# Option WTF? is bad science.



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

The Chalk Creek/East Canyon/Morgan, South Rich Unit has a buck to doe objective of 18-20. In 2010 it was 33.5/100, in 2011 it was 33.9/100, in 2012 it was 33.7/100. So the DWR has concluded that this unit is stable, and is recommending 6800 permits in 2013, same number as in 2012. Seems like some basic straight forward numbers, right?

Well.... The Morgan, South Rich unit has a population objective of 12,000. The post 2009 estimate was 8,000. the post 2010 estimate was 9,900. the post 2011 estimate was 10,000, and the post 2012 estimate was 15,250. So the unit has grown 190%, almost doubled, in 4 years. And is 3,250 deer over objective. 

The East canyon unit has an objective of 7,000. The post 2009 population estimate was 8,500. The post 2010 estimate was 9,100. The post 2011 estimate was 9,100. And the post 2012 estimate was 11,200. So this unit has grown 130% in four years, and is 4,200 over objective.

The Chalk Creek unit has an objective of 10,500. The post 2009 estimate was 8,100. The post 2010 estimate was 8,500. The post 2011 estimate was 8,000. And the post 2012 estimate was 9,800. So this unit has grown 120% in 4 years, but is 700 under objective.

Lets not forget, that some people that tried to draw this unit last year, did not get it. But tags went over the counter after the draw. So there were people that put in for this tag, but did not get it, and could not hunt with their friends and family. But other people were able to get a tag after the draw, over the counter. This is because of the bad rifle/muzzy/bow aspect built into Option WTF?

So the buck to doe ratios on this unit are statistically flat, over objective, but flat. And yet the population has increased, and appears to be trending that way. So no matter how you slice it, this unit has more bucks to hunt than it did 4 years ago. But that could be true if the buck to doe ratios were 5/100, or 50/100, because there are just flat more deer. Using buck to doe ratios as Option WFT? dictates, is not a good, scientifically sound metric for basing permit numbers. There were 86,500 deer permits in 2012, with an estimated population of 286,100. They are recommending 84,600 permits this year, 1900 fewer permits than in 2012, but the population estimate is 318,550, that is 32,450 more deer this year, but 1900 fewer permits. 

Statistically speaking, the numbers don't work.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

I concur... the estimated statistics is where the problem is... no science in estimating how many terds there are on a unit... gotta get a physical count and then determine hunter numbers based on REAL data and REALISTIC objectives.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

67% of all statistics are made up


----------



## bowhunt3r4l1f3 (Jan 12, 2011)

60% percent of the time, it works every time.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

TopofUtahArcher said:


> I concur... the estimated statistics is where the problem is... no science in estimating how many terds there are on a unit... gotta get a physical count and then determine hunter numbers based on REAL data and REALISTIC objectives.


Even if all of that data was empirical, and peer reviewed, it still would not help the problem. THE problem is that hunting permits are being regulated based on buck to doe ratios. This is arbitrary, and capricious in nature, and has no scientific bearing on what permit numbers should be. You are going to have estimated numbers when it comes to wildlife, that is fine, as long as it is consistent over time. It is what you do with that data that matters.

Lets say a unit starts out with a buck to doe ratio of 30/100, and over the next 10 years that drops to 20/100, bad right? Maybe, if that is all you are looking at, then you don't really have a good picture of what is going on. Lets say that same unit had 10,000 deer 10 years ago when the buck to doe ratio was 30/100. But now it has a population of 20,000 and a buck to doe ratio of 20/100. Under Option WFT? we are supposed to cut tags on this unit, even though there are 1000 more bucks on it.

This is just one example of how we "manage" wildlife in this state. How does Option WTF? grow the number of deer again? Oh yeah it doesn't, its hunter control, not wildlife management.


----------



## gmanhunter (Dec 27, 2007)

The problem with the numbers are, how many deer are on private land in these counts. How many can be accessed to the general public, and how many are accessed to the private land owner. There may be that many deer, but the head count to me would be more accurate if it took in consideration public vs private land. Just my opinion on the matter.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

gmanhunter said:


> The problem with the numbers are, how many deer are on private land in these counts. How many can be accessed to the general public, and how many are accessed to the private land owner. There may be that many deer, but the head count to me would be more accurate if it took in consideration public vs private land. Just my opinion on the matter.


