# Snow and fawning



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Yesterdays storms dropped alot of cold snow, I hope not many fawns were dropped during it. 


-DallanC


----------



## brendo (Sep 10, 2013)

I was wondering how many would make it through. WORST possible timing with how new they all are!


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

They'll will be fine moo cows drop their calves in the winter.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

swbuckmaster said:


> They'll will be fine moo cows drop their calves in the winter.


 I was out riding my 4 wheeler the other day and watched a cow drop a calf. 15 minutes later it was up on all fours. I even got a photo.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

swbuckmaster said:


> They'll will be fine moo cows drop their calves in the winter.


Yea and I've had enough freeze to death on our farm to be concerned.

-DallanC


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Crazy pic Fowl!!!

Nature at her finest.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

12"+ of snow at 9000' in June is not the norm. Most of the deer I am watching already dropped their fawns. I know of two does that definitely lost fawns in that storm, and several more that I am not sure about. For those that were not in that storm as it was coming down, it was up to my knees where it was drifted. I had similar reports from other people as low as 8000' feet in some places. 

Freezes like this, at this time of the year change the nutritional make up of forage. This then cause imbalances especially for lactating does. Those deer that are already on the edge, are going to suffer more. For having a fairly mild winter with an early spring, many of the deer I have been watching are not in that great of shape, and that storm will not help that.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

I didnt know there was that much snow. I thought we were talking about an inch or two that would melt off the next day. I can see how that much would cause problems. 

It snowed on my job site all day but it never stuck


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Sounds like i hear an argument coming next spring option two failed and we have too many bucks and they killed all the fawns


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

swbuckmaster said:


> Sounds like i hear an argument coming next spring option two failed and we have too many bucks and they killed all the fawns


No but it is a good reminder that with all our discussion on policies, hunting restrictions, predator management, forage and other topics, Mother Nature can come out of no-where with something like a storm that negates everything else we consider.

We make changes on a tiny scale. Mother Nature does it on a wide ranging scale. We could have the most awesome mule deer strategy in the world but its all for naught if a fast moving wayward storm hits at the wrong time.

-DallanC


----------



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

Lonetree said:


> 12"+ of snow at 9000' in June is not the norm. Most of the deer I am watching already dropped their fawns. I know of two does that definitely lost fawns in that storm, and several more that I am not sure about. For those that were not in that storm as it was coming down, it was up to my knees where it was drifted. I had similar reports from other people as low as 8000' feet in some places.
> 
> Freezes like this, at this time of the year change the nutritional make up of forage. This then cause imbalances especially for lactating does. Those deer that are already on the edge, are going to suffer more. For having a fairly mild winter with an early spring, many of the deer I have been watching are not in that great of shape, and that storm will not help that.


Now wait a minute Lonetree, weather isn't what's affecting our deer herd, that's just silly to think weather will do anything. PS- I'm just messing around, not starting a fight.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> Sounds like i hear an argument coming next spring option two failed and we have too many bucks and they killed all the fawns


So with less snow would the bucks have had more fawns?

Most of the fawns I have seen this spring have bigger problems than the snow. The snow is just one more issue.

Come on, I just saw another thread where you were talking about antler growth being pretty much done? I have a very hard time taking a lot of your perceptions about mule deer serious, because they are simply unfounded, just like Option WTF?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Dallen your preaching to the choir. I understand monther nature is in charge of boom and bust cycles.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Lt I said the antler growth on that buck in the photo looked about done. It had no mass to grow its points more then five inches. If you say otherwise I question how much time you really spend looking at deer. 

I never said anything about bucks in general being done


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

DallanC said:


> No but it is a good reminder that with all our discussion on policies, hunting restrictions, predator management, forage and other topics, Mother Nature can come out of no-where with something like a storm that negates everything else we consider.
> 
> We make changes on a tiny scale. Mother Nature does it on a wide ranging scale. We could have the most awesome mule deer strategy in the world but its all for naught if a fast moving wayward storm hits at the wrong time.
> 
> -DallanC


No, we are making changes on a big scale, which makes random storms even more detrimental than they would normally be.

So far the majority of the fawns that I have been able to observe this spring look like the ones in the pictures I posted links to. This is caused by endocrine disruption, extreme nutritional deficiencies, or most likely in the situations I am looking at, endocrine disruption, coupled with nutritional deficiencies. 
http://rutalocura.com/images/IMG_6554.JPG

http://rutalocura.com/images/IMG_6556.JPG

http://rutalocura.com/images/IMG_6508.JPG

http://rutalocura.com/images/IMG_6503.JPG

These are pictures of road killed fawns from around a week ago. These fawns have under bites that prevent them closing their lips together making it difficult for them to suckle. The lower incisors do not meet up with the upper dental pad, so had they matured efficient browsing would have been impossible. Throw a heavy snow storm on top of conditions like this, and it can be disastrous. But only the snow storm is mother nature at work.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> Dallen your preaching to the choir. I understand monther nature is in charge of boom and bust cycles.


Prove to me how that is, in the context of the last 30 years of declines?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

So LT how many bucks are we over objective on our general hunts and how many fawns did we loose to them in this storm? I mean they must have ate all the forage and the does obviously suffered this winter from what you are saying. 

I think the general areas I was watching on my bear hunt the does looked better than ive seen them in years so im not sure what your talking about them being in poor health. Maybe its the area your in that has its own local acid rain suck factor. Kind of like me saying that snow wont hurt deer because the snow I saw at 5,000-6,000 feet didnt stick.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> So LT how many bucks are we over objective on our general hunts and how many fawns did we loose to them in this storm? I mean they must have ate all the forage and the does obviously suffered this winter from what you are saying.
> 
> I think the general areas I was watching on my bear hunt the does looked better than ive seen them in years so im not sure what your talking about them being in poor health. Maybe its the area your in that has its own local acid rain suck factor. Kind of like me saying that snow wont hurt deer because the snow I saw at 5,000-6,000 feet didnt stick.


High buck to doe ratios, which we have in many areas, mean low fawn to doe ratios, and reduced over all deer numbers. You can't prove other wise. Under these conditions, any loses of fawns will have a measured and detrimental affect on herd numbers, because your recruitment numbers are already borderline. This is exactly why managing for B/D ratios, regardless of actual herd health, which is the intent of Option WTF, is detrimental to deer herds.

But look on the bright side, we probably did not loose any bucks in that storm, just over all deer numbers 3 years from now.

Option WTF suppresses deer numbers, and does not manage based on herd health. In fact it contributes to the decline of herd health. But hey, as long as people _feel_ good about, that's all that matters.

Care to touch on any of the real issues?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Nice diversion LT

How many bucks to does are we over on our general areas? 

Ill be looking at those areas next year to see the declines in overall deer numbers your talking about.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Yeah, I'm diverting?

Depends on where we are talking about, what do you mean by "general" all we have are LE areas. The fawns we just lost would have the most impact on herd numbers further out than next year. They would only be yearlings next year, so you can remove them as one individual deer. If they were does, then two years from now the math gets done very differently.

Buck management and short term thinking will not grow deer herds. Regardless of the unit, for roughly every 2.5 bucks over ~15 bucks to does, you can reduce the fawn to ratio by about 7 fawns to 100 does. So if a unit is hovering close to 40 fawns per 100 does, any of the fawns removed by a snow storm contribute even further to herd suppression, or take it closer to 40/100. Throw in health problems, and it gets even worse. Add the fact that some of these health and environmental problems further increase buck to doe ratios beyond just what hunter management does, and the issues are compounded yet again. You guys think that what you see right now is the affects of last year, or last month, it does not work that way.

Managing for anything but health and growth, is detrimental to deer and deer hunting. Which is exactly what Option WTF? does, it manages for suppression.

But like I said as long as you guys _feel_ good about that, that is all that matters right?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Another diversion
Maybe you dont hunt LT and have no idea what our general areas are managed for and that's the problem


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> Another diversion
> Maybe you dont hunt LT and have no idea what our general areas are managed for and that's the problem


You asked a question, I answered it, no diversion.

I have about 3000 miles and around 100 hours studying actual deer on the ground in the last 2 months.

I am talking about mule deer, and the things that actually affect them, along with real numbers, and real science that support that. Yet guys like you, just keep talking about hunter management, and other social aspects, while regurgitating the lies you have been told. With absolutely nothing to support anything you mention.

The original subject was snow and fawns, that is what I commented on. Yet you took the conversation somewhere else, then accused me of "diversions". Really?

Do you want to talk about mule deer fawns, or actual mule deer? Just kidding, its a rhetorical question, you would rather talk about hunter management and fairy tales.

Seriously, do you want to actually talk about mule deer?


