacerbate population declines caused by unfavourable
weather (Laundré et al. 2006). In this case nutrition and
weather were the ultimate causes of mortality, and managers
should be cautious when assessing populations, because
finding additive mortality in a declining deer population is
not proof that predation is driving the decline. Weather
is likely to interact with predation through behavioural
mechanisms. Ungulates in poor body condition take greater
risks to forage (Sinclair & Arcese 1995) and prey selection of
many predators can be influenced by prey body condition
(e.g. Sinclair & Arcese 1995, Krumm et al. 2010) although
results depend on predator species (Hornocker 1970,
McLellan et al. 2012). *Other mechanisms may also be operating,*
*since nutritional supplementation lowered predation*​*mortality even though predators were not selecting nutritionally*
*stressed adults in control populations* (Bishop et al.​2009)."

This is another example of how nutrition drives other factors.


----------



## berrysblaster

Would I dare even suggest that it might just be flawed models that fail to take into account unique circumstances that come along? Perhaps the models are flawed by a few percent here an there, maybe a few percent low on vehicle mortality, and a few percent high on harvest. 

All of the sudden 1-2% here and there adds up...I hesitate to buy the pollution thing cause whitetail, and elk seem to be immune to green house gases. But I don't have a degree, am definitely undereducated, and am a rightwing nut job so I cannot be taken as credible!


----------



## Vanilla

My one and only assertion in any of this cluster of a mess has been that Dr Lonetree Gore has no more answers in how to actually grow the deer herds than anyone he has criticized. Show me where I'm wrong, Doctor. 

No, I'm not talking about continually regurgitating crap in circular motion. I'm talking where the rubber hits the road, how is it done? You haven't answered that in what is now probably close to 100 jumbled mess replies. 

Show me otherwise. But you won't, because you can't. Why? Because you don't know either. But at least you know that we all know that's true, and that makes you full of crap. Show me otherwise. You won't, because it's over your head. And that's your problem, not mine.


----------



## Lonetree

TS30 said:


> My one and only assertion in any of this cluster of a mess has been that Dr Lonetree Gore has no more answers in how to actually grow the deer herds than anyone he has criticized. Show me where I'm wrong, Doctor.
> 
> No, I'm not talking about continually regurgitating crap in circular motion. I'm talking where the rubber hits the road, how is it done? You haven't answered that in what is now probably close to 100 jumbled mess replies.
> 
> Show me otherwise. But you won't, because you can't. Why? Because you don't know either. But at least you know that we all know that's true, and that makes you full of crap. Show me otherwise. You won't, because it's over your head. And that's your problem, not mine.


Habitat enhancement that takes into account actual nutritional content. A paper was posted here on this forum, that says Utah is not doing this, even though studies in ID and CO, have demonstrated that Forage is the limiting the factor of mule deer. Nutrition, Nutrition, nutrition. I have to repeat it over and over again, in 20 different ways, because the audience is thick.


----------



## Lonetree

berrysblaster said:


> Would I dare even suggest that it might just be flawed models that fail to take into account unique circumstances that come along? Perhaps the models are flawed by a few percent here an there, maybe a few percent low on vehicle mortality, and a few percent high on harvest.
> 
> All of the sudden 1-2% here and there adds up...I hesitate to buy the pollution thing cause whitetail, and elk seem to be immune to green house gases. But I don't have a degree, am definitely undereducated, and am a rightwing nut job so I cannot be taken as credible!


White tails do well where moose are declining and suffering from mineral deficiencies. Elk and white tail nutrition is a whole different thing from mule deer, bighorn sheep, and moose. Secondly we are not talking about green house gasses driving deer declines, at least not in a direct manner, unless you are referring to P&J encroachment. The pollution/nutrition nexus is proven peer reviewed science. It does not matter if you do or don't buy it.

I don't have a high school diploma, I don't use that as an excuse.