Public verses private is a completely separate issue, and it is taken into consideration when it comes to permits. That is not the problem with the population numbers, or how they are utilized.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Lonetree said:


> The Chalk Creek/East Canyon/Morgan, South Rich Unit has a buck to doe objective of 18-20. In 2010 it was 33.5/100, in 2011 it was 33.9/100, in 2012 it was 33.7/100. So the DWR has concluded that this unit is stable, and is recommending 6800 permits in 2013, same number as in 2012. Seems like some basic straight forward numbers, right?


Great point and fair question. The reason why tag numbers aren't changing is that these units are largely private ground. The buck to doe ratios on public ground are much lower than the unit average so the bios consider that in their tag numbers and why tag numbers aren't increasing.

Currently the management plan calls for managing hunter buck tag number based on buck:doe ratios. Doe tags are used to control population numbers. I would be open to any management plan that could be better and i'd love to see some solid proposals but no matter what plan you put in place mother nature will always throw a curve ball.

Now do we really need unit by unit management in the management plan? You know how I feel about that.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Bullsnot

No we don't need unit management.

I am well aware of the private property issues in these units, It still has nothing to do with buck to doe ratios, or overall population trends. Once again, separate issues. I get onto both private and public portions of these units, there is no dramatic difference in buck to doe ratios between public and private property, that is absurd. The deer can tell where the property lines are?

"no matter what plan you put in place mother nature will always throw a curve ball." So should we maybe try to understand this part a little better?


----------



## stuckduck (Jan 31, 2008)

bowhunt3r4l1f3 said:


> 60% percent of the time, it works every time.


Yup.... It's made with bits of real panther....not going to lie to a it kind of stings the nostrils.. Smells like gasoline.....

Nice that was a good laugh thanks bowhunt


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> I am well aware of the private property issues in these units, It still has nothing to do with buck to doe ratios, or overall population trends. Once again, separate issues.


Your high as a kite if you think the amount of private property has nothing to do with buck/doe ratios and population trends!!

And your whole little spill on game not knowing where boundaries are...thanks for the laugh


----------



## gmanhunter (Dec 27, 2007)

+1


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > I am well aware of the private property issues in these units, It still has nothing to do with buck to doe ratios, or overall population trends. Once again, separate issues.
> ...


Then I'm high, "I'm a truth addict, ah **** I got a head rush"--Zach

I would explain it to you, but you'll just keep screaming "king me" after your rook has long been taken out from under you.

No, thanks be to you.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

+2

I read on facebook that deer know when hunting season starts too.

For those still following, do you see where the bigger problem lay, when it comes to "management" in this state?


----------



## gmanhunter (Dec 27, 2007)

-_O-


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

What is your solution Lonetree? Give us the cliff notes version of your management plan. I have an open mind.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

Buck ratios are higher on private land (in general) because private land owners can manage the amount of pressure on their land. If there are 100 bucks on a managed 5,000 acre ranch that allows 10 hunters and there are 100 bucks on a 5,000-acre public land section that allows 100 hunters, you really think that there is no difference in the post hunt buck numbers between the two units - all things being equal?

Hunted animals most definitely know (again, in general) private land boundaries. I've seen it first hand goose hunting in OK - among others. Those birds hit the public/private/refuge boundary and they go into a near vertical climb to get space between them and hunters below. I just spoke to a game biologist about Unit 23 for elk in WY last year. Biologist said as soon as the rifles go off, most of the elk high tail it for a private ranch on the unit that does not allow access. Are you going to say that those elk don't know the private boundaries?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

MWScott72 said:


> Buck ratios are higher on private land (in general) because private land owners can manage the amount of pressure on their land. If there are 100 bucks on a managed 5,000 acre ranch that allows 10 hunters and there are 100 bucks on a 5,000-acre public land section that allows 100 hunters, you really think that there is no difference in the post hunt buck numbers between the two units - all things being equal?
> 
> Hunted animals most definitely know (again, in general) private land boundaries. I've seen it first hand goose hunting in OK - among others. Those birds hit the public/private/refuge boundary and they go into a near vertical climb to get space between them and hunters below. I just spoke to a game biologist about Unit 23 for elk in WY last year. Biologist said as soon as the rifles go off, most of the elk high tail it for a private ranch on the unit that does not allow access. Are you going to say that those elk don't know the private boundaries?