----------



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

Lonetree do yourself a favor and stop. YOU DO NOT KNOW EVERYTHING, and you have not fixed anything. I do believe buck:doe ratios are too high in some areas that we can agree on . However as far as fawn loss from this one storm you're up in the night. My cattle have calves in the dead of winter in 10 degree weather or lower, in blizzards (again I don't give my cattle minerals either) and they do just fine in a bald open field with no cover whatsoever. Calves that have been born for even a day or two are fine and actually more active in the cooler temperatures. This storm is not going to hurt the deer herd, not when you have one storm for a 24 hour period and then 24 more hours later temperatures sky rocket back up and begin melting the snow immediately. This storm isn't winter, it isn't a snow that is crusting over or sticking for a long period of time. As long as the doe is getting grass, which hell it's mid June grass has been growing good for a month, then the fawn will be fine, just like a calf eats nothing but it's mothers milk for the first few weeks of life, it isn't like the fawn is consuming massive amounts of that vegetation anyway. You frustrate me because you post things like those fawns wouldn't have been able to survive because of their underbite. You do realize despite all the photos and info you post, the deer herd has been growing in population over the last three years of your preaching right ? This storm probably killed a few fawns, but I don't think a 24 hour storm destroyed the herd, minerals are to blame for that


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Lonetree do yourself a favor and stop. YOU DO NOT KNOW EVERYTHING, and you have not fixed anything. I do believe buck:doe ratios are too high in some areas that we can agree on . However as far as fawn loss from this one storm you're up in the night. My cattle have calves in the dead of winter in 10 degree weather or lower, in blizzards (again I don't give my cattle minerals either) and they do just fine in a bald open field with no cover whatsoever. Calves that have been born for even a day or two are fine and actually more active in the cooler temperatures. This storm is not going to hurt the deer herd, not when you have one storm for a 24 hour period and then 24 more hours later temperatures sky rocket back up and begin melting the snow immediately. This storm isn't winter, it isn't a snow that is crusting over or sticking for a long period of time. As long as the doe is getting grass, which hell it's mid June grass has been growing good for a month, then the fawn will be fine, just like a calf eats nothing but it's mothers milk for the first few weeks of life, it isn't like the fawn is consuming massive amounts of that vegetation anyway. You frustrate me because you post things like those fawns wouldn't have been able to survive because of their underbite. You do realize despite all the photos and info you post, the deer herd has been growing in population over the last three years of your preaching right ? This storm probably killed a few fawns, but I don't think a 24 hour storm destroyed the herd, minerals are to blame for that


Yeah.......and I need to stop?

Grass? And what does a freeze do to grass this time of year? Your cattle survive despite you, not because of you.

Deer are feeding on a lot more than grass right now, and for very good reason.

This storm was crusting over.

http://rutalocura.com/images/IMG_6646.JPG

http://rutalocura.com/images/IMG_6655.JPG

Yes, the deer herds have been increasing, and that is to some extent in spite of other suppressing factors, so what happens when you have multiple suppressing factors, coupled with bad management, all meeting up?

No I don't know everything, but knowing more than you is pretty easy, do you ever have anything to contribute? Seriously, I frustrate you?

You don't know the first thing about any of this, from your original one eye post to now, you have learned nothing, and probably never will.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Well, if we did loose a lot of fawns this week and more are going to die, due to poor health. 
We should plan on more tag cuts in the upcoming years because there will be less bucks to hunt. 
Lonetree, thanks for the advanced notice.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

ridgetop said:


> Well, if we did loose a lot of fawns this week and more are going to die, due to poor health.
> We should plan on more tag cuts in the upcoming years because there will be less bucks to hunt.
> Lonetree, thanks for the advanced notice.


No problem, you and 1I have fun brainstorming on that with Don, one of you should bring the napkins, the other can bring the crayons.

Ridge, you want to actually have a conservation about deer? Or has nobody prepared talking points for you beyond Option WTF?


----------



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

Lonetree said:


> Yeah.......and I need to stop?
> 
> Grass? And what does a freeze do to grass this time of year? Your cattle survive despite you, not because of you.
> 
> ...


First, what do those pictures show me ? You can't show crusting over so it just shows how useless all of your photos are. They prove nothing. I've fought with you extensively that weather is a big driving force and now you think one 24 hour storm is going to destroy the herd? You're ridiculous, you take everything to the max , this storm will have little effect. What are your temps now lonetree? How deep was the snow 24 hours after the storm? I think deer face bigger obsticles than one cold storm in mid June when they've had forage available for a while now. As for my cattle that sale for top dollar, I'll let the price tags people pay do the talking and the quality of the meat before I let someone aside from the situation critique me. Keep eating ground up Mcdonalds garbage and I'll keep raising and consuming top quality meat that I know where comes from. As for grass, it takes a lot to freeze grass off , with snowpack sitting on top to insulate during the coldest parts of the storm and temperatures bouncing back up so quickly a little grass will be lost and it is far worse on the trees budding and freezing than anything else.

As for survival deer can survive deep snow or cold temps but not both for an extended period of time. Cold temps for a day and deep snow for 2-3 aren't going to kill many if any adult deer and few fawns. I'm not worried and trends will be up again on counts this year if winter isn't really bad. So when numbers show higher again on counts you can keep BSing with fairy tales. According to you and your input the last few years out herds should be crashing, yet they are growing more than they have for a couple decades in spite of your. "Information ". I do think you have some good info and ideas but I don't think you have the information to prove without doubt. Also thinking you know more than others is much different than actually knowing so much more. You've taken some photos of road kill deer , you're right none of us could ever do that .


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

So you don't know anything about snow, I'm not surprised. Your observational comprehension is about as good as your reading comprehension. 

We are not talking about grass "freezing off" Seriously, as a cattle rancher, what does freezing temps do to the nutritional content of grass, especially during spring? If you do not know, it is only proof that your cattle thrive, despite you, not because of you. 

1I, my 5 year daughter knows more about mule deer than you do. Which is why you guys come in with the bull **** that you do, rather than engaging the information, or actually attempting to point by point, with actual data, knowledge, or experience taking it apart. BECAUSE YOU CAN"T You don't think for yourself, so until someone tells you what to say about this, all you will ever have is peripheral arguments about me.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> No problem, you and 1I have fun brainstorming on that with Don, one of you should bring the napkins, the other can bring the crayons.
> 
> Ridge, you want to actually have a conservation about deer? Or has nobody prepared talking points for you beyond Option WTF?


I'll leave the "conservation" to the real Biologist and I really don't care to have any conversation with you about how everyone around you are idiots.

Now if you want to talk about the mature deer we will see this season. Then I'm game.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Like I said.........


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> Like I said.........


I'm sorry. Did you say anything?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

See, you won't engage in a an actual conversation(no auto correct problem that time) about mule deer, because you can't, you are on about the same level as 1I. Actually, he has made a better attempt than you have, might be because he knows more about the subject matter than you, I don't know, hard to tell.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> See, you won't engage in a an actual conversation(no auto correct problem that time) about mule deer, because you can't, you are on about the same level as 1I. Actually, he has made a better attempt than you have, might be because he knows more about the subject matter than you, I don't know, hard to tell.


I have nothing to prove trying to "engage" with someone that I can't even tell the difference from their mouth and their rectum. 
;-)


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

So nothing to contribute as usual, other than continuing on with being part of the problem, no surprise here.

Option 2 is bad for deer and deer hunting, and you are all for it. You can't prove that it is anything but bad for deer, and deer hunting, which is why you go about this the way you do. Hey, as long as your _feelings_ are being met right?


----------



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

Lonetree said:


> So you don't know anything about snow, I'm not surprised. Your observational comprehension is about as good as your reading comprehension.
> 
> We are not talking about grass "freezing off" Seriously, as a cattle rancher, what does freezing temps do to the nutritional content of grass, especially during spring? If you do not know, it is only proof that your cattle thrive, despite you, not because of you.
> 
> 1I, my 5 year daughter knows more about mule deer than you do. Which is why you guys come in with the bull **** that you do, rather than engaging the information, or actually attempting to point by point, with actual data, knowledge, or experience taking it apart. BECAUSE YOU CAN"T You don't think for yourself, so until someone tells you what to say about this, all you will ever have is peripheral arguments about me.


Oh lonetree how blind you are. Have you ever raised animals lonetree ? I've raised sheep, cattle , pigs, chickens, and goats. Primarily cattle. I have raised them off of pasture. I can start feeding pasture and stop feeding hay by mid April . My calves are usually healthier and heavier than the guy who runs cattle in the very same pasture that feeds them for a month extra and pumps them full of grain before selling them. No lonetree not despite me but are very healthy, well tempered cattle that you can even go up to and touch, that bring great yields without extreme costs. And that's how you make it in business by keeping costs down and bringing larger profit gains. It is you who knows nothing about raising cattle, caring for when sick, adjusting feed so there is little waste, and yielding top dollar. I have been very successful with the small herd I've raised and yet you think you can criticize? But you would ,because you can't actually make your point.

Back to mule deer though. Grass and other vegetation does loose nutritional value, but the simple fact is you just added a good amount of moisture with good temperatures that will yield far greater nutrients and vegetation yields in the coming weeks. The deer had time with this storm to gain some health back for a month or so before this hit. The few days it may affect vegetation will have minimal affects on the deer, and the fawns simply because the fawns are not interested in large amounts of vegetation yet anyone. Mortality from this storm is going to be minimal and you'll be proved wrong by doe:fawn counts eventually.

As for your snow photos, are you kidding? They show nothing. They show snow falling where yes it is cold at the moment. The problem with your theory is that temperatures rose within a day after the storm , and have risen a lot the last couple days, do you really think that snow has a hard crust on it still? Like I said it's been shown that if below zero temps continue for a few weeks along with deep snow deer do very bad. However deer do much better when it's either/or not both at the same time for AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME. This storm effected deer for 48 hours tops . You probably lost a few very young fawns, but I doubt any mature deer were lost and I doubt a large number of fawns were lost. You can keep throwing around name calling and 2 year old arguments saying others are not smart, but in the end you're just the one sitting in the corner pouting because no one agrees with or likes you.


