# Deer management: Making the, a or no difference



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

In what areas of the current Utah Mule Deer Plan, is the plan making:
"the" difference.
"a" difference
"no" difference.
When talking about increasing the amount of huntable bucks in the next 5 years?
We all know that Lonrtree knows that coyote controls have "no" effect on fawn survival.
I feel that it can make "a" difference in certain areas.
What about all the other aspects of the plan?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I believe that the habitat improvements have made a difference. The removal of pinyon and juniper, new plantings and removal of miles upon miles of fencing (not sure of it's effect on deer but it couldn't hurt).

The habitat improvements will take more time but the first steps have been a giant undertaking.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

I know on one fencing project I did as a dedicated hunter I counted at least 4 deer that had been caught up in the fence and died. Small sample size but I can see it helping a little.

My biggest issue with coyote removal was making sure the fund were going to the best use in terms of timing/etc. I do think predator control is part of the solution, but so are many other aspects. I do think there is still a lot of poaching going on that goes unnoticed or unreported.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I had another very incouraging day today ....

Went down on the Pahvant this morning, 6" of new snow ...

Ran Ebbs, Wild Goose, Maple,Wide canyon, and Pioneer..
I'd say 600 to 800 head of deer in those drainages and reseed areas!!!
Boy, The deer LOOK GOOD!!

And Longgun, Pic's on the way...Going to spend a week or 2 there turkey hunting.;-)..
Going to set up camp next Thursday..8)..


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Yes coyotes affect fawn mortality, but we don't hunt fawns, so that does us no good. Even when predator control has been shown, to increase fawn numbers, which it does, it has not been shown to increase over all deer numbers. This has been demonstarted over and over again in research. This holds especially true for increasing buck numbers, this has not been demonstrated.

Mule deer have not suffered in _certain_ areas, and done well in _certain_ areas, over the last 30 years. Regardless of managemnat plans, mule deer numbers have risen and fallen across the West, syncronously for 30 years. Trying to simply the conversation, and limit the criteria by which we look at the problem, does not help the situation. Micro management is not going to improve anything, unless you are talking about micromanageing for nutrition.

I will repeat myself agian. Mule deer numbers are driven by nutritin, we are not managing for, or conducting the research we need to, to make the differences in this area. Huntable bucks are created through nutrition, that drives deer health. And mule deer health drives deer numbers. It is not genetics, it is not hunter management, it is not micro management, it is not predator control, it is not changing the the subject and focus of threads. Show me where, through something other than the way you feel about it, that these things have been shown to increase mule deer, and hunting.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Big picture guys.......small and localized does not fix the big picture. If I'm full of ****, on what drives mule deer numbers, then it should be a little easier for you to tear down. Most of what is geeting mentioned all occurred 40 years ago, so what has driven the last 30 years of declines?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Okay Lonetree one more time. You say we are not doing the research on deer nutrition to make the difference yet you seem to know everything about deer nutrition. It begs the question.......what specific research with regards to deer nutrition is not being performed?

If you make the claim you should have something to back it up.

Furthermore.........why in the world have you taken part in habitat restoration projects and plantings? That just doesn't seem to make much sense to do something that you know so adamantly doesn't make a difference. Talk about pissing up a wet rope.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Okay Lonetree one more time. You say we are not doing the research on deer nutrition to make the difference yet you seem to know everything about deer nutrition. It begs the question.......what specific research with regards to deer nutrition is not being performed?
> 
> If you make the claim you should have something to back it up.
> 
> Furthermore.........why in the world have you taken part in habitat restoration projects and plantings? That just doesn't seem to make much sense to do something that you know so adamantly doesn't make a difference. Talk about pissing up a wet rope.


I have done my own plantings, for my own research mostly. Habitat restoration is absolutely what needs to be done. It does make a difference, bt we are missing a big part of what made them work better in the past. That involves more than just planting things. If the deer can not get the nutrients that they need from the plants, then it does them no good. We need to be looking at what can bridge that gap, and what we can do to mitigate the conditions, that supress nutritonal upatke. So that the habitat projects are getting the deer what they need. This will also show us a lot about what else is going on with the bigger nutritional issues.