Your examples have nothing to do with private property, they are all antidotal examples of animals avoiding humans. Two very different things. It in no way explains how animals can supposedly know where property boundaries are. Just the opposite holds true on chunks of private land that border more remote sections of public land. I too have seen this, means nothing in the larger debate.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

They may not be able to show you right where the property line is. I'm sure they can tell that there is 50 hunters in this canyon and 0 in next. So they would rather hang in the one with 0 hunters.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Holy cow Lonetree! I can see why the DWR fired you.
Lets hear your solution.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

bullsnot said:


> What is your solution Lonetree? Give us the cliff notes version of your management plan. I have an open mind.


Kris, I can draft something if you are serious, it will take a week or two though. But in all honesty, why should I bother? In two years, the UWC never implemented anything I offered under advisement, anything! Though the business cards that say "corporate adviser" are cute. You are the vice president of a conservation organization, not me, I'm just a lone revolutionary. I get to sit back and snipe, from undisclosed locations, without the "burdens" of being a politician. You take what ever I have said, anywhere, and craft it into a management plan. Putting together anything other than Option WTF? is better than the "kinder gentler machine gun hand" excuse you keep tossing around.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> They may not be able to show you right where the property line is. I'm sure they can tell that there is 50 hunters in this canyon and 0 in next. So they would rather hang in the one with 0 hunters.


Why didn't I think of that?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

ridgetop said:


> Holy cow Lonetree! I can see why the DWR fired you.
> Lets hear your solution.


 :shock: I worked for the DWR?


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Josh, Here I'm just a guy with an opinion. I am serious about you, or anyone else for that matter, coming up with some management plan ideas. If there are credible ideas about how to manage mule deer I would personally love to discuss the merits of the idea. I like thinkers and creators as much as anyone. 

The ironic thing though is that you talk about how you get get to snipe without the burdens of being a politician but I think you'd be one of the best politicians I know. Your rhetoric, mud slinging, and personal attacks should be in a politicians handbook. But crafting clever insults doesn't make what you say about me anymore true.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

Iron Bear said:


> They may not be able to show you right where the property line is. I'm sure they can tell that there is 50 hunters in this canyon and 0 in next. So they would rather hang in the one with 0 hunters.


Exactly - they know where it's safe and where it's not - otherwise, as I stated, why would there be a mass exodus to private property in WY 23 once the boom sticks go off? They may be animals and unable to reason, but they're not stupid.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

bullsnot said:


> Josh, Here I'm just a guy with an opinion. I am serious about you, or anyone else for that matter, coming up with some management plan ideas. If there are credible ideas about how to manage mule deer I would personally love to discuss the merits of the idea. I like thinkers and creators as much as anyone.
> 
> The ironic thing though is that you talk about how you get get to snipe without the burdens of being a politician but I think you'd be one of the best politicians I know. Your rhetoric, mud slinging, and personal attacks should be in a politicians handbook. But crafting clever insults doesn't make what you say about me anymore true.


Yep, Yep, and yes. But aside from name calling and mudslinging, I have, contrary to claims otherwise, offered far more than that. And as for who might be a politician, I have never strived for such positions, I don't think you can claim the same. Many times it is what politicians don't/won't say, rather than what they do say, that makes the difference, or makes them a "politician".

Why would the UWC listen to anything I have to say now, you did not any other time in the last 2 years. My opinions and ideas on deer management, like many others have been laid out here and else where, for the last two years. I have already offered it. Kris, we are talking about some very fundamental differences here, regardless of how open minded you think you are.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

lone tree said

"Lets say a unit starts out with a buck to doe ratio of 30/100, and over the next 10 years that drops to 20/100, bad right? Maybe, if that is all you are looking at, then you don't really have a good picture of what is going on. Lets say that same unit had 10,000 deer 10 years ago when the buck to doe ratio was 30/100. But now it has a population of 20,000 and a buck to doe ratio of 20/100. Under Option WFT? we are supposed to cut tags on this unit, even though there are 1000 more bucks on it.