----------



## Lonetree

berrysblaster said:


> Would I dare even suggest that it might just be flawed models that fail to take into account unique circumstances that come along? Perhaps the models are flawed by a few percent here an there, maybe a few percent low on vehicle mortality, and a few percent high on harvest.
> 
> All of the sudden 1-2% here and there adds up...I hesitate to buy the pollution thing cause whitetail, and elk seem to be immune to green house gases. But I don't have a degree, am definitely undereducated, and am a rightwing nut job so I cannot be taken as credible!


Pollution and nutrition: 
http://www.windriverhistory.org/tlr/sheepstudy/tlr_sheepmain.htm


----------



## berrysblaster

Lonetree said:


> White tails do well where moose are declining and suffering from mineral deficiencies. Elk and white tail nutrition is a whole different thing from mule deer, bighorn sheep, and moose. Secondly we are not talking about green house gasses driving deer declines, at least not in a direct manner, unless you are referring to P&J encroachment. The pollution/nutrition nexus is proven peer reviewed science. It does not matter if you do or don't buy it.
> 
> I don't have a high school diploma, I don't use that as an excuse.


I feel like lonetree expects his every word to be canonized as the God spoken truth!

Give it a rest dude you are leaps and bounds above the rest of us in the intelligence department we get it!


----------



## Lonetree

berrysblaster said:


> I feel like lonetree expects his every word to be canonized as the God spoken truth!
> 
> Give it a rest dude you are leaps and bounds above the rest of us in the intelligence department we get it!


The point is not that I'm intelligent, I am a lot of things. The point is how can we grow more mule deer, and healthy ecosystems in general in the West, that benefit our hunting heritage, and future. The last 30 years has been devastating to our wildlife, and to hunting. You are an elk guy, so you might disagree, but there is nothing that says elk are immune. White tails are starting to slip in in some of their strong holds.

Pollution and nutrition, these are not my words: http://www.windriverhistory.org/tlr/sheepstudy/tlr_sheepmain.htm


----------



## RandomElk16

Lonetree said:


> The point is not that I'm intelligent, I am a lot of things. The point is how can we grow more mule deer, and healthy ecosystems in general in the West, that benefit our hunting heritage, and future. The last 30 years has been devastating to our wildlife, and to hunting. You are an elk guy, so you might disagree, but there is nothing that says elk are immune. White tails are starting to slip in in some of their strong holds.
> 
> Pollution and nutrition, these are not my words: http://www.windriverhistory.org/tlr/sheepstudy/tlr_sheepmain.htm


Sheep? Were we talkin about mule deer?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Lonetree said:


> The point is not that I'm intelligent, I am a lot of things. The point is how can we grow more mule deer, and healthy ecosystems in general in the West, that benefit our hunting heritage, and future. The last 30 years has been devastating to our wildlife, and to hunting. You are an elk guy, so you might disagree, but there is nothing that says elk are immune. White tails are starting to slip in in some of their strong holds.
> 
> Pollution and nutrition, these are not my words: http://www.windriverhistory.org/tlr/sheepstudy/tlr_sheepmain.htm


We grow our herds through many different aspirations, not your single magical fix all one solution. And again you have the same study posted as if god wrote it himself. Studies are flawed many times and a solitary study is only a start to exploring an idea.


----------



## Lonetree

RandomElk16 said:


> Sheep? Were we talkin about mule deer?


Here is the study that makes the connection to mule deer nutrition: http://utahcbcp.org/files/uploads/publications/ChrisPetersenDissertation.pdf

And here is a synopsis of the Colorado study that showed that "nutrition was limiting the deer population even in the situation where predation was an ongoing factor": http://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/ResearchMammalDeer.aspx

Read up, and get your case together.


----------



## RandomElk16

Lonetree said:


> Here is the study that makes the connection to mule deer nutrition: http://utahcbcp.org/files/uploads/publications/ChrisPetersenDissertation.pdf
> 
> And here is a synopsis of the Colorado study that showed that "nutrition was limiting the deer population even in the situation where predation was an ongoing factor": http://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/ResearchMammalDeer.aspx
> 
> Read up, and get your case together.