----------



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

Lonetree said:


> So nothing to contribute as usual, other than continuing on with being part of the problem, no surprise here.
> 
> Option 2 is bad for deer and deer hunting, and you are all for it. You can't prove that it is anything but bad for deer, and deer hunting, which is why you go about this the way you do. Hey, as long as your _feelings_ are being met right?


You know what lonetree so far I've seen more deer, more bucks and had better success. In 100 years I'll be dead, this generation and others are destroying this planet we live on. I won't be here to see the demise and mankind will deal it's own fate, I'm going to enjoy it while I'm here and hope to see good bucks in the herd. You won't be here either, so start enjoying a little and stop looking at over bites. I understand we need to conserve and help future generations and we should as much as we can. Bottom line the hands been dealt and this worlds not getting any bigger or more full of resources, eventually you can't stop the world from running out as it's abused and destroyed.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Some guys hunt, some guys don't. Some deer are malnourished, most get killed on highway 6. What I've learned from this thread is that it's a wonder that I'm still alive with all the frozen vegetables that I eat. -------SS


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Oh lonetree how blind you are. Have you ever raised animals lonetree ? I've raised sheep, cattle , pigs, chickens, and goats. Primarily cattle. I have raised them off of pasture. I can start feeding pasture and stop feeding hay by mid April . My calves are usually healthier and heavier than the guy who runs cattle in the very same pasture that feeds them for a month extra and pumps them full of grain before selling them. No lonetree not despite me but are very healthy, well tempered cattle that you can even go up to and touch, that bring great yields without extreme costs. And that's how you make it in business by keeping costs down and bringing larger profit gains. It is you who knows nothing about raising cattle, caring for when sick, adjusting feed so there is little waste, and yielding top dollar. I have been very successful with the small herd I've raised and yet you think you can criticize? But you would ,because you can't actually make your point.
> 
> Back to mule deer though. Grass and other vegetation does loose nutritional value, but the simple fact is you just added a good amount of moisture with good temperatures that will yield far greater nutrients and vegetation yields in the coming weeks. The deer had time with this storm to gain some health back for a month or so before this hit. The few days it may affect vegetation will have minimal affects on the deer, and the fawns simply because the fawns are not interested in large amounts of vegetation yet anyone. Mortality from this storm is going to be minimal and you'll be proved wrong by doe:fawn counts eventually.
> 
> As for your snow photos, are you kidding? They show nothing. They show snow falling where yes it is cold at the moment. The problem with your theory is that temperatures rose within a day after the storm , and have risen a lot the last couple days, do you really think that snow has a hard crust on it still? Like I said it's been shown that if below zero temps continue for a few weeks along with deep snow deer do very bad. However deer do much better when it's either/or not both at the same time for AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME. This storm effected deer for 48 hours tops . You probably lost a few very young fawns, but I doubt any mature deer were lost and I doubt a large number of fawns were lost. You can keep throwing around name calling and 2 year old arguments saying others are not smart, but in the end you're just the one sitting in the corner pouting because no one agrees with or likes you.


Grass and freezes: Actually grass becomes elevated in some nutrients with a spring freeze. This is the problem, especially if coupled with other deficiencies. Keep bluffing.

That snow was crusting over on 12"-16" snow just before dark, it was fully crusted over, over night. One and two week old fawns do not handle that well at all. But you know, you were there, right?

When I say that some people here are stupid, they usually help me reinforce my argument. And you are, pardon the pun, #1 for that. I can support that assertion, so far neither you or anyone else here can support your claims that I don't know what I'm talking about. The evidence is the way in which you avoid directly engaging what I present, but instead tip toe around and try to make it about other things.

Now go check your blinker fluid, if it is not that, it has to be the muffler bearings, but you are going to need a PH tester to check that.

You are still doing better than Ridgetop though.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> You know what lonetree so far I've seen more deer, more bucks and had better success. In 100 years I'll be dead, this generation and others are destroying this planet we live on. I won't be here to see the demise and mankind will deal it's own fate, I'm going to enjoy it while I'm here and hope to see good bucks in the herd. You won't be here either, so start enjoying a little and stop looking at over bites. I understand we need to conserve and help future generations and we should as much as we can. Bottom line the hands been dealt and this worlds not getting any bigger or more full of resources, eventually you can't stop the world from running out as it's abused and destroyed.


And here is probably one of the best examples of why our wildlife and hunting don't have a chance in hell.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Springville Shooter said:


> Some guys hunt, some guys don't. Some deer are malnourished, most get killed on highway 6. What I've learned from this thread is that it's a wonder that I'm still alive with all the frozen vegetables that I eat. -------SS


Yeah, it is amazing how many get hit on the highway. Especially at particular places, I wonder why?


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> When I say that some people here are stupid, they usually help me reinforce my argument. And you are, pardon the pun, #1 for that.
> You are still doing better than Ridgetop though.


Wait just a minute.
Who's #1, when it comes to stupidity?
I thought I had that title.

Lonetree, 
any bets on who will kill a bigger buck this year?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

It might be a tie.

I'm not a hornographer. You killing a bigger deer, or me killing a bigger deer is just that, one of us killing a bigger deer than the other. This would not change any current realities. 

This does further demonstrate your current disconnect. I talk about what is best for growing more deer, and more deer hunting. 1I tells me to just let them die, and enjoy doing it, and you just focus on big bucks again. 

And there are still a few people wondering what is wrong?


----------



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

Lonetree said:


> Grass and freezes: Actually grass becomes elevated in some nutrients with a spring freeze. This is the problem, especially if coupled with other deficiencies. Keep bluffing.
> 
> That snow was crusting over on 12"-16" snow just before dark, it was fully crusted over, over night. One and two week old fawns do not handle that well at all. But you know, you were there, right?
> 
> ...


Crusting over just before dark? Oh god, it must have killed every deer on the mountain then right? The temps that were 50-60 degrees the next day probably didn't touch that crust did they? And then the 60-70 degree temps the day after that probably still couldn't penetrate. If you will bold face sit here and say that large numbers of fawns died because of this very short lived snow storm, it proves how you will simply stick with your idea no matter how ridiculous you start to sound. Go find the dead fawns, take pictures with dates, locations, as well as photos and counts of doe's and doe's with fawns as well. Come up with this information the percentage of fawns that have died in a given area where this storm took place and prove your point. I think we both know you won't and will come up with a very small percentage if you were to. You have done exactly what you criticize, come up with a theory that has no evidence to back it. You are assuming that in this situation it had great affects, with no data to support it.

As for grass, it would depend on how cold temps got. Late frosts or repeated frosting puts stress on the growing cycle. Which yes could cause the grass to use nutrients stored in its roots to continue the growing cycle. However it takes more than one soft freeze to cause grass to do this. A soft freeze which is what this was is when the soil is not frozen along with the top layer. As long as the grasses roots remaining above freezing point (which with the insulation of 12-16" of snow the first night and higher temps after that ONE cold night they more than likely did, which would yield very little effects on the overall growth activity of the grasses. Also because there was so much snow added to the top that could further damage the grass because of the pressure that flattened it out which would probably yield less use to our wildlife not more.


----------



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

Lonetree said:


> And here is probably one of the best examples of why our wildlife and hunting don't have a chance in hell.


Actually it's the reality of what will happen. We have to try and save as much as we can but truth is lonetree, you can't stop everything, and little by little that everything is pushing its way to the final say of what happens.

Mankind doesn't have a chance in hell lonetree, eventually the world will run dry of resources and neither you or me will be here to see or stop it. So enjoy it while you're here, don't condone bad practices and look for better way and voice your opinion. But don't be afraid to at least enjoy it to the fullest while you're here because we still have it today.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Crusting over just before dark? Oh god, it must have killed every deer on the mountain then right? The temps that were 50-60 degrees the next day probably didn't touch that crust did they? And then the 60-70 degree temps the day after that probably still couldn't penetrate. If you will bold face sit here and say that large numbers of fawns died because of this very short lived snow storm, it proves how you will simply stick with your idea no matter how ridiculous you start to sound. Go find the dead fawns, take pictures with dates, locations, as well as photos and counts of doe's and doe's with fawns as well. Come up with this information the percentage of fawns that have died in a given area where this storm took place and prove your point. I think we both know you won't and will come up with a very small percentage if you were to. You have done exactly what you criticize, come up with a theory that has no evidence to back it. You are assuming that in this situation it had great affects, with no data to support it.
> 
> As for grass, it would depend on how cold temps got. Late frosts or repeated frosting puts stress on the growing cycle. Which yes could cause the grass to use nutrients stored in its roots to continue the growing cycle. However it takes more than one soft freeze to cause grass to do this. A soft freeze which is what this was is when the soil is not frozen along with the top layer. As long as the grasses roots remaining above freezing point (which with the insulation of 12-16" of snow the first night and higher temps after that ONE cold night they more than likely did, which would yield very little effects on the overall growth activity of the grasses. Also because there was so much snow added to the top that could further damage the grass because of the pressure that flattened it out which would probably yield less use to our wildlife not more.


Be careful #1DEER, you might loose your #1 idiot ranking.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I'm betting that Lonetree is not even a hunter but some weirdo that just likes to push peoples buttons.-O,-

In the name of saving the world. I mean Mule Deer.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

ridgetop said:


> Be careful #1DEER, you might loose your #1 idiot ranking.


I don't think that is going to happen, that guy is completely ****ing clueless.