This is just one example of how we "manage" wildlife in this state. How does Option WTF? grow the number of deer again? Oh yeah it doesn't, its hunter control, not wildlife" _/O 

You are missing the point lone tree of "WTF." In your scenario you never mentioned if the unit was over objective. If it has doubled like you said more then likely there would be doe tags issued. This cuts the population back down to objective and gets the buck to doe ratios back in line. -8/-

"WTF" works if its followed! Buck to doe ratios or bull to cow ratios are the easiest way to manage our game! :RULES: Bull to cow and buck to doe ratios has nothing to do with inches or growing a herd! Its only about managing hunters and keeping a certain social satisfaction on any given unit. OOO°)OO

Growing more deer has more to do with habitat, fawn recruitment, mother nature and predator control. :RULES:


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> lone tree said
> 
> "Lets say a unit starts out with a buck to doe ratio of 30/100, and over the next 10 years that drops to 20/100, bad right? Maybe, if that is all you are looking at, then you don't really have a good picture of what is going on. Lets say that same unit had 10,000 deer 10 years ago when the buck to doe ratio was 30/100. But now it has a population of 20,000 and a buck to doe ratio of 20/100. Under Option WFT? we are supposed to cut tags on this unit, even though there are 1000 more bucks on it.
> 
> ...


Eaxactly, thats the problem. Along with everybody else like you that does not understand how and why things work the way they do.

You said it, WTF and buck to doe ratios manage hunters. But you are wrong about it being the easiest way to manage our game. buck to doe ratios are only a singlular measurement.

Why do you attempt to justify/explain/support Option WTF? When it does not grow more deer, and reduces hunter opportunity? Are you anti deer? anti hunter?, both?

Why are there not doe tags for the Chalk Creek/East canyon/Morgan So. Rich unit? two of the three are over objective.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> Why do you attempt to justify/explain/support Option WTF? When it does not grow more deer, and reduces hunter opportunity? Are you anti deer? anti hunter?, both?
> 
> Why are there not doe tags for the Chalk Creek/East canyon/Morgan So. Rich unit? two of the three are over objective.


Im not anti deer or anti hunter but i don't enjoy going on snipe hunts with orange on every ridge. The utard rifle hunt is a joke!

Im sure there will be doe hunts on those areas in the future. I dont know those areas and dont hunt them so it would be speculation on my part why doe hunts aren't happening on those areas. My best guess is the doe tags haven't been discussed by the wildlife board yet and the numbers haven't been set. If your correct on them being over objective then they will be issued. Thats just how it works. So dont get your panties in a bunch yet.

If a unit its under the buck doe ratio that means hunters are way to successful and there killing too many bucks so tags will be adjusted. Option "WTF" will work its self out in due time.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you attempt to justify/explain/support Option WTF? When it does not grow more deer, and reduces hunter opportunity? Are you anti deer? anti hunter?, both?
> ...


If the rifle hunt is such a joke, how does Ooption WTF? help the situation? It removed statewide archery, and reduced archery and muzzle loader tags. So the only way it can help is to cut more rifle hunters, which it has done very well. Sounds anti hunting to me. Do you think PETA or the Humane scociety could have cut that many hunters out? We have more deer now than when Option WTF? was proposed, but tags keep getting cut.

Your right, you dont know the unit. I have money that says there will never be doe permits on that unit. Do you think that is the way to bring a unit into its arbitrarily picked buck to doe ratio? By reducing does? And I dont know what I'm talking about? So we "manage" for fewer deer, and fewer hunters, so the buck to doe ratio stays high. and if that gets too high, we issue doe tags? Wow! why would I ever want to change such a well thought out system.