I hijacked an MDF habitat project last fall, and planted bitterbrush, and sagebrush, while also inoculating them with arbuscular mycorrhizae. Which is one of the things that affects the uptake of nutrients in plants. We'll see what happens. This has been looked at from a plant surival point of view, but not a nutritional point of view so much.

Thanks, MDF


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

I should note I have learned very little, from my own plantings so far, as most of my experimental plots have burned in the last few years.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

that kind of skirted the question. What specific research? I have a very hard time believing that biologists are not looking at all avenues available. If you are giving it a rip how are you so certain others are not?


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

I'm working in SF canyon everyday. I am amazed at the condition/numbers of deer I'm seeing west of the summit. Quite a few less elk than in the past.....possible correlation?------SS


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> that kind of skirted the question. What specific research? I have a very hard time believing that biologists are not looking at all avenues available. If you are giving it a rip how are you so certain others are not?


There are biologists looking at all of the things I have presented. You think I did all that work on my own over the last three years? That is why I say that what I present is "supported", it is the work of a lot of different researchers and biologists, all brought together. None of this science is driving management decisions, or additional research. We all know that sound science has not driven wildlife managemnt in the West, for decades. There is no money, or political gain in it. And you can't sell it at conventions. In fact wildlife declines have fueled the monatization of wildlife, and further pushed sound scientific management aside. When a deer tag becomes worth $400,000 dollars, who needs more deer?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Springville Shooter said:


> I'm working in SF canyon everyday. I am amazed at the condition/numbers of deer I'm seeing west of the summit. Quite a few less elk than in the past.....possible correlation?------SS


Correlation yes, very possibly. But if you making the case that it is just fewer elk, driving the deer increase, I can show you areas that have not had elk for 20 years, where the same thing has played out in the last few years.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Lonetree said:


> Correlation yes, very possibly. But if you making the case that it is just fewer elk, driving the deer increase, I can show you areas that have not had elk for 20 years, where the same thing has played out in the last few years.


No way dude, I'm nowhere near smart enough to have a management conversation with you. I was just makin an observation.-----SS


----------



## Elkaholic2 (Feb 24, 2013)

Simply put. If you want an "artificial" buck increase. You have to put less buck hunters in the field. Which in most cases will only increase the buck population by 20-40% depending on many factors. If you find a way to increase the overall population. You can have buck populations increase upwards of 225%. That percent is based on the San Juan unit general count vs population objectives.

So what would you focus on? The 20-40% increase is social science. Obtaining the 225% increase is an ecosystem science( ecology) Which is over looked as a whole. They segregate it so much I feel that the bigger picture gets lost in the process. I.e. Predators are a natural and healthy part of an ecosystem. Deer and elk are a part of it. As well as the food they need and also the space. But space isn't a limiting factor for survival. Nutrient food and the availability of it can be. 

When I go the the "conservation expo" I don't see any exhibits of bitter brush, black sage brush, forbs, service berry bush, and other vital foods that mule deer depend on. I don't see anyone educating people on what a deer actually needs. I see the opposite. Looking at true giant mule deer bucks, bulls, goats, rams, etc. they should call it the trophy expo!

I would like to see more research money towards western ecosystems and why they are changing mule deer? If you want more bucks. The short term answer is to kill less bucks! What's the long term answer? I don't have it! No one that I have seen has it. What needs to be done to get it?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

change the current paradigm.....it has been said over and over and over and over and...


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

and over and over and over and over........


----------



## Elkaholic2 (Feb 24, 2013)

Let's change it then! Because cutting buck tags will only go so far!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Elkaholic2 said:


> When I go the the "conservation expo" I don't see any exhibits of bitter brush, black sage brush, forbs, service berry bush, and other vital foods that mule deer depend on. I don't see anyone educating people on what a deer actually needs. I see the opposite. Looking at true giant mule deer bucks, bulls, goats, rams, etc. they should call it the trophy expo!


