# Coyote contest survey



## #1DEER 1-I

I would like to have a little forum contest for coyote control in our state but I would like everyone to take this survey to see if its worth having. If so ill set up the rules and get things organized, thanks everyone. I realize the prizes aren't huge but it's just a little something to try and get us motivated to kill the yotes.

Here's the link to the survey:

www.surveymonkey.com/s/6WV68Y5


----------



## Lonetree

$50 a piece bounty is not enough incentive?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

It is but why not do this as well.


----------



## Kevin D

Some of the questions you ask are not opinion questions but scientific ones. If you want an accurate answer, you may be better served reading up on the biological studies on the subject rather than taking a poll.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

I'm not looking for the scientific answer, I'm looking for the opinion of people.


----------



## stillhunterman

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I'm not looking for the scientific answer, I'm looking for the opinion of people.


And personal opinions will get you what exactly? 'Personally', I don't much care for contests to see who can kill the most critters, so I'll pass.


----------



## HighNDry

This is my feeling and it may differ from yours but, I believe coyote contests like this are actually detrimental to the thinning of the population. I think you end up with a bunch of rookies that really don't know what they are doing educating all the coyotes and stirring them all up so the real hunters have a difficult time getting them in. 

The reason I believe this is I've hunted in areas where I have seen coyotes but have also been aware that other hunters have been in the area. It is extremely difficult to get the dogs in. When we ranged out farther into areas we knew the other hunters had not been in, we were very successful. Sometimes we had to range out close to 100 miles.


----------



## reb8600

HighNDry said:


> This is my feeling and it may differ from yours but, I believe coyote contests like this are actually detrimental to the thinning of the population. I think you end up with a bunch of rookies that really don't know what they are doing educating all the coyotes and stirring them all up so the real hunters have a difficult time getting them in.


The same thing the bounty has done only on a larger scale. Most contests generally are not a bunch of rookies. The people entering them usually know how to call. Online contests on the other hand are different. They also usually bring out the ones that want to cheat because it is easier to do than in an actual contest.


----------



## greenie

Sounds fun just to see how everyone else doing thanks


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

So to some of your logic that more people hunting them is worse. Does this mean that you also believe that general deer units less deer are killed than on LE deer units just because more people are hunting them? No more are killed but it is a lower success rate.


----------



## swbuckmaster

Its all common sense

More people putting pressure on deer or coyotes does not mean there will be more deer or coyotes. It means there will be less!

The reason the success rate goes down in hard hunted areas is there are less animals to shoot and the ones left are smarter. 

Young of the year will always be stupid! So if you want an easy coyote hunt, hunt them in august. 

Id say most coyote contest are won by guys either cheeting or are won by guys hunting less pressured privite property. Seen it to much to throw my $$ in on them. 

I also don't need an incentive to shoot coyotes. Something inside me "primal instinct" makes me grab for the gun when I see one. Its kind of like its my teritory and I'm the alpha male in my teritory. I never see a cotote and say gee if I leave that coyote alone there will be less coyotes and more deer. Thats simply foolish thinking!


----------



## Lonetree

I have to admit, I did not read the survey earlier. I did not realize that you were trying to "help" the deer herds. I will donate hunting gear, cash cards, etc. but not for a coyote contest. Rather as an incentive to hunters to get an education, so I don't have to read uneducated threads like this. Coyotes are not the problem, we've been over this. 

If lions and coyotes and bears, oh my! are the problem. How did they co-evolve with mule deer, over the last 10,000 years?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Of course not lonetree, the coyotes killing the countless fawns are not even a part of the problem are they? No they are not the ONLY problem, but they are a problem with the deer population not doing as well as it could. There are many different problems that add into the equasion of what will help our deer herds here in Utah, and coyotes/predators are one of them.


----------



## stillhunterman

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Of course not lonetree, the coyotes killing the countless fawns are not even a part of the problem are they? No they are not the ONLY problem, but they are a problem with the deer population not doing as well as it could. There are many different problems that add into the equasion of what will help our deer herds here in Utah, and coyotes/predators are one of them.


I have no doubt that there are certain circumstances where predators may keep a healthy deer herd from re-establishing its numbers quicker, so do state game biologists. However, to claim killing coyotes/predators will help our deer herds (and by that I take it you mean GROW) goes against current available science.

You certainly fall under the category of Lonetree's 'hunters need to get educated' mantra, and I concur.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Your contradicting yourself. Your playing the devils advocate and taking both sides. Why is it we have no pheasants in places in the state that have 100% suitable habitat? Predators. Why do we loose many of our yearling fawn recruitment. Predators.