Ridge, I believe you to be fully capable, thats why you frustrate me.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Buttons?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

The part that intrigues me and concerns me simultaneously, is how you guys recoil from reality, do you really feel that impotent?


----------



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

Lonetree said:


> I don't think that is going to happen, that guy is completely ****ing clueless.
> 
> Ridge, I believe you to be fully capable, thats why you frustrate me.


Lonetree you try to use facts and yet you are so afraid to face them. If you're nutrients theory had weight there would be nothing you could efficiently and effectively do about it anyway. Not with current economic development and modernization. You can only fix the things capable of being fixed. You won't be taking acid rain out of the sky's , dropping the amount of chemicals used, or putting a big enough dent into fossil fuel use that you can ever do anything to effect the things you think. You sit here in this fight and call us clueless, yet you have no data of your own. Like I said get a count on dead fawns, does with fawns, does without fawns in an area, and then look at the nutrient level in the grasses where the storm took place. Once you have this well talk about it, but you don't have any more of an argument here other than an assumption you've made. I can see you now taking those photos in the snow with both hands on your head just thinking god no, not this, anything but this. There will hardly be a deer left after the next 10 hours. Yeah the sky probably fell and I'm sure where the temperature dropped there isn't one fawn left, I mean there couldn't be with that crust ladting for 10 hours.


----------



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

Lonetree said:


> The part that intrigues me and concerns me simultaneously, is how you guys recoil from reality, do you really feel that impotent?


You've recoiled from reality. Go up where you took this pictures and take a look at reality. The voices in your head are not the reality it will be the does and fawns in front of you that will be reality.

Also reality is, this worlds getting used up, look at the shear amount of resources being depleted every day. But I'm sure as long as we get the mineral situation in line we'll save the world . Ridiculous lonetree , wake up and get it.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

LT your the best entertainment on this site. To say you bedazzle me with your bull sit would be an understatement. 

Im actually surprised your phone works up in the snow by Heber. I bet your a hit in rainbow camp.


----------



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

swbuckmaster said:


> LT your the best entertainment on this site. To say you bedazzle me with your bull sit would be an understatement.
> 
> Im actually surprised your phone works up in the snow by Heber. I bet your a hit in rainbow camp.


I kind of wonder how he does all his research too when it seems he answers on here all day everyday. I know when I'm on the mountain I don't usually sit on my phone and post page long posts.


----------



## koltraynor (Jun 16, 2014)

Well that's 15 minutes of my life I'll never get back.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I kind of wonder how he does all his research too when it seems he answers on here all day everyday. I know when I'm on the mountain I don't usually sit on my phone and post page long posts.


All day everyday? Really, coming from you? That was precious.

Just remember the next time some one shoots your favorite deer, or you want to know what to plant for pheasants, or you think that we should change the dedicated hunter program, it does not matter. Just stop, don't worry about it, nothing can be done anyway, don't post on here about it, don't ask questions about it, it is inevitable, there is nothing you can do. Next time the sky hook in your truck goes out, stop trying to figure it out, don't post questions about it, just sit in the cab, and enjoy it.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

1I, SW, Ridge

PROVE IT! I got my money where my mouth is, and as usual you are all standing there with your empty hands out. SW, you like to discount nitrate deposition, PROVE IT, show us its not a problem. Explain to us how it does not reduce selenium availability, or drive hypomagnesemia, while converting to nitrites and nitriles in the rumens of big game, exacerbating the root problem further. Not just, "oh you're humorus" can you actually support the things you claim? I can. 1I, tell us how a freeze like we just had, does not increase the nitrate composition of the grass, compounding this problem. And maybe Ridge could explain to us, how endocrine disruption, that drives hypothyroidism, that is then complicated by the before mentioned situations, is good for deer herds, because it further skews sex ratios in favor of males, we all know how sterile bucks have twin fawns every year.

We get it, we all know how you guys _feel_ about all of this, but can you support your _feelings_ with anything tangible, or substantial? Good lord, Photoshop some coyotes killing deer or something.

Seriously, you guys like to make fun of it, and say I'm full of ****, but not once have any of you actually poked a hole in anything I have ever presented. If I am so wrong, and up in the night listening to voices in my head, then you should be able to point by point tear my argument down. You should be able to explain away pictures, and explain how the chemistry is wrong, and does not work. But no, 1I has even caved to "there is nothing we can do anyway" So by his argument, we should not try to do anything that may benefit deer, because in the end, it won't matter.

Come on SW, Ridge, you gonna stand with 1I on that, or can you muster an argument beyond how you _feel_ about any of this?

And while you guys are at it, what is your solution to the deer problem?


----------



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

Lonetree said:


> All day everyday? Really, coming from you? That was precious.
> 
> Just remember the next time some one shoots your favorite deer, or you want to know what to plant for pheasants, or you think that we should change the dedicated hunter program, it does not matter. Just stop, don't worry about it, nothing can be done anyway, don't post on here about it, don't ask questions about it, it is inevitable, there is nothing you can do. Next time the sky hook in your truck goes out, stop trying to figure it out, don't post questions about it, just sit in the cab, and enjoy it.


Lonetree there is a huge difference between a reachable solution and an unreachable solution. Ask questions, speak till your blue it won't do any good. There are things you can change and make a difference and things you can't. You're talking blue in the face about things that nothing can be done about, sorry you've chose a worthless cause. Again , you can keep up your 2 year old tantrums or just discuss with me.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

No brain, you can't even comprehend what I am talking about, how do you know there is no solution? If that is the case, explain that to us in detail. There is no way to reduce or stop the endocrine disruption? You know this how? There is no way to minimize or mitigate some of these other situations? You know this how? By all means, explain it to us. 

Can you tell us what causes the endocrine disruption that leads to maloclussions and testicular malformation? Because if you can't tell us how this stuff works, you can not say there is no way to fix it. I mean maybe all we need to do is change the coolant, and it will start right up. Did you ever get that PH tester?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

*#1DEER 1-I







*

*Senior Member*


Send Message








User Lists








 Last Activity: Today 06:24 AM 
Current Activity: Replying to Thread Snow and fawning


----------



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

Lonetree said:


> *#1DEER 1-I
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So you even have time to post my current status. Good to see you're not always on here and out doing research. Lonetree you've proven nothing, fixed nothing, and came up with no solution. You haven't changed the world lonetree and you're a very little annoying voice who thinks he knows everything but knows very little about reality and no one cares.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> So you even have time to post my current status. Good to see you're not always on here and out doing research. Lonetree you've proven nothing, fixed nothing, and came up with no solution. You haven't changed the world lonetree and you're a very little annoying voice who thinks he knows everything but knows very little about reality and no one cares.


Between my earlier posts, and 11:00PM I covered ~100 miles, picked up 3 trail cams, and set up another mineral station. What did you do?

Seriously, break this down for everybody, splain it 2 uS. Your post is like a lot of what you and a handful of other people post all the time, it is unsupported, and has no basis, nor can you show other wise.

Explain to us what causes the endocrine disruption, and why there is no solution? Come on, back it up.


----------



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

Lonetree said:


> Between my earlier posts, and 11:00PM I covered ~100 miles, picked up 3 trail cams, and set up another mineral station. What did you do?
> 
> Seriously, break this down for everybody, splain it 2 uS. Your post is like a lot of what you and a handful of other people post all the time, it is unsupported, and has no basis, nor can you show other wise.
> 
> Explain to us what causes the endocrine disruption, and why there is no solution? Come on, back it up.


I'll explain this to you. I graduated high school, took higher ed classes in environmental science while there. I have completed college classes and gained a degree . Today? I worked 12 hours like I do 5 days a week, or wait I work 12-15 hour days, and have for the last year or so . I think I accomplished plenty. I've taken biology courses, enviro. Courses, and many others. I'm well educated and know plenty . I also know how to work and put my energy to good use. I don't drag on useless studies that have gotten me no where . Sorry lonetree I don't have as much time as prior to a year ago I had to delve into it. But I have been educated , am mule deer savey, and know a poser like you when I see one, or listen to one rant on for years about things in a ridiculousness way. But anyway glad to see your fulfillment with yourself I'm sure your proud and 100% right in that naive mind of yours.


----------



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

Lonetree said:


> Between my earlier posts, and 11:00PM I covered ~100 miles, picked up 3 trail cams, and set up another mineral station. What did you do?
> 
> Seriously, break this down for everybody, splain it 2 uS. Your post is like a lot of what you and a handful of other people post all the time, it is unsupported, and has no basis, nor can you show other wise.
> 
> Explain to us what causes the endocrine disruption, and why there is no solution? Come on, back it up.


And as for me being unsupported. Please tell me about how supported your idea of this storm killed tons of fawns is. Entertain me , I would like to see the mythical proof you keep acting like you have.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Couldn't sleep so I read this.

One thing I would like to ad d re s....:faint:


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Couldn't sleep so I read this.
> 
> One thing I would like to ad d re s....:faint:


Thanks for contributing, that's almost as productive as what everyone else put forth. At least you put more thought into it.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> And as for me being unsupported. Please tell me about how supported your idea of this storm killed tons of fawns is. Entertain me , I would like to see the mythical proof you keep acting like you have.