To take this thought even one step further&#8230;.I would say all you hear about as far as management goes is the "need" to cut more tags! People don't understand the idea of increasing the number of bucks through increasing the overall herd.

This is what I hate most about the conventions&#8230;.by being a "trophy convention" people walk away with the wrong idea about what needs to happen.

Great post, elkaholic2!


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Lonetree, here's my question to you. I believe nutrition is important, I do not believe it is the only factor. How do you explain the fact that what is being done isn't working if we are approaching more and more every year the 400,000 thresh-hold in the state? I would say the biggest player is weather, which we can do nothing about. Mild winters and wet summers have been what has brought the herds back in Utah to previous numbers, along with habitat projects. In years such as this how do you not expect herds to grow with increased predator control? My blessed unit struggled for a decade never hitting it's population objective, yet now after just a couple years it has risen over it, according to the division. I'm guessing very few deer starved to death this winter, so there's even more recruitment for stronger herd numbers. If the right research and projects haven't been carried out then why are deer numbers growing? Seems to me something has been done right, and weather is what has cooperated.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Lonetree, here's my question to you. I believe nutrition is important, I do not believe it is the only factor. How do you explain the fact that what is being done isn't working if we are approaching more and more every year the 400,000 thresh-hold in the state? I would say the biggest player is weather, which we can do nothing about. Mild winters and wet summers have been what has brought the herds back in Utah to previous numbers, along with habitat projects. In years such as this how do you not expect herds to grow with increased predator control? My blessed unit struggled for a decade never hitting it's population objective, yet now after just a couple years it has risen over it, according to the division. I'm guessing very few deer starved to death this winter, so there's even more recruitment for stronger herd numbers. If the right research and projects haven't been carried out then why are deer numbers growing? Seems to me something has been done right, and weather is what has cooperated.


You have not followed the conversations very well, go back read the last few days of posts. It is the nutritional quality of the forage, not just the fact that the forage exists. When you talk about weather, you are talking about things that affect forage, but we have not increased the overall forage available across the state, it is still declining, we have not replaced it, as fast as it has been destroyed. So when we see deer increase under these conditions, it is because of the quality, ie. nutritional value, of the current and existing forage. Simple weather cycles do not drive the suppressed numbers we have seen, nor can they account for the increased nutritional value of the current forage, 2012, and 2013 were a little on the dry side if you did not notice. So ranges that have been declining in diversity, and size, are now supporting mule deer increases. How does that work? The only way it can work, is that the nutritional values driving the current increases are better. Everyone likes to talk about all the things that the see, suppressing deer herds, but if you have increases in deer herds, in spite of these supposed limiting factors, you have to have inputs, into the system from somewhere to drive this. Those inputs are the availability of nutritional content, from the currently available forage.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> You have not followed the conversations very well, go back read the last few days of posts. It is the nutritional quality of the forage, not just the fact that the forage exists. When you talk about weather, you are talking about things that affect forage, but we have not increased the overall forage available across the state, it is still declining, we have not replaced it, as fast as it has been destroyed. So when we see deer increase under these conditions, it is because of the quality, ie. nutritional value, of the current and existing forage. Simple weather cycles do not drive the suppressed numbers we have seen, nor can they account for the increased nutritional value of the current forage, 2012, and 2013 were a little on the dry side if you did not notice. So ranges that have been declining in diversity, and size, are now supporting mule deer increases. How does that work? The only way it can work, is that the nutritional values driving the current increases are better. Everyone likes to talk about all the things that the see, suppressing deer herds, but if you have increases in deer herds, in spite of these supposed limiting factors, you have to have inputs, into the system from somewhere to drive this. Those inputs are the availability of nutritional content, from the currently available forage.