Currently stillhunterman, the majority must be uneducated because there is a $50 Utah bounty on coyotes, and $5 added to each big game tag you've bought for predator control in Utah. So obviously predator control means a lot to all those uneducated groups with millions of dollars, including the division, believe it is a problem that should be addressed. But hey a few people on this forum think they must just be pouring millions of your tax dollars and donation money into an uneducated worthless cause right?

Many on this forum who think they know it all tend to disagree with me on many things. But for all you 801 area code armchair hunters wake up and realize that all the things you fight with me about are happening and will continue. You try to sit here and disagree with me but rules, regulations, and processes are closer to what I want to see than what you fight with me over.

Many on here didn't want deer units... Guess what we got deer units. Many think coyote control isn't important, guess where millions of dollars are being spent... Transplanting deer is stupid, guess where money is being spent. Tags shouldn't be cut... Guess what tags got cut. Keep fighting with me. In the end a lot of what I've wanted to see happen has happened. And I do believe things will get better as a result. So educate me everyone... But what you're educating on is the opposite of what's happening in the real world so have fun with that.


----------



## Lonetree

Pheasants? Try bad planting practices with non established varieties, disease from these farm raised birds, and habitat loss. 

Bottom line, simpletons like you are what is wrong with conservation, and hunting these days. You are a mouth piece for every bad policy out there. 

Coyote control does not grow deer, nor does it reduce declining deer numbers, this is a scientific fact. Transplanting deer only reduces deer numbers further, it does not grow deer, this is a fact. Smaller units, cutting tags, social engineering of hunters, does not grow deer, or even reduce crowding, this is a fact. And the earth is older than 6000 years old, regardless of how your inner little girl feels about any of this. Universal truth, is not measured in mass appeal. 

And yes, the majority, including you, are uneducated. You prove it over and over again with almost every post you make. I honestly appreciate your veracity, but you have no thoughts of your own, you just repeat recycled, unproven theory of the last 30 years.


----------



## stillhunterman

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Your contradicting yourself. Your playing the devils advocate and taking both sides. Why is it we have no pheasants in places in the state that have 100% suitable habitat? Predators. Why do we loose many of our yearling fawn recruitment. Predators.
> 
> Currently stillhunterman, the majority must be uneducated because there is a $50 Utah bounty on coyotes, and $5 added to each big game tag you've bought for predator control in Utah. So obviously predator control means a lot to all those uneducated groups with millions of dollars, including the division, believe it is a problem that should be addressed. But hey a few people on this forum think they must just be pouring millions of your tax dollars and donation money into an uneducated worthless cause right?
> 
> Many on this forum who think they know it all tend to disagree with me on many things. But for all you 801 area code armchair hunters wake up and realize that all the things you fight with me about are happening and will continue. You try to sit here and disagree with me but rules, regulations, and processes are closer to what I want to see than what you fight with me over.
> 
> Many on here didn't want deer units... Guess what we got deer units. Many think coyote control isn't important, guess where millions of dollars are being spent... Transplanting deer is stupid, guess where money is being spent. Tags shouldn't be cut... Guess what tags got cut. Keep fighting with me. In the end a lot of what I've wanted to see happen has happened. And I do believe things will get better as a result. So educate me everyone... But what you're educating on is the opposite of what's happening in the real world so have fun with that.


I believe your heart is in the right place 1-I, and I can appreciate that. But seriously, your thought process is two dimentional and there is no light at the end of that tunnel. Step back a few paces and look harder through the trees and find the forest. In virtually every one of your posts where you encounter resistance with your philosophies, you counter with closed minded regurgitation rather than open minded questioning, and that is a big problem we as hunters face within ourselves. We will either be our own salvation, or our own demise. Is that contradicting myself too?:-(

"Many on this forum who think they know it all tend to disagree with me on many things. But for all you 801 area code armchair hunters wake up and realize that all the things you fight with me about are happening and will continue. You try to sit here and disagree with me but rules, regulations, and processes are closer to what I want to see than what you fight with me over."