I have been actively watching lots of deer all spring. During the storm there were does, does that I have seen over and over again, calling for their fawns. Guess what, they still don't have fawns with them.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I'll explain this to you. I graduated high school, took higher ed classes in environmental science while there. I have completed college classes and gained a degree . Today? I worked 12 hours like I do 5 days a week, or wait I work 12-15 hour days, and have for the last year or so . I think I accomplished plenty. I've taken biology courses, enviro. Courses, and many others. I'm well educated and know plenty . I also know how to work and put my energy to good use. I don't drag on useless studies that have gotten me no where . Sorry lonetree I don't have as much time as prior to a year ago I had to delve into it. But I have been educated , am mule deer savey, and know a poser like you when I see one, or listen to one rant on for years about things in a ridiculousness way. But anyway glad to see your fulfillment with yourself I'm sure your proud and 100% right in that naive mind of yours.


1I, I do not have a high school diploma, I am a high school drop out. I did not attend much school after the 7th grade, and dropped out when I was a senior, at age 16. I was behind everyone age wise, as I entered school early. You are proof positive that a lot of paper is not worth the ink printed on it.

I just had portions of my work verified by a biochemist at MIT, and a research physicist from a Washington University.

Tell us again what causes the endocrine disruption, and why there is no solution? Come on, you are educated, this should be easy. Explain it to us.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

LT if you were correct saying bucks dont have fawns and they eat all the forage up ect. There would be proof on our le units of a declining struggling deer herd, there would be proof on cwmu units ect. The fact is you can go on any of these units and see a good stable deer herd. In fact most of them have been fairly stable for the last 15 years. They are just as stable as the deer herds on our general units. 

You preach that we need low buck doe ratios to grow deer. Explain to me why on the general units that have had less than ten bucks per hundred does why those units didnt explode in deer numbers. What was it cats, cars, coyotes or do we need to shoot all the bucks to they allow the does to reproduce magically. 

No those low buck doe ratio units were just like any other unit in utah stable for the last fifteen years.

LT I dont discount your theory about acid rain screwing the soil ph up. Ive just ask you to show a fix. I understand we cant play god with our deer herds and blow their numbers up beyond what their carrying capacity is. This is why I try and manage the social aspect of hunting to what we have available. 
Lt weather you like it or not there is a social aspect to hunting.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Good thing we gave them fawns a leg up by taking out so many yotes. And fewer predators result in better body condition. Cause they can relax and eat/sleep. So body condition is not only determined by weather habitat and selenium. 

Good thing mule deer are one of the most adaptable and hearty species in Utah. Contrary to popular belief here. 

Yep they can carve out a living just about anywhere in Utah except salt flats and black top.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

I am still waiting for the other echo chamber inhabitance to support their arguments, or actually attempt to take mine apart. This should be easy guys, it is just a bunch of made up bull ****, right? so PROVE IT! 

What is it like to be in the same company as 1I?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Lonetree said:


> Thanks for contributing, that's almost as productive as what everyone else put forth. At least you put more thought into it.


You can actually read through your dribble and classify it as contributing? What exactly is it contributing to?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Lonetree said:


> 1I, I do not have a high school diploma, I am a high school drop out. I did not attend much school after the 7th grade, and dropped out when I was a senior, at age 16. I was behind everyone age wise, as I entered school early. You are proof positive that a lot of paper is not worth the ink printed on it.
> 
> I just had portions of my work verified by a biochemist at MIT, and a research physicist from a Washington University.
> 
> Tell us again what causes the endocrine disruption, and why there is no solution? Come on, you are educated, this should be easy. Explain it to us.


What part was verified? The part where you were alone in the woods? Let's see their reports on your reports.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> LT if you were correct saying bucks dont have fawns and they eat all the forage up ect. There would be proof on our le units of a declining struggling deer herd, there would be proof on cwmu units ect. The fact is you can go on any of these units and see a good stable deer herd. In fact most of them have been fairly stable for the last 15 years. They are just as stable as the deer herds on our general units.
> 
> You preach that we need low buck doe ratios to grow deer. Explain to me why on the general units that have had less than ten bucks per hundred does why those units didnt explode in deer numbers. What was it cats, cars, coyotes or do we need to shoot all the bucks to they allow the does to reproduce magically.
> 
> ...


I never said bucks eat all the forage, you made that part up, or simply do not understand. We have environmental factors that are affecting the health of our herds. One of things that we see as a result of this, is skewed higher B/D ratios. As we add bucks, we reduce fawn recruitment. So above and beyond this, we are managing based on B/D ratios as if it were sign of good health in the herd, when that is very much not the case. So our uninformed management policies, further suppress deer herds, by tying B/D ratios to management goals.

There are no thriving herds. The trend line for mule deer, is down from the 1960s, until now.

In counter to your 10/100 B/D ratio question, show me where high B/D ratios are producing more deer. They are not. I have posted numbers before from just over the border in Idaho, that demonstrates very clearly that units with lower B/D ratios produce more fawns, which in turn grows more deer, which in turns means more bucks.

Yes there is a social aspect to hunting management. Bu the basis for sound management is supposed to be based on scientific fact. We are not doing that, we are managing for peoples feelings, at our own expense, and the expense of deer. I could care less about the "quality" arguments and all the rest, my concern is sound scientific management that addresses the issues suppressing mule deer numbers, and manages for their growth.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> What part was verified? The part where you were alone in the woods? Let's see their reports on your reports.


Some of the biochemistry that I proposed was verified, chemistry is not my deal, I had it looked at, and it checked out.

You prove otherwise. Seriously, if you want to be with 1I, take my assertions apart, disprove them, you are an educated individual, YOU PROVE it wrong. Show us there is nothing wrong with deer, and how I am up in the night. If that is the case, and that is your position, explain it. Show everyone that I made it up, and then take my position apart. If you are right, you should be able to effectively attack what I have presented, rather than me.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> Good thing we gave them fawns a leg up by taking out so many yotes. And fewer predators result in better body condition. Cause they can relax and eat/sleep. So body condition is not only determined by weather habitat and selenium.
> 
> Good thing mule deer are one of the most adaptable and hearty species in Utah. Contrary to popular belief here.
> 
> Yep they can carve out a living just about anywhere in Utah except salt flats and black top.


Predators have nothing to do with body condition, unless you are making the argument that ungulates in their presence have better body condition. Yes, that is the case, not vice versa. And low predator numbers just means I find dead deer easier, because cars and disease kill them before predators. They would be dead either way though.

Actually relaxation and sleep are governed by magnesium, and all the stiff legged deer I watch in certain areas, are not getting that.

Yes, mule deer are very adaptable despite the DWR, and you guys, we still have some.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

LT Your an idiot if you think we can ever manage our deer to the numbers we had in 1960. We have less avalible habitate, more roads and people. We dont have 1080. We have an all time high elk herd and we have all time high bear numbers. 

Lt do you know what happend when they were over carrying capasity with 1080. They ate the forage up and crashed. 

I dont want to manage in our all time Low's either but I am happy with managing our deer somewhere in the middle and I feel this is where we are today and have been since 1990.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> LT Your an idiot if you think we can ever manage our deer to the numbers we had in 1960. We have less avalible habitate, more roads and people. We dont have 1080. We have an all time high elk herd and we have all time high bear numbers.
> 
> Lt do you know what happend when they were over carrying capasity with 1080. They ate the forage up and crashed.
> 
> I dont want to manage in our all time Low's either but I am happy with managing our deer somewhere in the middle and I feel this is where we are today and have been since 1990.


Carrying capacity is based on many things, and currently that functional carrying capacity is being driven by nutrition. And some other, even less explored factors.

1080 has nothing to do with the current conversation, or the one from the 1960s either. That is the problem, we are still looking at our big game herds through the scientific lens of about 1975, we are way behind the curve on the science and biology of what is actually driving our herds. Growing deer to pre 1990s numbers is not going to create a Kaiparowits plateau situation. That is complete and utter bull ****, sold by people that have been selling the last 20 years of mule deer suppression.

We are managing for all time lows. In the context of accurate herd estimates, contemporary records, and long term trend lines, that is where we are, at the low end. The increases of the last few years are relatively marginal, and probably short lived.

Our mule deer herds, and wildlife in general are facing some serious problems. It is good to hear that some of you are just fine with that. I am not OK with that. We should be managing for herd health, and maximum efficiencies. And the beginning of that is to address the actual problems that are suppressing mule deer. Not raising money on their declines, not making cute little promo videos about it, but actually getting back to the hard realities and foundations of the NAMWC.

We are not even looking at the top 3 issues that are suppressing mule deer, how can we possibly manage mule deer to theirs and ours fullest benefit, under that scenario?


----------



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

Lonetree said:


> Carrying capacity is based on many things, and currently that functional carrying capacity is being driven by nutrition. And some other, even less explored factors.
> 
> 1080 has nothing to do with the current conversation, or the one from the 1960s either. That is the problem, we are still looking at our big game herds through the scientific lens of about 1975, we are way behind the curve on the science and biology of what is actually driving our herds. Growing deer to pre 1990s numbers is not going to create a Kaiparowits plateau situation. That is complete and utter bull ****, sold by people that have been selling the last 20 years of mule deer suppression.
> 
> ...