How do you come up with the fact that weather doesn't drive nutritional value? How much I water my pastures/fields definitely determines how nutritionally productive they are. In turn dry and wet weather cycles should determine how much nutrition deer in different areas will be getting. Weather drives nutrition simply because of the wet and dry periods of how good and productive the plants in an area are.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> How do you come up with the fact that weather doesn't drive nutritional value? How much I water my pastures/fields definitely determines how nutritionally productive they are. In turn dry and wet weather cycles should determine how much nutrition deer in different areas will be getting. Weather drives nutrition simply because of the wet and dry periods of how good and productive the plants in an area are.


Yes, weather drives nutrition, and cars kill deer. See how simple it is. Can you show me how the wet and or dry weather positively, or negatively impacts the specific nutritional make up of your fields. Can you show me the trace elements and macro nutrients are being influenced by the weather at particular times of the years? Can you show me if there are exacerbating factors that come with that precipitation, and what affects it has on the animals that eat that feed, because eof the way it influences the uptake of those minerals and nutrients by the plants in your pasture? Now can you do the same thing for all of Utah?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> Yes, weather drives nutrition, and cars kill deer. See how simple it is. Can you show me how the wet and or dry weather positively, or negatively impacts the specific nutritional make up of your fields. Can you show me the trace elements and macro nutrients are being influenced by the weather at particular times of the years? Can you show me if there are exacerbating factors that come with that precipitation, and what affects it has on the animals that eat that feed, because eof the way it influences the uptake of those minerals and nutrients by the plants in your pasture? Now can you do the same thing for all of Utah?


Can you Lonetree?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

My cattle get less nutritional value out of a dry pasture than a green one, and there body weights, and calf growth are better as well.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Can you Lonetree?


Work conducted in Wyoming's Wind river range, has been able to show that increased nitrate deposition in very wet spring storms, drive down the availability of trace elements, making it impossible for plants to uptake these things. This then causes big horn sheep to suffer from conditions such as White muscle disease, low productivity and recruitment, while also making them more susceptible to diseases such as pneumonia. This is turn drive population numbers. Those sheep have experienced the same trends as the mule deer and moose across the West.

My comments, from another thread I just commented on: "So many of these things are available in the soil. But they are not making it into the plants, and therefor to the deer. This is why it has been observed that mule deer, especially when in a suppressed state, preferentially browse the smaller number of plants that contain the higher trace element values. As those things become available in plants across the greater landscape, deer numbers increase, and the preferential feeding patterns decline." 
This has been observed by many people, and was quantified and corroborated with nutritional analysis in Chris Petersen's 2008 doctoral thesis.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> My cattle get less nutritional value out of a dry pasture than a green one, and there body weights, and calf growth are better as well.


Do you supplement their mineral intake?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> Do you supplement their mineral intake?


Not at all, not even a salt lick and don't critique it, my calves sold for no less than 2.85 per lb this year, so I must be doing okay.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Not at all, not even a salt lick and don't critique it, my calves sold for no less than 2.85 per lb this year, so I must be doing okay.


Yep, you are doing good. Do you flood irrigate in the summer?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Yes it is flood irrigation . Usually once in the early spring and once in the fall. If there's an excess of water during the summer once .


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Yes it is flood irrigation . Usually once in the early spring and once in the fall. If there's an excess of water during the summer once .


Low lying areas that are irrigated, tend to have good trace element content, and nutritional value. Through erosion, irrigation, etc. these things are imported into the system. This is a benefit for you and your cows. But a deer living on summer range, in an area that may already be nutritionally marginal, does not have this benefit. And if external factors, drive that nutritional threshold down even further, then the health of the deer is going to suffer, as is the health of the overall herds. Make the nutrition available again, and you see things improve. This is independent of many other factors.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> Low lying areas that are irrigated, tend to have good trace element content, and nutritional value. Through erosion, irrigation, etc. these things are imported into the system. This is a benefit for you and your cows. But a deer living on summer range, in an area that may already be nutritionally marginal, does not have this benefit. And if external factors, drive that nutritional threshold down even further, then the health of the deer is going to suffer, as is the health of the overall herds. Make the nutrition available again, and you see things improve. This is independent of many other factors.