I will read it! Good job, you posted something! I am surprised the paper didn't say lonetree. Aren't you the only one with valid research on habitat mineral content?


----------



## RandomElk16

Do you have a link to the colorado study? That is just a summary...


----------



## Lonetree

RandomElk16 said:


> Do you have a link to the colorado study? That is just a summary...


I am looking, the link I had bookmarked does not work anymore.


----------



## LostLouisianian

This thread begs the question to be asked. If a lone tree fell in the woods would anyone care?:shock:


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Lonetree I appreciate you posting studies I will try to get time to read through them. I also can appreciate your passion but with you acting like a know it all , the stupidest thing you can do is disregard other problems and studies because you have a personal agenda to one.... And no I don't believe anyone would care if a lone tree fell in the forest .


----------



## Lonetree

LostLouisianian said:


> This thread begs the question to be asked. If a lone tree fell in the wood would anyone care?:shock:


As usual, no biology from the biologist/forester, but almost some forestry, good effort!


----------



## Lonetree

Chad Bishop's Colorado nutrition study:

http://www.upproject.org/education/gjtalks/CJ%20Bishop%20Dissertation_certified.pdf


----------



## Vanilla

Now we are getting somewhere. I'm actually proud of you, Dr Lonetree Gore. You took a major step forward today. But I need more specificity. 

So I get it nutrition is important. That seems pretty basic and obvious. What specifically does the DWR need to do to boost nutrition? Can you give us a few examples of specific activities that can be done in the near future that will continue to push us in the right direction?

Previously I inquired about if we are at carrying capacity. I asked that because in my mind I have a personal theory on the predator/fawn survival study on the Monroe. I predict at the end of the study period there will be empirical data to show the efforts worked. That the study area increased at a higher rate than the area where coyotes weren't targeted as heavily. I wonder (and really don't know the answer to this) if the areas coincide at all with the fairly extensive habitat restoration/enhancements that have taken place down there. Studies have shown predator control can be additive in areas that are below carrying capacity. 
I wonder if the areas restored/enhanced have increased the carrying capacity, and therefore make predator control, in at least the short term, effective in expediting the recovery over areas where the predators aren't being removed? 

Just a theory I've had in my mind as I've followed this issue from a distance recently. Not sure we will ever have full answers to that. To my knowledge, that aspect isn't being specifically tested/studied. But it's been on my mind as a question.


----------



## ridgetop

TS30 said:


> Now we are getting somewhere. I'm actually proud of you, Dr Lonetree Gore. You took a major step forward today. But I need more specificity.
> 
> So I get it nutrition is important. That seems pretty basic and obvious. What specifically does the DWR need to do to boost nutrition? Can you give us a few examples of specific activities that can be done in the near future that will continue to push us in the right direction?
> 
> Previously I inquired about if we are at carrying capacity. I asked that because in my mind I have a personal theory on the predator/fawn survival study on the Monroe. I predict at the end of the study period there will be empirical data to show the efforts worked. That the study area increased at a higher rate than the area where coyotes weren't targeted as heavily. I wonder (and really don't know the answer to this) if the areas coincide at all with the fairly extensive habitat restoration/enhancements that have taken place down there. Studies have shown predator control can be additive in areas that are below carrying capacity.
> I wonder if the areas restored/enhanced have increased the carrying capacity, and therefore make predator control, in at least the short term, effective in expediting the recovery over areas where the predators aren't being removed?
> 
> Just a theory I've had in my mind as I've followed this issue from a distance recently. Not sure we will ever have full answers to that. To my knowledge, that aspect isn't being specifically tested/studied. But it's been on my mind as a question.


Well TS30, the DWR could hire a bunch of crop dusters and fertilize the crap out of the landscape.


----------



## Lonetree

ridgetop said:


> Well TS30, the DWR could hire a bunch of crop dusters and fertilize the crap out of the landscape.


Actually, over fertilization is the problem.


----------



## ridgetop

Lonetree said:


> Actually, over fertilization is the problem.