It is exactly because these things are happening that you encounter so much resistance, because you profess them to be 'truth' because they happened. Those with the political and financial clout that have pushed these 'rules, regulations, and processes' through-even though they were NEVER asked for by the Division-know they can get away with it because there are guys like you who just plain eat it up as "good for the wildlife", when it can't be farther from the truth. O|*


----------



## Lonetree

swbuckmaster said:


> Its all common sense
> 
> More people putting pressure on deer or coyotes does not mean there will be more deer or coyotes. It means there will be less!
> 
> The reason the success rate goes down in hard hunted areas is there are less animals to shoot and the ones left are smarter.
> 
> Young of the year will always be stupid! So if you want an easy coyote hunt, hunt them in august.
> 
> Id say most coyote contest are won by guys either cheeting or are won by guys hunting less pressured privite property. Seen it to much to throw my $$ in on them.
> 
> I also don't need an incentive to shoot coyotes. Something inside me "primal instinct" makes me grab for the gun when I see one. Its kind of like its my teritory and I'm the alpha male in my teritory. _I never see a cotote and say gee if I leave that coyote alone there will be less coyotes and more deer. Thats simply foolish thinking!_


Actually, depending on which coyote you shoot, you may end up with more coyotes, more aggressive coyotes, and then by yours and others logic, less deer. It is a forest for the trees things. Because coyotes are not alpha canines, they will breed in response to chaos in the pack structure. If you have 6 coyotes in a territory, 2 will be the alpha pair, and only those 2 will breed. But if you shoot the alphas, the other 2 pairs will breed, and they will have larger than normal litters. So by shooting 1 or 2 coyotes, you may have just fostered 15+ more coyotes. That is the bigger problem with coyote bounties, shooting coyotes, begets coyotes. Yet even after decades of more coyotes, the science still says that those deer killed by coyotes, are compensatory. Yet more circular thinking, used to form wildlife policy in the West.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

> Pheasants? Try bad planting practices with non established varieties, disease from these farm raised birds, and habitat loss.
> 
> Bottom line, simpletons like you are what is wrong with conservation, and hunting these days. You are a mouth piece for every bad policy out there.
> 
> Coyote control does not grow deer, nor does it reduce declining deer numbers, this is a scientific fact. Transplanting deer only reduces deer numbers further, it does not grow deer, this is a fact. Smaller units, cutting tags, social engineering of hunters, does not grow deer, or even reduce crowding, this is a fact. And the earth is older than 6000 years old, regardless of how your inner little girl feels about any of this. Universal truth, is not measured in mass appeal.
> 
> And yes, the majority, including you, are uneducated. You prove it over and over again with almost every post you make. I honestly appreciate your veracity, but you have no thoughts of your own, you just repeat recycled, unproven theory of the last 30 years.


Like I've said before on this forum Lonetree I don't live in the Salt Lake or Utah Valley, where habitat for all wildlife has been destroyed. I can post photos for you where there is great pheasant habitat, but it is infested by racoons, skunks, foxes, and coyotes which makes it impossible to see enough chicks and hens make it through a season to boost the population. There are still actual "wild" pheasants left in Utah, so your fight to the stupid planted pheasants has no meaning with me. Yes they've planted birds that will almost certainly die off quickly but there are wild birds around my area that need predation help in order to grow, but that's a different subject... so I'll move on.

As for your second point, coyote control has not shown a significant effect on deer populations when conditions are perfect, hence: easy winters, wet springs, no drought. However coyote control has been shown to have a positive effect when deer herds are going through tough winters or drought because the deer are more concentrated and susceptible to predation at these times. So why not reduce predator populations now to ensure there lower in the future, when a harsh winter or drought hit a deer herd?

As for thoughts of my own, and attacking my posts, if anyone's learned anything from me on this forum is I really don't give a rats ass what your opinion is because I have mine. Hunting is headed in the directions I want to see it go not the way you want to see it go. So if things improve you can eat your words, if they don't I'll eat mine. After they killed over 100 coyotes on a short flight by Salina I have noticed many more fawns at does sides and I believe that helped quite well.



> I believe your heart is in the right place 1-I, and I can appreciate that. But seriously, your thought process is two dimentional and there is no light at the end of that tunnel. Step back a few paces and look harder through the trees and find the forest. In virtually every one of your posts where you encounter resistance with your philosophies, you counter with closed minded regurgitation rather than open minded questioning, and that is a big problem we as hunters face within ourselves. We will either be our own salvation, or our own demise. Is that contradicting myself too?:sad:
> 
> "Many on this forum who think they know it all tend to disagree with me on many things. But for all you 801 area code armchair hunters wake up and realize that all the things you fight with me about are happening and will continue. You try to sit here and disagree with me but rules, regulations, and processes are closer to what I want to see than what you fight with me over."
> 
> It is exactly because these things are happening that you encounter so much resistance, because you profess them to be 'truth' because they happened. Those with the political and financial clout that have pushed these 'rules, regulations, and processes' through-even though they were NEVER asked for by the Division-know they can get away with it because there are guys like you who just plain eat it up as "good for the wildlife", when it can't be farther from the truth.