In order to find what has changed so dramatically, you have to look at what has changed from when deer numbers were at an all time high to when they began to struggle. You keep saying no one is making there point but the fact that our LE units where buck;doe ratio's are much higher than GS units, and both are staying on about the same curve, is very much proving the point that buck;doe ratios are not a huge limiting factor. If they were a unit like the Henries or Pauns would be struggling greatly from their extremely high buck;doe ratio, but they aren't, they are staying pretty consistent with units that have much lower buck;doe ratio's. You haven't convinced me or others of anything so you aren't proving your point very well. You keep saying these things, but there is no proof that you have watched these deer so carefully, or saw them calling for their fawns. You have no fawn carcasses that prove this storm had such a dramatic affect on populations for the coming years. In the end you have nothing more than the words you've written on this forum, which have consisted of not much more than trying to make others seem less smart and simply expecting what you say to be taken as true. All you've done IMO is throw out blatant ideas that contradict other arguments I've had with you about weather, further disproving you as an individual on the subject.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> In order to find what has changed so dramatically, you have to look at what has changed from when deer numbers were at an all time high to when they began to struggle. You keep saying no one is making there point but the fact that our LE units where buck;doe ratio's are much higher than GS units, and both are staying on about the same curve, is very much proving the point that buck;doe ratios are not a huge limiting factor. If they were a unit like the Henries or Pauns would be struggling greatly from their extremely high buck;doe ratio, but they aren't, they are staying pretty consistent with units that have much lower buck;doe ratio's. You haven't convinced me or others of anything so you aren't proving your point very well. You keep saying these things, but there is no proof that you have watched these deer so carefully, or saw them calling for their fawns. You have no fawn carcasses that prove this storm had such a dramatic affect on populations for the coming years. In the end you have nothing more than the words you've written on this forum, which have consisted of not much more than trying to make others seem less smart and simply expecting what you say to be taken as true. All you've done IMO is throw out blatant ideas that contradict other arguments I've had with you about weather, further disproving you as an individual on the subject.


I don't need to convince you of anything, your opinion is just that, an unsupported opinion, that does not matter.

No I don't have photos of dead fawns from this storm, so what? What can YOU tell me about these fawns:

http://rutalocura.com/images/IMG_6556.JPG

http://rutalocura.com/images/IMG_6508.JPG

http://rutalocura.com/images/IMG_6521.JPG

http://rutalocura.com/images/IMG_6555.JPG

My guess is you will try to talk about something else, because the truth staring you in the face scares you to death.

Our LE units are perfect examples of suppressed deer populations. We have conditions that skew buck to doe ratios, and and policies that further contribute to that. This reduces fawn recruitment, which then suppresses deer numbers. How many bulls do you keep around for your cows?

Are deer numbers booming on LE areas?....NO Increased buck to doe ratios are only part of the problem, it is a contributing factor, and a symptom of other problems all at the same time.

So let me get this straight 1I your opinion is that you can't support your opinion, or discount anything I have presented? That is a pretty strong argument you make there, I should just give up.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

"In order to find what has changed so dramatically, you have to look at what has changed from when deer numbers were at an all time high to when they began to struggle."---1I

That is exactly what I am doing, the deer were not suffering from these issues when their numbers were booming. Can you tell me other wise?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Bigfoot mated with several does on the Ogden unit last year and all of those fawns survived. 

PROVE THAT IT DIDN'T HAPPEN LONETREE! Prove it! 

I want peer reviewed studies saying that didn't happen. If I'm up in the night, you should be able to prove it. You're a smart guy. This shouldn't be hard for you.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

TS30 said:


> Bigfoot mated with several does on the Ogden unit last year and all of those fawns survived.
> 
> PROVE THAT IT DIDN'T HAPPEN LONETREE! Prove it!
> 
> I want peer reviewed studies saying that didn't happen. If I'm up in the night, you should be able to prove it. You're a smart guy. This shouldn't be hard for you.


You proved it your self, because it is not possible. Wow TS is teaming up with 1I, this should be good.


----------



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

Lonetree said:


> I don't need to convince you of anything, your opinion is just that, an unsupported opinion, that does not matter.
> 
> No I don't have photos of dead fawns from this storm, so what? What can YOU tell me about these fawns:
> 
> ...


Obviously those are pretty bad underbites. But every animal can have an over or underbite, humans have over and underbites for gods sakes. It could simply be in the gene pool. 
Now lets talk about LE units. Are the Henrie or Pauns struggling? Are they anymore than other units? No they are following closely to the trend that other units with lower ratio's are. I'm not saying an excess of bucks is a good thing or that its helpful, but it sure as hell isn't causing any units to crash.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Care to actually tackle a real topic, or are you guys just not capable of dealing with reality?


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

I want to tackle the topic of road kill on Highway 6. It doesn't matter what kind of shape a deer is in when it meets a bumper at 70 mph. So, Lonetree......what do you think can be done about this? Still averaging 5-6 per day between Spanish Fork and Helper. A few decent bucks, some does, and a bunch of fawns. -----------SS


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Obviously those are pretty bad underbites. But every animal can have an over or underbite, humans have over and underbites for gods sakes. It could simply be in the gene pool.
> Now lets talk about LE units. Are the Henrie or Pauns struggling? Are they anymore than other units? No they are following closely to the trend that other units with lower ratio's are. I'm not saying an excess of bucks is a good thing or that its helpful, but it sure as hell isn't causing any units to crash.


Suppression of the deer herds, not crashes. And yes they follow the same long term trend lines, but they(LE areas) grow much slower, and will crash faster. How much work has been put into some of those LE areas, and they are only on par growth wise with regular units, is that the case you are making? Look at it over long periods of time, not snap shots.

Underbites: They express across too large of an area, and along with testicular malformations they come and go. SO it can not be bad genetics. It is epigentic expression driven by environmental factors. ALL mamalls are supposed to have a mild over bite, that is what is genetically programmed as normal. If it is a genetic problem, how does it keep getting passed on? It is a condition that prevents good health, so if it were genetic it would be bred out of existence. This goes double for testicular malformations, that drive sterility.


----------



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

Lonetree said:


> "In order to find what has changed so dramatically, you have to look at what has changed from when deer numbers were at an all time high to when they began to struggle."---1I
> 
> That is exactly what I am doing, the deer were not suffering from these issues when their numbers were booming. Can you tell me other wise?


This is how priceless (or useless) your arguments are. You have nothing to support that claim so prove it. You have no idea and there is not enough research done on this subject to prove that in the 1960's when populations were booming that there wasn't an under-bite problem then. You do not have enough research from that time period to determine that. Here's what has happened. Millions of acres of habitat have been lost, thousands of miles of highways have increased with faster speed limits. Shorter burn cycles, different grazing techniques, yes bad management techniques at times, and different weather patterns . This is what brought our wildlife to its knees. Better weather patterns and habitat improvements are what have increased our deer herd back to a decent level in the last 5 years, not because less deer ended up with under-bites. You try to sound and act so smart, but you are stupidly ignoring the facts of ALL that has changed over the past few decades. If mineral deficiency's and single late snow storms were to blame elk would be suffering as well, but guess what they are not, we could kill a lot of elk off and within a few years they would be back in numbers. The problem is the mule deer despite being very adaptable is the weakest of the big game species and that is why elk have adapted so well to the changes. Elk can deal with higher elevations, more snow, harsher winters, and can more easily stay away from human contact because of those traits. The problem isn't this single stupid under-bite problem or the fact that a late snow storm destroyed a herd. It is that mule deer have struggled with the modernization of this world and yet you come up with these tiny reasons of less significance.


----------



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

Lonetree said:


> Suppression of the deer herds, not crashes. And yes they follow the same long term trend lines, but they(LE areas) grow much slower, and will crash faster. How much work has been put into some of those LE areas, and they are only on par growth wise with regular units, is that the case you are making? Look at it over long periods of time, not snap shots.
> 
> Underbites: They express across too large of an area, and along with testicular malformations they come and go. SO it can not be bad genetics. It is epigentic expression driven by environmental factors. ALL mamalls are supposed to have a mild over bite, that is what is genetically programmed as normal. If it is a genetic problem, how does it keep getting passed on? It is a condition that prevents good health, so if it were genetic it would be bred out of existence. This goes double for testicular malformations, that drive sterility.


Yes nature intends that the strong traits survive while the weak are bred out. But you will always have some weak genes within the pool, you won't ever have an animal that is programmed perfectly for survival throughout its entire gene pool, it just won't happen.


----------



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

Lonetree said:


> Suppression of the deer herds, not crashes. And yes they follow the same long term trend lines, but they(LE areas) grow much slower, and will crash faster. How much work has been put into some of those LE areas, and they are only on par growth wise with regular units, is that the case you are making? Look at it over long periods of time, not snap shots.
> 
> Underbites: They express across too large of an area, and along with testicular malformations they come and go. SO it can not be bad genetics. It is epigentic expression driven by environmental factors. ALL mamalls are supposed to have a mild over bite, that is what is genetically programmed as normal. If it is a genetic problem, how does it keep getting passed on? It is a condition that prevents good health, so if it were genetic it would be bred out of existence. This goes double for testicular malformations, that drive sterility.


And we can agree on that, I don't believe that the current levels of bucks:does on the henries or pauns are healthy ratio's. And yes if you get a huge crash it will take longer to come back from, I am not defending way higher than needed ratio's but I am not going to sit here and think that it is a big limiting factor there are much more important issues to address, but this one could be dealt with very easily if we wanted.