Off course it is. My bad.:sad:


----------



## Lonetree

TS30 said:


> Now we are getting somewhere. I'm actually proud of you, Dr Lonetree Gore. You took a major step forward today. But I need more specificity.
> 
> So I get it nutrition is important. That seems pretty basic and obvious. What specifically does the DWR need to do to boost nutrition? Can you give us a few examples of specific activities that can be done in the near future that will continue to push us in the right direction?
> 
> Previously I inquired about if we are at carrying capacity. I asked that because in my mind I have a personal theory on the predator/fawn survival study on the Monroe. I predict at the end of the study period there will be empirical data to show the efforts worked. That the study area increased at a higher rate than the area where coyotes weren't targeted as heavily. I wonder (and really don't know the answer to this) if the areas coincide at all with the fairly extensive habitat restoration/enhancements that have taken place down there. Studies have shown predator control can be additive in areas that are below carrying capacity.
> I wonder if the areas restored/enhanced have increased the carrying capacity, and therefore make predator control, in at least the short term, effective in expediting the recovery over areas where the predators aren't being removed?
> 
> Just a theory I've had in my mind as I've followed this issue from a distance recently. Not sure we will ever have full answers to that. To my knowledge, that aspect isn't being specifically tested/studied. But it's been on my mind as a question.


I like theories :mrgreen:

In all predator removal studies involving mule deer, fawn survival increases early on. That is part of how they can determine that the predation is compensatory at the end of the studies, because despite the increase in fawns, you don't get an increase in the deer population.

If what you theorize is true, then predator removal could then be justified on several fronts. But only if we can address the carrying capacity limit, and continue progress in reducing that limiting factor.

Currently we are not addressing habitat from a research point of view, and all that is being done is traditional planting and seeding. I should not say "all", but we need to be conducting research and experiments in this area, to better understand _how_, nutrition and forage are the limiting factors of mule deer. It continues to be shown that it is the limiting factor, but we need more specifics. Large scale mycorrhizal inoculations, liming, or even a shift in what we are planting, could possibly be utilized. But ultimately it is looking deeper into the deeper workings of where, plants, atmosphere, and animals all merge, with a focus on nutritional transport.


----------



## Lonetree

ridgetop said:


> Off course it is. My bad.:sad:


180* off course.


----------



## Iron Bear

The thought just occurred to me that biologist types are like the computer people who set up the network and computer system at my business. I'm sure they would tell me that I don't know my azz from a hole in the ground too. But they designed and sold me a system that is far to complicated for me to understand so therefore I am beholden to them to tell me how to fix it or even what is going on on it. Its job security to them. Good thing grandpa never had to employ a biologist to tell him how to raise cattle and sheep.

A couple more thought while I'm here. Bet your bottom dollar that weather has had a big part in our recent increase in the deer herd. No doubt a bout it. But it would have all been for not if it had not coincided with the bottoming out of the cougar population and increased coyote management. Had nothing to do with selenium roadkill poaching or the lag in the housing boom. Option 2 has also had very positive effects on the B/D ratio leading to increased hunter harvest and satisfaction. (when they get a tag) Which is a whole different debate. Now if we allow the cougar population to increase with the deer population we will start back into a decline or at best stay flat. Its all about the cougar and coyote to deer ratio. Right now its favorable for deer. So we are seeing increases. 

I read in another post about a figure of 20,000 deer being killed per yr on Utah's roads. Although its not as absurd as the 60,000 Robinson Bissenett figure. Again biologist scientist types over complicating something to justify their degree. When UDOT keeps figures on all reported incidents as well as DPS that show its never been more than 7000 and that happened in the 80s. The biggest factor in how many deer are being hit by cars is population of deer not amount of cars. So as the deer population has been dropping so has the number of roadkill. I know not all incidents are reported but only 1 in 10 are according to biologist up at USU. I call BS.