The only thing Option WTF? will work out, is more hunters. It does NOT grow more deer, or more bucks. It serves only as a mechanism to manage hunters, specifically to cut them. Just because it is based on buck to doe ratios, does not mean that it is wildlife management, or that it is biologically sound. So once again, it is not wildlife management. It is defacto social engineering that will reduce hunting culture for future generations, and flies in the face of about half the tenets of the NAMWC.

If you are hunting a pumpkin patch you are doing something wrong. I encountered one other hunter for a brief moment last year, in six days, and he was quite a ways off.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Not to worried about the killing part. Batting 70% for the last 10 years on mature bucks with my bow. 

Maybe its my way of giving the rifle crowd the bone. Lol for taking away my state wide archery. Ill still get an archery tag every year and still get first crack at the bucks with a better buck doe ratio. No sloppy seconds or thirds for this guy. 

If the rifle hunt improves ill switch and take an easy deer with it. Until it does get better you can have it.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Lone tree since you brought up the doe issue. Why dont you explain why they wont issue doe tags on a herd thats over objective? Im all ears


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> Lone tree since you brought up the doe issue. Why dont you explain why they wont issue doe tags on a herd thats over objective? Im all ears


You tell me why they will. Have you missed all the oposition to doe hunts?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> Not to worried about the killing part. Batting 70% for the last 10 years on mature bucks with my bow.
> 
> Maybe its my way of giving the rifle crowd the bone. Lol for taking away my state wide archery. Ill still get an archery tag every year and still get first crack at the bucks with a better buck doe ratio. No sloppy seconds or thirds for this guy.
> 
> If the rifle hunt improves ill switch and take an easy deer with it. Until it does get better you can have it.


I rock a DH tag.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> swbuckmaster said:
> 
> 
> > Lone tree since you brought up the doe issue. Why dont you explain why they wont issue doe tags on a herd thats over objective? Im all ears
> ...


I have seen the opposition and believe its warranted in some areas. The division doesn't care about what the hunters think when it comes to doe hunts? If there over objective or are causing problems they will kill the does at night in there truck lights if needed. They don't need our help or permission to hunt them.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

If there are numbers to warrant doe hunts, I'm fine with that, I'll shoot a doe. Option WTF? does not grow more deer, therefor it does not create doe hunts either. It manages hunter numbers based on arbitrary buck to doe ratios. Can some one show me the peer reviewed studies that show how making up buck to doe ratios is a biologically sound means for mule deer management? The whole concept is based on conjecture and emotion. Can some one show me the studies where they have determined healthy buck to doe ratios?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

round and round we go

is there an icon that puts a gun in its mouth and pulls the trigger? If there was id add it here.
found it lol


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> round and round we go
> 
> is there an icon that puts a gun in its mouth and pulls the trigger? If there was id add it here.


You can quit anytime, no one is forcing you to participate. You can repeat your conjecture and ideology, over and over again. This will in no way make it more valid. You do not have anything supporting your arguments, and you cant answer simple questions to refute mine.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

When a problem exists that is multidimensional, and the fixers are using two dimensional ideologies, there will be no fix; only placation that there is an attempt to do so.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

stillhunterman said:


> When a problem exists that is multidimensional, and the fixers are using two dimensional ideologies, there will be no fix; only placation that there is an attempt to do so.


But hey, at least we doing something, right?


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

;-)


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> You do not have anything supporting your arguments, and you cant answer simple questions to refute mine.


I answered all your questions. Maybe I didn't say it slowly enough

you named 3 areas where the deer are growing by leaps and bounds. I could care less if it was caused by option "WTF" or something else. If a deer herd is growing like you said but the buck to doe ratio is staying the same there will be opportunity in the form of doe hunts if the herd goes over objective. This should satisfy the "if its brown its down crowd."

Maybe with less hunting pressure from cutting the tags in the areas you mentioned there might be more bucks on public land instead of being shot or driven into private ground. This will increase hunter satisfaction and buck to doe ratios that were set by the wrac process.

Maybe if the private ground keep growing out of control and the deer start eating all the vegetation on the private side they will have to start fence jumping right into happy public hunters sights.