How do you propose introducing all this nutrients? And how has thousands of years gone by just fine on summer ranges without us interferring ?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> How do you propose introducing all this nutrients? And how has thousands of years gone by just fine on summer ranges without us interferring ?


The nutrients are there. They are not making it into the plants.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> The nutrients are there. They are not making it into the plants.


With your high train of thought don't you think nature can handle itself just like it has for millions of years ? How do you get it to the plants?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> With your high train of thought don't you think nature can handle itself just like it has for millions of years ? How do you get it to the plants?


We are not talking about natural processes driving these nutritional, and wildlife declines. We are talking about contaminates entering the ecosystem, that disrupt the natural uptake of trace elements, and macro nutrients, from the soil, into the plants. When they do not make it into the plants, the deer can not maintain their health. When they can not maintain their health, they decline. When these conditions persist, deer numbers remain suppressed. When you reduce the contaminates coming into the system, that disrupt uptake, you then have increased nutritional content, and the deer herds increase.

If it were natural processes at play, then yeah, it may fix itself, but that is not the case.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> We are not talking about natural processes driving these nutritional, and wildlife declines. We are talking about contaminates entering the ecosystem, that disrupt the natural uptake of trace elements, and macro nutrients, from the soil, into the plants. When they do not make it into the plants, the deer can not maintain their health. When they can not maintain their health, they decline. When these conditions persist, deer numbers remain suppressed. When you reduce the contaminates coming into the system, that disrupt uptake, you then have increased nutritional content, and the deer herds increase.
> 
> If it were natural processes at play, then yeah, it may fix itself, but that is not the case.


Then why have deer numbers throughout the state increased? I don't think our worlds gotten significantly less polluted in the last few years. Hmmm weather maybe? We've risen to an estimated 332,900 deer. I haven't seen what you're insisting on be improved over the last few years. The herd estimate has risen 39,200 in the last 3 years, must be because there's less pollution in the air. No weather is why our state has risen nearly 40K in the last few years. There are other important factors lonetree, if this was the single factor holding all herd numbers back don't you think it would be a little more definitive across the board.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Then why have deer numbers throughout the state increased? I don't think our worlds gotten significantly less polluted in the last few years. Hmmm weather maybe? We've risen to an estimated 332,900 deer. I haven't seen what you're insisting on be improved over the last few years. The herd estimate has risen 39,200 in the last 3 years, must be because there's less pollution in the air. No weather is why our state has risen nearly 40K in the last few years. There are other important factors lonetree, if this was the single factor holding all herd numbers back don't you think it would be a little more definitive across the board.


"Definitive, across the board", kinda like the last 30 years of Western wildlife declines?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> "Definitive, across the board", kinda like the last 30 years of Western wildlife declines?


Instead of knocking down questions based around one idea , find as many answers as possible before settling on one.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Instead of knocking down questions based around one idea , find as many answers as possible before settling on one.


Yeah, cause that is how the scientific method works. :shock:


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> Yeah, cause that is how the scientific method works. :shock:


The scientific method involves attempting the experiment and coming up with the same results. You have a hypothesis, but you have no evidence, trial and error, statistical data, or consistent results to back your idea. You've still given no definitive research that what your saying is true, so maybe it is you who should look into using the scientific method.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> The scientific method involves attempting the experiment and coming up with the same results. You have a hypothesis, but you have no evidence, trial and error, statistical data, or consistent results to back your idea. You've still given no definitive research that what your saying is true, so maybe it is you who should look into using the scientific method.


If you had been following on other threads, or if people could hold there own, and not create additional threads in an attempt to change the subject, then you may have caught the references. This is not theory, or unsupported hypothesis, the science has been on this. Applying it to management is where we are lacking.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Lonetree you have no data, experiment, or proof that mule deer numbers have been increased dramatically and specifically by reducing pollution, which created better nutrients in the vegetation. Until you have a specific experiment that yields much higher mule deer numbers based upon your point and no other improvements then shut up and save us all the rattling on about how you're so smart you've proved nothing.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Lonetree you have no data, experiment, or proof that mule deer numbers have been increased dramatically and specifically by reducing pollution, which created better nutrients in the vegetation. Until you have a specific experiment that yields much higher mule deer numbers based upon your point and no other improvements then shut up and save us all the rattling on about how you're so smart you've proved nothing.