Thanks


----------



## Iron Bear

Interestingly enough about Monroe over the last 20yrs they have been harrowing up sage and replanting graze, reducing mule deer habitat and capacity. Even more interesting is that most if not all the harrowing has been done on the northern portion of the unit. Not the southern. So reduced capacity on the very study area and we are still seeing increased fawn survival and a significant increase in overall deer population.


----------



## Lonetree

IB, Yes weather has a big role in the last deer increases, but just like you admitted, its too complicated for you to understand. I love you guys that come in and say you can't comprehend the complexity of the world you live in, and then try to tell us how you feel about in, in simple terms, like that has some sort of weight. It is just your unsupported feelings on the matter. Like kids scared of shadows, that don't understand the "complicated" explanation, of what they are seeing.

"Reduced capacity", but we see increased survival, and growth? That's a good one. You don't even know what "capacity" means, or how it works, but you are going to school us on deer.

Read this: http://deerlab.org/Publ/pdfs/23.pdf and then come show me where predator control ever raised a trend line to anywhere near this. Hint: It can't

I'm a biologist "type", that knows how to use a computer, can you tell me what my job security is in this? Or how I'm trying to justify a degree, that I don't even have. I am looking to better understand, and do something about the last 30 years of mule deer declines. While guys like you, that can't comprehend, are just an additional detriment to getting any progress, because it is too big, or too hard, and too complicated for you to handle.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Iron Bear said:


> When UDOT keeps figures on all reported incidents as well as DPS that show its never been more than 7000 and that happened in the 80s. The biggest factor in how many deer are being hit by cars is population of deer not amount of cars.


I suppose this number has nothing to do with deer fences and interstate freeways either&#8230;what year was I-15 from Provo to St. George finished/built?


----------



## wyoming2utah

Iron Bear said:


> Interestingly enough about Monroe over the last 20yrs they have been harrowing up sage and replanting graze, reducing mule deer habitat and capacity. Even more interesting is that most if not all the harrowing has been done on the northern portion of the unit. Not the southern. So reduced capacity on the very study area and we are still seeing increased fawn survival and a significant increase in overall deer population.


That's funny&#8230;so, on the end of the mountain where the most HABITAT projects have been performed, the deer have done better? Hmmm&#8230;.

&#8230;.just out of curiosity, has any of the research/talk/discussion on the Monroe talked about the acreage of land where the habitat work has been done comparing the north end to the south end and looked at the correlations/implications this might have on increased/decreased predation as it relates to coyotes? My guess is that there has not been&#8230;.but, shouldn't there be?


----------



## Rspeters

Lonetree said:


> IB, Yes weather has a big role in the last deer increases, but just like you admitted, its too complicated for you to understand. I love you guys that come in and say you can't comprehend the complexity of the world you live in, and then try to tell us how you feel about in, in simple terms, like that has some sort of weight.


Lonetree, you seem so full of yourself that your words mean nothing to me, and likely many others on this forum. You are so engrossed in your own ideas (as is evident by your hundreds of long, long posts) that I could easily see you ignoring information that doesn't seem to fit into your ideas. When someone is as engrossed as you, they see what they want to see, and believe what they want to believe, and if something doesn't fit in with their beliefs they consider it invalid or flawed in some way.


----------



## Lonetree

Rspeters said:


> Lonetree, you seem so full of yourself that your words mean nothing to me, and likely many others on this forum. You are so engrossed in your own ideas (as is evident by your hundreds of long, long posts) that I could easily see you ignoring information that doesn't seem to fit into your ideas. When someone is as engrossed as you, they see what they want to see, and believe what they want to believe, and if something doesn't fit in with their beliefs they consider it invalid or flawed in some way.


Do you have anything to support this assertion? As usual, if you can't go after the argument or the data, go after the person making it, and offer nothing else for substantiated rebuttal. Seriously, if "my" ideas are flawed, get after it, show us how they are flawed. My "ideas" are based on a large work of peer reviewed science that has shown results. What are you thoughts on the matter, that you don't like the way I present it?