+1 to you on your first posts, none of you who believe everything you read from short studies on the internet are swayed or open your eyes to a different viewpoint either.

You say they were never asked for by the division, but the division continues to shove them down your throat and your supporting it I guarantee that. The DWR asked for hunters opinions and ideas before the 30 unit system, and that is what we got. Yes there is a lot of big names, big money, and wrong doing's that go on with the way things are ran these days. But many on this forum seem to believe we can leave things just the way they are, kill as many bucks and bulls as we want, and expect hunting and our wildlife to have a bright future.

I will tell you I believe much more in habitat creation, purchasing, and improvements than I do for predator control. But the Division, Forest Service, BLM, and private land owners all have to start working together towards a common cause before any significant effects will take place. As I write this post the forest service is clear cutting hundreds of acreas on Monroe mountain for "aspen regeneration" project and are going to double fence these areas off not allowing wildlife to use them. Now from what I've seen in a few places as short as from one side of the road to another. I see no noticeable difference between the side they fenced off and the side that grew wild. I get it, there trying to keep the elk and cattle out of it, but it blocks valuable habitat for years and I see no noticeable difference to what they accomplish. I think the forest service objectives are good, but I don't think the way the forest service, blm, and private landowners carry things out works with what the division is trying to accomplish sometimes. So yes I would give up predator control for habitat improvement any day, but habitat is a much harder more expensive and more complicated way to improve things, however it is also the more and most effective way. It would be great to see it done.


----------



## Lonetree

1-I, I don't care about anyone else's opinion, including yours, you obviously do, or you would not be so proud that you are on what you perceive to be the winning side of things. Mule deer are on an upswing right now, and it has nothing to do with predator control. This uptick started before the coyote bounty, and was predicted, based on things that have nothing to do with predators. While your observations are in fact real, and actual to you, you do not appear to possess the ability, to rectify those experiences with the larger world, or basic science for that matter. Your confirmation bias is a bit extreme. Study after study has shown that coyote predation on deer is compensatory. In the past, many states have had coyote bounties, and it has never increased the mule deer trend. Why do mule deer numbers rise and fall, synchronously in areas with lots of coyotes, and in areas with few coyotes? Hint, its because it is not the coyotes, or the lions, or bears, Oh my! that have depressed deer numbers. We have been doing what you say is the solution, for 20 years, and the overall deer trends have declined, not risen. This is not just in Utah, but in all of the West. I don't live in the Salt lake or Utah valleys, and while I do live in 801, I used to live in very rural 435.

If what you are proposing, and is, and has been done for the last 20 years, does not raise the mule deer trend line, then why are we doing it? Because that is how we "feel" about things? Because we see some things, and make unfounded assumptions about those observations? The NAMWC clearly states that sound science be used to make wild life management decisions, the democracy clause does not over ride that. The way the majority and yourself "feel" about this, will not increase mule deer numbers, we have 20 years of history to prove this.


----------



## swbuckmaster

Lt 
you continually say preditor control doesn't work. Ha ha tell that to the deer numbers when 1080 was used. 

O I forgot you said it was a comet, sunflair or dust storm that caused the deer boom back then.


----------



## Lonetree

You can correlate the use of 1080, on wolf numbers as they tried to establish south from Canada, from the 60's all the way through to '95. But you can not correlate 1080 use to deer numbers. In the 1930s when coyote control programs ceased, in many parts of the West, including Yellowstone, deer numbers rose, as did coyote numbers. If reducing coyote numbers, increased deer numbers, then the inverse would have occurred. If predators were a limiting factor today, then predator control would have a positive affect. In the past with booming deer numbers, in conjunction with predator control, we saw huge increases in deer numbers. But that is not because predators were a limiting factor. You are confusing the two situations. In the past deer numbers increased past carrying capacity, party because there were no predators, but they were increasing regardless of predators. Contemporary declines, of the overall deer trend, are regardless of predators. They declined with, and without predation.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Coyote and deer populations don't go up and down at the same time science also should have showed you that. Predator numbers follow behind prey numbers. When prey are doing well it takes a year or two for the coyote population to grow and match the deer population. Once the prey population falls it takes a year or two for the predator population to fall because by then the amount of prey begins to have the effect on the predator population. If you agree with that, it shows an obvious trend that predators and prey have a pretty good effect on each other.