In the end its not about growing the deer herd. It never was imho! Although that would just be icing if it did. If the deer herd goes up and is over its buck to doe ratio tags will be issued. If it doesn't tags will be cut. Its really that simple. If you don't like it show up to the rac with your foil hat and tell them about selenium, acid rain and how they don't know how to grow a deer herd. im sure it will fall on def ears.

I used to fight the system you call "WTF" im now just going to reap the benefits of it because I don't partake in sloppy seconds and thirds and ill still get a tag. My kids will still get a tag. Like I said in another post the sky is not falling. There is more hunting opportunity then I know what to do with.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

found it lol


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

More conjecture, hearsay, and_ feelings _on the matter. Your right, its not about growing the deer herds, that's the problem. But hey, as long as you _feel_ good about it, that's all that matters.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> bullsnot said:
> 
> 
> > What is your solution Lonetree? Give us the cliff notes version of your management plan. I have an open mind.
> ...


Lonetree is an adviser to UWC? :shock: 
That's it, I want my money back!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

ridgetop said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > bullsnot said:
> ...


Good thing you did not pay anything.

I have not been involved in/with, or in contact with the UWC(Its membership or leadership), for quite some time.

Did you catch the part about not heading any of my advisements? They are perfect for you.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Lonetree said:


> Why would the UWC listen to anything I have to say now, you did not any other time in the last 2 years.


I'm not sure why you are taking anything personal. It doesn't matter who comes up with an idea, a good idea stands on its own merit. There hasn't been one instance of an idea you submitted being rejected just because you submitted it that I am aware of.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

bullsnot said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > Why would the UWC listen to anything I have to say now, you did not any other time in the last 2 years.
> ...


If good ideas actually stood on their own merits, we would not have the issues we do with wildlife management in this state, and in the West in general, for that matter.

I am not taking anything personal, just being very declarative. It is not my feelings that I am worried about, but rather the larger effort at hand.

I am not saying my advisement was not heeded because it came from me. I am saying it was not heeded. If that was because of ideological or tactical differences, it would depend on the situation, but it was overwhelming.

If the past is prologue, why would the UWC listen to anything I have to say now? It is a simple question.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Lonetree said:


> If the past is prologue, why would the UWC listen to anything I have to say now? It is a simple question.


Well I think I already answered that.

You have said over and over that the game management in this state is terrible. I don't know that I agree with that. I think that there are a lot of people that do a lot of hard work that get a lot of things done that are never heard about. I think some are almost at unsung hero status. There are a lot of success stories in game management in Utah. And there is work to be done in a lot of areas.

While you come up with some very thought provoking ideas and comments you are largely guilty of over simplifying the issues. There are political and social forces at work in game management that are completely unavoidable. You absoutely have to have cooperation and/or participation from other groups/agencies/departments/public to get things done in many cases. You also have budget constraints and current law to deal with. You simply have to understand all of those agendas and forces to be effective.

Again there is work to be done and I agree with you that science is the future but thinking that game management is all about science is simply over simplification and to ignore those other issues makes a person or orgnaization completely ineffective. We can do better and we should always be moving forward. We can can and should learn more and rely on science more as we move foward.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

bullsnot said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > If the past is prologue, why would the UWC listen to anything I have to say now? It is a simple question.
> ...


I agree with you that there are countless people doing the real work, that we never hear about. They truly are unsung heros.

Oversimplifying things?  yeah, that's me, pressing on with simple ideas like, if we have higher buck to doe ratios, that will grow more deer. :roll: I am a hardliner, I am by nature, not a conformist. I understand the status quo quite well, **** it, I don't care for it. It is corrupted and wrong......morally, ethically, biologically, and culturally. You keep working on packing grease into those burned out bearings. The key is to know when to tear them out, and replace them.

Wildlife _policy_ IS terrible in this state. Hunter satisfaction, Healthy wildlife, sound policy, political discord, and social balance all have their roots in an understanding of good wildlife science. Yon don't put the cart before the horse, you don't build a house and then say, "yeah, we should put some foundation under this in the future." And you certainly don't go along pulling the foundation out from under it, as has been the current policy in Utah for years. That is not how you build long lasting, sustainable legacies.