----------



## wyoming2utah

Rspeters said:


> When someone is as engrossed as you, they see what they want to see, and believe what they want to believe, and if something doesn't fit in with their beliefs they consider it invalid or flawed in some way.


The pendulum swings both ways&#8230;there are those on both sides of the issue that fit this bill!


----------



## Rspeters

Lonetree said:


> Do you have anything to support this assertion? As usual, if you can't go after the argument or the data, go after the person making it, and offer nothing else for substantiated rebuttal. Seriously, if "my" ideas are flawed, get after it, show us how they are flawed. My "ideas" are based on a large work of peer reviewed science that has shown results. What are you thoughts on the matter, that you don't like the way I present it?


Why would I need to support my main point which is that you are full of yourself, when you prove that yourself with every post...including this one. That's like asking me to prove that red apples are red, I don't need to prove it, it's pretty obvious.


----------



## Lonetree

Rspeters said:


> Why would I need to support my main point which is that you are full of yourself, when you prove that yourself with every post...including this one. That's like asking me to prove that red apples are red, I don't need to prove it, it's pretty obvious.


there in lies the crux of your "argument". First this is about deer, second, all you are doing is pointing out the obvious. So why are you posting? We ran out of mister obvious awards a long time ago.

Deer?, do you have anything about deer?


----------



## Vanilla

wyoming2utah said:


> That's funny&#8230;so, on the end of the mountain where the most HABITAT projects have been performed, the deer have done better? Hmmm&#8230;.
> 
> &#8230;.just out of curiosity, has any of the research/talk/discussion on the Monroe talked about the acreage of land where the habitat work has been done comparing the north end to the south end and looked at the correlations/implications this might have on increased/decreased predation as it relates to coyotes? My guess is that there has not been&#8230;.but, shouldn't there be?


This is exactly the point of my theory I posted before. Is the increase more due to habitat projects or predators? Does it even matter if we continue to do both and we continue to see returns?


----------



## Iron Bear

You can increase a deer herd and decrease capacity on a unit at the same time. The implication is that Monroe was nowhere near capacity over the last 30 yrs. Something some cannot conceive. Since their denial of predation being a factor is totally dependent on the deer herd being at capacity. Which is only an assumption and nowhere near proven. Backed only by the relative stability of the statewide deer population figures over the last 10 yrs.


----------



## wyoming2utah

TS30 said:


> This is exactly the point of my theory I posted before. Is the increase more due to habitat projects or predators? Does it even matter if we continue to do both and we continue to see returns?


uhhh&#8230;yeah, I would say so. Otherwise, you could be wasting a lot of time, effort, and money on something that could be spent doing something productive.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Lonetree said:


> IB, Yes weather has a big role in the last deer increases, but just like you admitted, its too complicated for you to understand. I love you guys that come in and say you can't comprehend the complexity of the world you live in, and then try to tell us how you feel about in, in simple terms, like that has some sort of weight. It is just your unsupported feelings on the matter. Like kids scared of shadows, that don't understand the "complicated" explanation, of what they are seeing.
> 
> "Reduced capacity", but we see increased survival, and growth? That's a good one. You don't even know what "capacity" means, or how it works, but you are going to school us on deer.
> 
> Read this: http://deerlab.org/Publ/pdfs/23.pdf and then come show me where predator control ever raised a trend line to anywhere near this. Hint: It can't
> 
> I'm a biologist "type", that knows how to use a computer, can you tell me what my job security is in this? Or how I'm trying to justify a degree, that I don't even have. I am looking to better understand, and do something about the last 30 years of mule deer declines. While guys like you, that can't comprehend, are just an additional detriment to getting any progress, because it is too big, or too hard, and too complicated for you to handle.