:mrgreen: Have you checked the coolant PH? That is probably what it is.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Tell you what, you two guys keep on arguing about what the problem is.....I'm practicing with my rifle and muzzy getting ready to be a part of the problem in a few months. Thanks for your help, I really hope you figger out how to make more deers cuz me likes shooting em.-------SS


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Springville Shooter said:


> Tell you what, you two guys keep on arguing about what the problem is.....I'm practicing with my rifle and muzzy getting ready to be a part of the problem in a few months. Thanks for your help, I really hope you figger out how to make more deers cuz me likes shooting em.-------SS


Don't we all, that is at the core of this.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> :mrgreen: Have you checked the coolant PH? That is probably what it is.


Again you side track rather than admit you have no real studies. You're taking data and assuming not taking data and seeing it out to the test. You have no results therefor you have no argument.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Again you side track rather than admit you have no real studies. You're taking data and assuming not taking data and seeing it out to the test. You have no results therefor you have no argument.


Here read this: http://www.windriverhistory.org/tlr/sheepstudy/tlr_sheepmain.htm

To actually read this, will take a few hours, please come back and run your yap some more then. And please bring something to support your argument, when you do return.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> Here read this: http://www.windriverhistory.org/tlr/sheepstudy/tlr_sheepmain.htm
> 
> To actually read this, will take a few hours, please come back and run your yap some more then. And please bring something to support your argument, when you do return.


I want studies done on mule deer lonetree , and proof of population growth specifically related to your argument. It's apples to oranges elk are doing very well, this study was done on sheep. Different species react differently, let's see a study on deer. As for basis for my argument, countless others have posted about habitat projects, predator control, and highway mortality studies. Trust me there is much more research and studies on those subjects than on yours, yet you think that information can be disregarded. Don't be a fool lonetree. You keep posting this same study, I remember 6 months ago same link to the same study, I haven't said it doesn't effect, I am saying it isn't the soul aspect of all our deer herd problems.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I want studies done on mule deer lonetree , and proof of population growth specifically related to your argument. It's apples to oranges elk are doing very well, this study was done on sheep. Different species react differently, let's see a study on deer. As for basis for my argument, countless others have posted about habitat projects, predator control, and highway mortality studies. Trust me there is much more research and studies on those subjects than on yours, yet you think that information can be disregarded. Don't be a fool lonetree. You keep posting this same study, I remember 6 months ago same link to the same study, I haven't said it doesn't effect, I am saying it isn't the soul aspect of all our deer herd problems.


Well that is kind of the problem, I have been pointing out, now isn't it? Utah studies are not getting done on mule deer nutrition, maybe you missed that part.

Studies in ID, and CO have shown that nutrition is the number one limiting factor for mule deer. Utah is not even looking at this.

Moose are suffering from mineral deficiencies, big horn sheep are suffering from mineral deficiencies. They have both experienced the same pattern of declines over the last 30 years, that mule deer have, but yeah, it must be that we need micro unit management, or predator control.

Here is a study on Utah mule deer nutrition, that makes the connection to the sheep study: http://utahcbcp.org/files/uploads/publications/ChrisPetersenDissertation.pdf this This will take a full day to read. Seeing as how you remember the other study, you must have read it, right? So you should be able to come back sometime tomorrow with your thoughts on how it all relates.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> Well that is kind of the problem, I have been pointing out, now isn't it? Utah studies are not getting done on mule deer nutrition, maybe you missed that part.
> 
> Studies in ID, and CO have shown that nutrition is the number one limiting factor for mule deer. Utah is not even looking at this.
> 
> ...


So tell me , what have those great states that have done this research, done to fix this terrible problem that will solve everything ?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Did somebody hear something?


----------