There is no lack of understanding here, it is just that I seek revolutionary change, at a fundamental level, while you seek to find moderate change within the current system. We disagree.

Besides I am just a lone blow hard that perpetrates crazy ideas, I don't know what anybody is worried about.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I haven't seen or heard of many people who are saying that "Option 2" is good science. It is mostly based on hunter management and helping those stuggling units hold more and older age class bucks, while allowing those hunters in those units still hunt a 9 day rifle hunt. This is not all that bad. Why do you keep trying to put a spin on this "option 2" plan?

I think I have an idea. Has anyone else out there noticed that Lonetree never really started complaining about cutting tags until after this 30 unit plan was implemented? Before, when it was 5 regions. The Northern region always had extra tags but now some of these sub-units inside the Northern region have a higher demand and have sold out through the draw. Like the one that Lonetree hunts! :shock: 
Lonetree is now upset that the area that he hunts is being limited, which he admits, has one of the higher buck to doe ratios in the state and which he has access to private property. Is this more about Lonetree loosing a chance at a tag every year or truely about the health of the deer herd? 
It just seems interesting to me that the timing of Lonetree's public interest in the deer herds, comes when "his" unit is now under attack. 
Ask most of the people that were involved with the 3 day rifle hunts and most will tell you, they are pleased with the direction we are going.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

ridgetop said:


> I haven't seen or heard of many people who are saying that "Option 2" is good science. It is mostly based on hunter management and helping those stuggling units hold more and older age class bucks, while allowing those hunters in those units still hunt a 9 day rifle hunt. This is not all that bad. Why do you keep trying to put a spin on this "option 2" plan?
> 
> I think I have an idea. Has anyone else out there noticed that Lonetree never really started complaining about cutting tags until after this 30 unit plan was implemented? Before, when it was 5 regions. The Northern region always had extra tags but now some of these sub-units inside the Northern region have a higher demand and have sold out through the draw. Like the one that Lonetree hunts! :shock:
> Lonetree is now upset that the area that he hunts is being limited, which he admits, has one of the higher buck to doe ratios in the state and which he has access to private property. Is this more about Lonetree loosing a chance at a tag every year or truely about the health of the deer herd?
> ...


I was against Option WTF? from its inception, that can easily be proven. Funny on "my" unit, I have a DH tag for the Ogden unit. This has nothing to do with me not getting a tag, never has been. I am about what will grow more deer, not limit that, and everybody else's opportunity.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Looks like Lonetree has been a busy little typist the last few days ..

And, from what I've red, Has Done nothing but prove WHY WE NEED opt 2 at this time.

Opt 2 helps buy some time while the 'science' can be better learned and applied ..

Opt 2 will put MORE focus on individual units, and clarify their needs to fix herd growth.

Opt 2will control hunting pressure, while we learn the issues facing capacity , environment, and habitat...Those are the keys , as lonetree has pointed out, 
To growing our deer herds...

Thank you Lonetree for pointing out the issues as to why opt wtf is so badly needed at this time..


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Looks like Lonetree has been a busy little typist the last few days ..
> 
> And, from what I've red, Has Done nothing but prove WHY WE NEED opt 2 at this time.
> 
> ...


Goofy, your spot on! 
But these guys continue to try and put a spin on this whole Option 2 thing. They continue to try and make us believe that all the Biologists, Wildlife Board and most wildlife groups have thrown up their arms and have claimed "nothing else needs to be done" concerning deer management because Option 2 will take care of everything. Which we all know, that's not the case. Everyone, including myself, will continue to try and better our hunting for the future.

Can you even imagine how bad things would be right now if we would have continued to have unlimited over the counter tags for the past 20 years, like Lonetree wanted and says would probably have been better for the herds and hunters. -_O-


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Option WTF? Will only reduce hunters. This is irrelavent, because overhunting and crowding are not the factors driving long term deer numbers up or down. These are social factors being made an issue, by the buck farming crowd, that watch too many hunting videos. We could have completely stopped hunting deer in the early '90s, and the downward trend would have continued. Because hunters are not the issue. Option WTF? does, on the otherhand, have the goal of attempting to increase buck to doe ratios. This does not grow deer, or buy them time, it has quite the opposite affect. Can you imagine how much worse the numbers would be if we had focused on buck to doe ratios 20 years ago. 