And then there's folks like you. Who think they've seen it all, done it all, and figured everything out, all while sitting in front of a computer screen. You make it seem as the though thousands of biologists in every field have failed and you are the only person who knows what he is talking about. All of your research and observations have come from the feelings, perceptions, and conclusions other people have made. You know no more than what you have been told. You believe the world around you works exactly as you have it in your mind. If you truly believe in your theory Lonetree put it to the test. Stop driving your car, living in your home, buying food from a grocery store, wearing clothing, and go live in a cave so you can cut down on carbon emissions so that nutrients will be better absorbed by the plants and our deer herd can grow overnight. You don't understand the world your living in because you're living in one of your own. Your someone who thinks he can explain everything about life and yet, if you took away all the automatic glamours of the world today from you, you wouldn't know what to do with the world you live in. So continue to preach on an internet forum about how smart you are, with your unpublished, untested, pile of garbage your wrapped up in, because that's as far as your going to get. I've yet to see the DWR, a conservation group, or scientific noted society note you or publish your name on all of the things you know so well. So you stick here at UWN and try to tell us all about how much you know, because the more you push, the less I think you know. You just know how to push your own agenda stubbornly down others throats.


----------



## Lonetree

:mrgreen: Have you checked the muffler bearings, I'm pretty sure thats were the problem is.


----------



## Lonetree

Iron Bear said:


> You can increase a deer herd and decrease capacity on a unit at the same time. The implication is that Monroe was nowhere near capacity over the last 30 yrs. Something some cannot conceive. Since their denial of predation being a factor is totally dependent on the deer herd being at capacity. Which is only an assumption and nowhere near proven. Backed only by the relative stability of the statewide deer population figures over the last 10 yrs.


Can you demonstrate that deer are under "capacity". Every recent mule deer study, says that forage and nutrition are the limiting factor, meaning deer are at "capacity". Which is why in all recent mule deer studies, increases in nutrition have been shown to increase deer, while predation has been shown to be compensatory.

You are speculating about potential carrying capacity, verses actual working carrying capacity.


----------



## Lonetree

TS30 said:


> This is exactly the point of my theory I posted before. Is the increase more due to habitat projects or predators? Does it even matter if we continue to do both and we continue to see returns?


If what you say holds true, the benefit of predator control only works if the herd is below carry capacity. If at carrying capacity, then predator control efforts and money don't gain us anything. At which point, that money and effort need to shift to habitat and nutrition, to achieve any gains.

So far, we can not show that they are under capacity, or that predator control has brought any gains. The current evidence is that nutrition drives the herds, and is the limiting factor, ie. nutrition dictates carrying capacity.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

If you can't show that they are under capacity can you show when they are at capacity or over capacity?


----------



## Lonetree

My response from another thread:

In the last 15 or so years of large, real world, predator control studies, and nutrition studies. The difference measured at the end of the studies, says that predator removal does not increase the size of herds. Even though, in the beginning of almost every study, fawn mortality decreased. On the other hand, with nutrition studies, that manipulate available nutrition, you get an increase in the deer herd, when nutrition is increased. Which tells us that nutrition is the limiting factor, and there for deer are being held, at a practical "working" carrying capacity, by available nutrition. This is why the predation in compensatory, and does not increase deer numbers, because the deer are not below carrying capacity, they are being held at it.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

yea I read that but it doesn't answer my question. 

I have already said that I agree with you regards to predator control. Until a new study shows otherwise which is why I don't mind seeing another one done on what seems to be a much larger scale. Hopefully the proper controls are in place to make it decisive enough to end further studies or create a new level of understanding on the predator/prey relationship.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

my question is not one of confrontation. It is something I don't know.


----------



## Lonetree

Mr Muleskinner said:


> yea I read that but it doesn't answer my question.
> 
> I have already said that I agree with you regards to predator control. Until a new study shows otherwise which is why I don't mind seeing another one done on what seems to be a much larger scale. Hopefully the proper controls are in place to make it decisive enough to end further studies or create a new level of understanding on the predator/prey relationship.


It was just easier to copy and paste, It addressed the capacity question.

Are you suggesting, that the Monroe study is some how larger, in scope or area, than previous predator control studies?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Read it again and it makes sense but it doesn't take into account other factors such as weather. If the statement were entirely true how would deer herds ever grow without a change in available nutrition? Deer herds have been growing right? You have stated before that the recent habitat improvements have basically done nothing.