But if humans weren't here lonetree, wouldn't nature be intending those bucks being in the herd? Isn't killing the bucks and leaving does also a method that is throwing nature out of balance? I mean nature put all those bucks there, and we are managing it so there will be a lot more deer there than nature intended.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

What if LT and 1-I are really the same person? I think we have all been duped.-------SS


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

Springville Shooter said:


> What if LT and 1-I are really the same person? I think we have all been duped.-------SS


 :scared:


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Springville Shooter said:


> I want to tackle the topic of road kill on Highway 6. It doesn't matter what kind of shape a deer is in when it meets a bumper at 70 mph. So, Lonetree......what do you think can be done about this? Still averaging 5-6 per day between Spanish Fork and Helper. A few decent bucks, some does, and a bunch of fawns. -----------SS


I see the same thing. And the pattern seems to be an upswing in deer hit as the snow comes off and we see migrations. Underpasses, and fencing are one of the only things that I can think of long term. After the migration mortality it levels off, but yeah, it continues. I used to dismiss highway mortality more than I currently do.

So I have been looking this very thing for a couple of months now, and there is another component. You have a lot of deer that congregate on road side salt licks. Moose seem to hit the same licks, and there are bighorn sheep across the West that are sitting on other road side licks, as they are being driven to extinction.

This is not normal behavior. You find a lick, and dead deer, and you will probably find older carcasses as well. I am watching deer that stand right in the middle of the road, intently licking the road. We all know deer are drawn to salt, but there is more to this than just simple sodium thirst. They keep coming back over and over again, they are not getting enough of what they are after. A researcher over in Wyoming has done mineral analysis on some the licks that are holding bighorns on the road side, and they found that the licks were high in selenium. They were studying sheep and selenium, so that is as far as that went.

I just started some tests with magnesium chloride to see if there is more to what the deer are after. MgCl2 is what they spray on the highway before storms, it is the white stripes you see them spray on the road. The sheep go right out and lick it straight from the road. This stuff tastes bitter and nasty, they have to have a chemical feedback telling them they need it, to go after it the way they do.

I will get some pictures up from a trail cam I retrieved today. The deer are hitting straight magnesium chloride hexahydrate, with no salt in it to make it palatable. This is all very related to what I have been talking about.

If you know that stretch of highway 6 well, I would like to drive it with you, and check some things out.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Some of these threads that some people get involved with should come with a warning to read at your own risk. -O\\__-


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

The white pile that you can see then hitting is mag chloride.

http://rutalocura.com/images/HUNT0015.JPG

http://rutalocura.com/images/HUNT0034.JPG

http://rutalocura.com/images/HUNT0083.JPG

http://rutalocura.com/images/HUNT0410.JPG


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Critter said:


> Some of these threads that some people get involved with should come with a warning to read at your own risk. -O\\__-


Another fine contribution, from the peanut gallery. Do you have any substance to add?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

1I, you don't have the first clue about what I have looked at from the 1960s, or what information exists on the subject. You can't grasp the fundamentals of the concept, let alone take it apart or disprove it. 

I love you guys that like to argue against mule deer, and then complain because we don't have any, simply genius.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Lonetree said:


> Another fine contribution, from the peanut gallery. Do you have any substance to add?


:fencing:


----------



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

Lonetree said:


> 1I, you don't have the first clue about what I have looked at from the 1960s, or what information exists on the subject. You can't grasp the fundamentals of the concept, let alone take it apart or disprove it.
> 
> I love you guys that like to argue against mule deer, and then complain because we don't have any, simply genius.


Let's see the information, your substance to the conversation. All I see is words from an unaccredited source on a public forum.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Is the mag chloride a de-icing agent? Are animals attracted to it because of a deficiency, or is it a brain chemistry thing like sugar is to humans? This is interesting. 

On another note, there is an area where there is fence installed and an underpass. There are rarely road killed animals in the area and by the tracks I've seen, deer are using the underpass to go both ways frequently. Unfortunately there are the remnants of several deer that have been hit on the railroad tracks near the tunnel crossing area.-------SS


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Let's see the information, your substance to the conversation. All I see is words from an unaccredited source on a public forum.


:mrgreen: Can't sneak anything past you.


----------



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

Lonetree said:


> :mrgreen: Can't sneak anything past you.


Now who's adding useless BS to the conversation.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Springville Shooter said:


> Is the mag chloride a de-icing agent? Are animals attracted to it because of a deficiency, or is it a brain chemistry thing like sugar is to humans? This is interesting.
> 
> On another note, there is an area where there is fence installed and an underpass. There are rarely road killed animals in the area and by the tracks I've seen, deer are using the underpass to go both ways frequently. Unfortunately there are the remnants of several deer that have been hit on the railroad tracks near the tunnel crossing area.-------SS


Yes it is a de-icing agent. The white flake, ice melt you buy a the hardware store is another form of mag chloride. It wets out and sticks to things, it prevents ice on the road before the snow even falls.

They have to be attracted to it because they have a deficiency and need it. But it becomes a sort of chicken or egg question, as to how that plays out on a big scale. Under bites (maloclussions) are symptomatic of hypothyroidism. You have several ways in which that can be brought on. What I am seeing is congenital, meaning they are born with it, so it is not brought on later in life.

So hypothyroidism can be caused by several things. Deficiencies in selenium, iodine, and magnesium can all lead to it. But endocrine disruption can cause it as well. Endocrine disruption also accounts for testicular malformations, such as misaligned hemiscrota, crytorchidism(undescended testicles that cause cactus bucks), testicular atrophy, and short penis sheaths. And skewed sex ratios in favor of males that are afflicted with conditions rending them sterile, or less productive. These things seem to show up with the under bites, so endocrine disruption would make more sense. Either way, there is a cause and effect relationship with iodine, selenium, magnesium, cobalt, and a few other things, as they relate to hypothyroidism. Not only can they cause it, if a animal is afflicted by it, they do not metabolize these things the ways they should, and many times need more than the normal amount, to over come the "deficiency".

Look at what we see in moose for example. When moose start to tip over, and die, their liver assays show that they are deficient in selenium and copper. It also shows a deficiency in cobalt, which explains the wasting behavior. They need cobalt to make B vitamins. Magnesium deficient animals always show deficient for selenium and copper in liver assays, and some time for cobalt as well. On the same note, thyroid function is dependent on iodine and selenium to function properly. A deficiency can bring on hypothyroidism(low functioning thyroid hormones) and a thyroid condition can impair metabolization of these nutrients as well. If these conditions are being mitigated by available nutrition, all you have to do is add a factor like nitrate deposition that reduces selenium availability in the enviroment and you tip things over the edge. Really anything that taxes nutritional reserves, a severe winter, extended drought, etc.

So the need for magnesium may be a sort of internal deficiency, rather than an enviromental deficiency. But that is the crux to some this, getting to the root causes. I know that most of the deer on the licks that appear to have mag chloride in them, shed their winter coats faster, and are putting on weight better, than those deer that are utilizing licks that appear to be low mag, or no mag.


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

As interesting as you two are(LT&1I )why dont you sit down over a cup of coffee and see if there is something you both see Eye To Tree on and work on that instead of wasting your time degrading each other.Dont get me wrong,Im learning a bunch of stuff that I dont understand,but golly guys put some positive into it all I see now is :argue:


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Dunkem said:


> As interesting as you two are(LT&1I )why dont you sit down over a cup of coffee and see if there is something you both see Eye To Tree on and work on that instead of wasting your time degrading each other.Dont get me wrong,Im learning a bunch of stuff that I dont understand,but golly guys put some positive into it all I see now is :argue:


I get where you are coming from, I really do. But actually winning over 1I, or convincing him of anything does not matter in the grand scheme of things. He is simply a proxy.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Back to the original topic for a minute: I have no doubt there were more than a few fawns that died during and shortly after that storm. There may even be more dying farther down the road due to additional storm implications, I don't know for sure but think it is a possibility; yet I have little doubt that there will be much if any at all 'official' observations done by the game agency.

As to some of the assertions made by LT: The science and implications behind them are interesting; the delivery of said info, not so much but I really don't care about that as much as some of you folks do. The name calling and needless bickering and jabbing isn't pleasant, nor does it contribute in any positive way. But such is the human condition, I suppose.

I have been studying the nutritional aspects of mule deer population dynamics for a while now, and what little I have uncovered falls into a line and pattern of much of what LT has gone over more than a few times on this forum. Thus, I am inclined to further explore some of those assertions in greater detail. For example, let's take the 'endocrine disruption' and explore it just a little further.

The endocrine system is a pretty complex network of glands and hormones that regulates a fair amount of body functions. Disrupt that system and a variety of problems will occur. These glands, which include ovaries and testes, release critical amounts of hormones that control many functions: some of those functions, when disrupted, will have negative effects on hormonal production and distribution, ultimately leading to birth issues- which affects fecundity- seminal production which will lead to the bucks losing their desire to mate, in addition to other very important factors relative to the growth and health of mule deer herds.

How can endocrine disruption happen? Does it happen in the wild? This disruption occurs often and all across the world in a variety of wildlife, including fish. It happens due to the absorption of synthetic chemicals, like many of which are found in herbicides and pesticides. I think LT might have talked a little bit about those as well.

I think it is a bit premature to talk about all these different environmental factors being 'absolute' causes to mule deer declines, but only because the study and actual science behind them is really in it's infancy. Those investigators who are finding out many of the issues LT is talking about are largely being ignored because the information is new (in many cases, not all), scary, and will be difficult to address, let alone investigate and research on a wide scale. I certainly agree with LT in that the current wildlife science being utilized is out of date, much of it being proven ineffective in aiding mule deer health and growth in todays world.