To support Option WTF? you have to be willing to trade hypothetical higher buck to doe ratios, sold as big bucks and fewer hunters, for the long term vitality of the deer herds. You are saying you would rather sacrifice growing deer, and deer hunters, over the long term, to serve your selfish bend on the issue. 

This is unsportsmanlike, it flies in the face of the NAMWC, has no conservation goals, and bodes very unwell for future generations of hunters, as we cut them out of the mix, and redefine, through our actions and policies, what it took so many of our forefathers generations to build. It is wrong, at every fundamental level, and is a canard.

Option WTF? is just one more grain, being blown across the landscape, in a long building dust storm, that is stripping away, a once fertile and diverse community. One that understood and built an empire on the foundations of:

Wildlife as Public Trust Resources;
Elimination of Markets for Game;
Allocation of Wildlife by Law;
Wildlife Should Only be Killed for a Legitimate Purpose;
Wildlife Are Considered an International Resource;
Science is the Proper Tool for Discharge of Wildlife Policy; and
Democracy of Hunting.

I will not be a part of the sell off, and sell out.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Goofy elk, Ridgetop

Feel free to step over to the "Prove Lonetree Wrong" thread, and take a crack at it.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

The facts are the
18-20 ratio we have on our general deer wont do any of the bs lone tree is preaching about. 

lonetree can say what ever he wants about acid rain, soil ph, selenium deposits, dust bowls, jet stream, lack of rain, too much rain and global warming ect. These are all issues that utah hunters/dwr cant do anything about.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> The facts are the
> 18-20 ratio we have on our general deer wont do any of the bs lone tree is preaching about.
> 
> lonetree can say what ever he wants about acid rain, soil ph, selenium deposits, dust bowls, jet stream, lack of rain, too much rain and global warming ect. These are all issues that utah hunters/dwr cant do anything about.


That's the spirit, lets keep plugging along in the dark, trying to eek out short term gains, while betting on derivativized, short call options. Unlimited loss potential, no chance for long term gain.

An 18-20 buck to doe ratio is not what was originally proposed, or where the Option WTF? proponents want it to be. You and other proponents want fewer deer tags, with higher buck to doe ratios, at the expense of deer and deer hunters, and their respective futures. You can argue any one point of it, all you want. Relativizing, and compartmentalizing your argument, does it, and you, no good, because all of the relative parts, do not stand on their own, let alone as a whole package.

You don't know if there are solutions, to the problems I have laid out, anymore than you know about any of this. You are proposing that the blind, should lead the blind..... backwards. Not mechanically or biologically blind, but blind by choice, ideological, scared of the unknown hands, clenched firmly over your eyes.....ignorant.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Just a quick question here Josh: Wouldn't an altered PLFA pattern affect microbial biomass in the soil (at higher acidic levels), adding to the overall 'big picture' effects of nutrient availability to plants? Kinda like a double whammy for deer, since they need the microbial action for digestion... Make sense?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

stillhunterman said:


> Just a quick question here Josh: Wouldn't an altered PLFA pattern affect microbial biomass in the soil (at higher acidic levels), adding to the overall 'big picture' effects of nutrient availability to plants? Kinda like a double whammy for deer, since they need the microbial action for digestion... Make sense?


Yes! Many plants are mycorrhizally dependent, this is key to what I have been talking about. This broadens the discussion beyond the simple concept, thanks. So....not a lack of nutrients in the soil, and not of lack of plants for deer to eat(separate biodiversity issue). But rather a breakdown, and short circuiting, of the mechanisms, and organisms, used to deliver the nutrients to the plants, particularly at certain times of the year. If you look at the terpinoid studies that were done in '50s, in regard to deer nutrition, there are some interesting parallels.

The biomass part is key. Forests for example have low biomass, and the mutualistic organisms are far fewer than that of say, grasslands. This makes them more vulnerable to anything that disrupts those relationships in the soil.


----------