As far as the Monroe study goes I have read that it is bigger than some of the others but not all of them. I have assumed that they have used previous models as a guide with a few different controls to find different or other information.


----------



## Lonetree

So studies have been, and are bearing out that nutrition is the limiting factor. And currently we have a rising deer population. This tells us that the nutritional inputs, into deer herds have increased. 

So if habitat improvements have not kept pace with habitat destruction, which has been the case. And we don't see marked improvements in deer populations in areas that have had habitat improvements. And we have not gained any more acreage. And preferred browse species have continued to decline. Yet deer numbers are rising across the board. Then there is a nutritional input affecting this somewhere. Yes weather can create favorable conditions, especially moisture at the right times of years. But it has also been shown to create negative affects at other times of the year. Part of this is because when we talk about nutrition, many times we are talking about two separate, but interconnected things.

The Naturalist eluded to part of this earlier, when he mentioned taking elemental supplements, being better than vitamins, because your body can produce vitamins, if it has the right trace elements. 

Deer and weather: So if we have good summer rains, mild winters, and generally favorable conditions for deer and plants, the deer are not stressed, and the plants are healthier, then the deer are healthier. Most of what we are talking about under these conditions, in regard to nutrition, is macro nutrition. Protein, fats, and carbohydrates. In order to be able to utilize these macro nutrients, you have to have the proper micro nutrients and trace elements, copper, cobalt, selenium, magnesium, calcium, etc. Some of these are in and of them selves vitamins, while some of these create, or work with vitamins to perform their job. So in the case of micro nutrients, it has been shown that weather containing pollution, or other chemicals, can negatively impact the availability of micro nutrients. An example of this would be nitrate deposition, making selenium unavailable, in turn leading to White muscle disease, additional elemental deficiencies, reduced productivity, and suppressed populations. 

So a habitat project might plant sage brush, and bitterbrush, and other mule deer preferred browse. And with favorable weather, these plants are going to provide good fat, protein, and carbohydrates to deer. But, if there is something preventing, or even causing imbalances with the availability of micro nutrients, the deer are not going to be able to make full use of the macro nutrition that has been provided through habitat improvements, and/or weather. And the deer numbers will remain depressed, or decline if conditions get worse. In the case of declines, these little things can cause exponential snow balling affects, that make recovery very slow, or non existent. 

Habitat improvements are very much where we need to invest. We also need to invest in understanding the full picture of nutrition, and the specifics within it, that drive deer numbers. If nutrition grows deer, which is what everything is saying, then that is where we need to be focused, spending time and money. Where it has been shown to have a positive impact.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Understand what you are saying but the fact remains is that the deer herds have been on the upswing without changes to habitat other than what you recognized above. Something caused this. It would lead me to believe that recent removals of pinyon and juniper and plantings of species favorable to deer, that have received favorable weather, have created conditions that have allowed the herd to rebound to a certain degree. New habitat (acreage) has been provided to an extent because of the removal of undesirable species that have been replaced by favorable ones.

In a round about way you stated above that it was the weather that drives the plants, that provide the nutrition which in turn drive the population of the deer. Since deer have rebounded without any new cures it seems prudent that until there is another decline that people may question your theory. Since trends are all hindsight one can not say that this current upswing is just some sort of an anomaly. It may continue with continued work, it may stall, it may reverse. Right now there is no sure fire way to tell with absolute certainty. But still the herds are growing.

With regards to predation, you have stated many times that predation can be additive when herds are below carrying capacity. Later you have stated that carrying capacity is relative to the given conditions and that carrying capacity at any given time is basically at it's maximum. I find this to be a fairly substantial conflict in your approach to explain why predator control is worthless right now. According to your ebb and flow explanation of carrying capacity, predation control would be worthless at all times. 

If I seem a bit confused it is for good reason.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Lonetree let's say you're 100% right and this is what is holding deer and many wildlife numbers back. So what realistically can be done to fix it ?


----------