I for one, believe we need to step out of the dark, and turn on a light bulb or two. Or we can kill more coyotes and insert more vaginal implants and install more gps collars and create even more micro units...ad nauseum.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Lonetree said:


> You proved it your self, because it is not possible. Wow TS is teaming up with 1I, this should be good.


Says you, but you have offered no proof to disprove my statement. Therefore, I am right and you couldn't possibly understand this sophisticated of a topic in your feeble, inferior state.

Prove me wrong, Mr Lonetree. Peer-reviewed scientific studies needed saying the fawns of Bigfoot and does didn't survive on the Ogden unit during this storm. Prove it!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Stillhunter, None of this research is new, only what you are seeing. Some of this has been known for 20 years, other parts only ignored for around 15 years or so. But much of the base line knowledge to understand and decipher what is going on, is as much as 100 years old.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Why would deer evolve over 50,000 yrs splitting sex male/female at birth. And an adult deer population with a b/d ratio 35-40/100 when not hunted by humans? If that was recipe for depressing or suppressing deer populations. 

Its only in the last 90 years that humans have been trying to harvest 30,000 + buck and facilitate a general hunt for 100,000 hunters. Causing unnatural low b/d ratio. What historical data can one rely on showing a 10/100 b/d ratio is a recipe for abundant deer populations?

Seems to me the only positive in having such low b/d ratios is it limits hunter harvest. Giving the impression that a unit or herd is not being over hunted. Meaning no need to cut tags here because the overall deer herd has sustained the b/d ratio is stable and only 400 buck were harvested. So it's not being over hunted.

That seems to be what we have been dealing with. Up until option 2 and some quality predator control in my neck of the woods today I can happily say that things are obviously improving here. 

And having a cougar population at a low is also a major help. Because despite how the DWR wants to estimate cougar populations based on quality of habitat. Pffff! The cougar don't eat rock and cedars they eat deer.

I guarantee the 50,000 buck in Utah are not killing and eating 2 deer each. But the 2000 cougar in Utah are in fact killing 50 deer each. You do the math. And yet mr know it all is in denial that that is any kind of a factor.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

TS30 said:


> Says you, but you have offered no proof to disprove my statement. Therefore, I am right and you couldn't possibly understand this sophisticated of a topic in your feeble, inferior state.
> 
> Prove me wrong, Mr Lonetree. Peer-reviewed scientific studies needed saying the fawns of Bigfoot and does didn't survive on the Ogden unit during this storm. Prove it!


See you just made my case for me again. What you propose is not possible, I don't need anything to support that, because like I said, it is not possible.

At a minimum I can unequivocally say that everything that I propose is possible. Most of it probable, and a whole lot of it already proven. So you would need to show that the possible parts of what I propose are not probable or provable. And that the probable parts are not provable. Good luck with that.

You have not made an argument of logic like you think, only shown how little you understand, while further supporting my assertions about you.


----------



## jasonwayne191 (Jun 11, 2012)

Lonetree said:


> Stillhunter, None of this research is new, only what you are seeing. Some of this has been known for 20 years, other parts only ignored for around 15 years or so. But much of the base line knowledge to understand and decipher what is going on, is as much as 100 years old.


...


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> Why would deer evolve over 50,000 yrs splitting sex male/female at birth. And an adult deer population with a b/d ratio 35-40/100 when not hunted by humans? If that was recipe for depressing or suppressing deer populations.
> 
> Its only in the last 90 years that humans have been trying to harvest 30,000 + buck and facilitate a general hunt for 100,000 hunters. Causing unnatural low b/d ratio. What historical data can one rely on showing a 10/100 b/d ratio is a recipe for abundant deer populations?
> 
> Seems to me the only positive in having such low b/d ratios is it limits hunter harvest. Giving the impression that a unit or herd is not being over hunted. Meaning no need to cut tags here because the overall deer herd has sustained the b/d ratio is stable and only 400 buck were harvested. So it's not being over hunted.


10/100 is the bottom. Do you mean to tell me that in the last 15,000 years rutting buck mule deer were not disproportionately targeted by native hunters,and predators alike? I find arrow heads that are hundreds of years old in the choke points on winter ranges, and the routes to them. They would have been winter ranges back then too.

There is a reason the sex ratio starts out at 52 males and 48 females, the males do not make it for a number of reasons.

Prior to 1990, by the accounts of many deer studies from across the West, at birth sex ratios were 52/48 that quickly dropped to 50/50 just like they were supposed to. After 1990, we have several instances where that skews in favor of males, and increased adult B/D ratios. Sympatrically with this, we see testicular malformations such as atrophy, cryptorchidism, misalignment, etc.

When we manage for higher B/D ratios, this problem becomes compounded.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

jasonwayne191 said:


> ...


I am about as far out of the box as you can get, I lost site of it a long time ago.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Lonetree said:


> I am about as far out of the box as you can get, I lost site of it a long time ago.


LOL........Yes you are, but unfortunately too many others are still locked inside.


----------



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

Okay lonetree. I know I have asked this of you before but will you post links to studies and research and I will spend time reading through them in entirety. I would like to see a few research links that have to do with mineral deficiencys.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Okay lonetree. I know I have asked this of you before but will you post links to studies and research and I will spend time reading through them in entirety. I would like to see a few research links that have to do with mineral deficiencys.


They have been posted on this forum several times before. Really? Really? You are going to read them this time, why do I not believe you?

You can start HERE


----------



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

Lonetree said:


> They have been posted on this forum several times before. Really? Really? You are going to read them this time, why do I not believe you?
> 
> You can start HERE


I just read through this article http://www.deerlab.org/Publ/pdfs/26.pdf post more .


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Some of what I have claimed was supported by not only a chemical engineer, but also a rheumatologist. Oh, it's possible baby! 

And until you prove otherwise, with peer-reviewed studies showing otherwise, you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Basically until you prove that I am wrong, you are a lower life form. Prove it!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I just read through this article http://www.deerlab.org/Publ/pdfs/26.pdf post more .


More? Start here http://deerlab.org/Publ/pdfs/61.pdf There is enough reading on that one site alone to take years to read.

What you read is a piece of a larger study.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

TS30 said:


> Some of what I have claimed was supported by not only a chemical engineer, but also a rheumatologist. Oh, it's possible baby!
> 
> And until you prove otherwise, with peer-reviewed studies showing otherwise, you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Basically until you prove that I am wrong, you are a lower life form. Prove it!


Still not possible, and you have not even attempted to prove so. Therefor, it is already disproven by you.

Hybridization between deer and bigfoot is not possible, their DNA would not be compatable, regardless of what bigfoot might be if he is real, it can be reliably stated that bigfoot is not a cervid. They would have to have a common ancestor on the same branch of DNA evolution for inter-species hybridization to occur.

Start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_speciation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dna

Wikipedia is peer edited information, but maybe still a bit much for you.

What is it like to get out shined by 1I? Do your parents know you are online?


----------



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

Lonetree said:


> More? Start here http://deerlab.org/Publ/pdfs/61.pdf There is enough reading on that one site alone to take years to read.
> 
> What you read is a piece of a larger study.


I read this article as well. Do you have the article to the sheep ? Also so you understand I know this is an issue. But significantly reducing or eliminating sulfur in our industrialized world would be tough . Reducing overgrazing which is also a known contributor would be tough. Getting fertilizer and synthetic chemicals cut back would also be significantly tough . I just don't see a way this selenium deficiencies can be addressed in a reachable manner this is why I think other ways to help would be better. Do you have any articles pertaining to how we can reverse or stop this problem ?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

What you are reading is only a piece of it. And the understanding of parts of this are still evolving as we learn more.

We have significantly reduced our sulfur emissions, so it is very possible.

What do you want in regard to sheep? What specifically, there is a lot of information about sheep.

If you don't see a solution, then I guess we are ****ed, too bad!


----------



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

Lonetree said:


> What you are reading is only a piece of it. And the understanding of parts of this are still evolving as we learn more.
> 
> We have significantly reduced our sulfur emissions, so it is very possible.
> 
> ...


In another thread you posted a study on bighorn sheep. As for that being part of the study I am not exactly sure where to look on that deerlab.org . I've read the study on black tailed deer you posted on other threads as well. And yes we have cut down on sulfur emissions and I'm sure we will continue to do so. The problem is these are some big issues to cut down on and getting our current society to do so for wildlife will be hard to convince them of.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Lonetree said:


> Still not possible, and you have not even attempted to prove so. Therefor, it is already disproven by you.


Easily my favorite quote by Lonetree ever. Might even be my favorite quote by anyone on this forum. You seriously can't even make this crap up!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

TS30 said:


> Easily my favorite quote by Lonetree ever. Might even be my favorite quote by anyone on this forum. You seriously can't even make this crap up!


If you had anything you would debate me point for point. You remind me of those little PETA queers that come in on hunting forums, with cute little slogans, sayings and false logic. Yet when it comes down to brass tacks, you got nothing, and nothing to back it up.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> In another thread you posted a study on bighorn sheep. As for that being part of the study I am not exactly sure where to look on that deerlab.org . I've read the study on black tailed deer you posted on other threads as well. And yes we have cut down on sulfur emissions and I'm sure we will continue to do so. The problem is these are some big issues to cut down on and getting our current society to do so for wildlife will be hard to convince them of.


Here is 90 pages on the Whiskey Mountain Bighorn sheep herd, with 4 pages of references: http://media.nwsgc.org/proceedings/NWSGC-2002/2002-Hnilicka et al.pdf


----------