----------



## Lonetree

OK, So if the deer have declined, then by your logic, the predators would decline, and viola!, problem solved. You just made a case for a Disney land, self regulating system. I never said there was no such thing as predator prey relationships, that is an obvious fact that needs no debate. I am saying that there is nothing to support predation being the limiting factor for mule deer. Which is why predator control, can not increase deer numbers. You keep saying that predator control, hunter control, and every other unproven policy of the past, is the solution. But if they did not increase deer then, how will they increase deer now. For your solutions to increase deer, you have to be able to prove that predation, and hunting, are the limiting factors, that can not be demonstrated.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

If predator and prey numbers have a correlation, then obviously the effect one another. If predator numbers go down by people reducing their numbers, then an already growing deer population should grow even more by reducing the effect predators have on the population. The effect would be less predation of deer and greater fawn and deer survival. Simple it doesn't take all the science in the world to bring a little common sense that tells you that. Science tries to explain so many things and yet lonetree, science has yet to explain what we can actually do at this point to live in a perfect world. It hasn't determined how we can actually stop mule deer populations from going down hill over time, and really you have no better answers, all you have is the word "education" you like to throw around, but "education" doesn't mean an effective answer has been found. Less predators, should mean more prey survive. Yes in a completely natural environment, predator and prey correlations coincide with each other. My 30-06 is not a part of the natural environment, and we can remove the predators before they cause damage to the deer populations now, they don't have to naturally follow the code that science says they have to.


----------



## Lonetree

Really? "don't have to naturally follow the code that science says they have to." that is the dumbest thing you have ever typed. "common sense", the second dumbest. There are natural laws, that can not be broken, chemistry, gravity, and a thousand more. You really do live in an imaginary Disney land, don't you? The cause of mule deer declines has to fit into the laws of nature and science, and solutions to turning those declines around, have to fit into those laws too. Have you ever heard the term "when pigs fly"? Your "solutions", and view of the world, presume that they can fly. Walk off a cliff and see if you have to follow that "code", if your ideas are exempt from reality, maybe you are too?


----------



## Lonetree

Your "solutions" are more of the same. 20 more years, of the same failed policies, of the last 20 years. My proposed solution, is to investigate, several novel possibilities, that have already been shown to affect other declines. No I don't have a solution yet, neither do you, you can't have a solution, until you actually identify the problem. Well, except in Disney land, where you can make up the problem.


----------



## Lonetree

The cause of mule deer declines is actually the internet, and its use, I can prove it. With the advent of the internet, mule deer began to decline. And as more people used the internet, the more the deer declined. An exacerbating factor, is internet speed. As download speeds have increased, mule deer numbers have declined. In the last two years when I downgraded my cable connection though, mule deer numbers began to increase. SEEEE! Its common sense, I can see it.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Your an idiot lonetree obviously laws of science apply. But as far as mule deer there are to many combined aspects that have led to mule deer decline and just like many things predators are one of those effects. Do humans and what we've done to the planet fit into the naturally occurring world lonetree no? So populations aren't naturally controlled like they were thousands of years ago. By science then there is a reason the amount of bucks are born and survive lonetree, yet we focus on killing more bucks than does to artificially control buck:doe ratios. The way you talk bucks should be left alone because there is a scientific reason why nature out so many bucks in the population. So why do we control buck numbers and buck to doe ratios if they occur naturally and would be much higher if we didn't control them. So again why not control coyotes? We control the amount of bucks and bulls just before winter every year and that's right?


----------



## Lonetree

I concede, you got me, I'm an idiot. I stand in awe at your feet. :roll:

I never said we should not "control" coyotes, you are a ****ing spin doctor and a half. I said there is no evidence that controlling coyotes, will increase deer. Coyotes are not the limiting factor for mule deer, so killing coyotes under the guise of helping deer is pointless. You can wiggle all you want, here is the bottom line. You are promoting ideas, such as predator control, under the guise that it will help mule deer. And yet there is no evidence that mule deer declines are caused by predators. Again, it is people like you, and the ridiculous arguments you make, that give sportsmen a bad name. 

Why did mule deer numbers begin to increase across the West, at the end of 2011, before the coyote bounty was implemented in Utah? And if the coyote bounty works to increase deer here in Utah, why are they increasing in other states, that don't have bounties? What kept deer numbers flat for 4 years prior to the increase we are seeing now?


----------



## Lonetree

If you want to increase mule deer numbers, you have to identify what the limiting factor is. And it is not coyotes. Therefor, killing coyotes can not increase deer numbers. I don't care if you kill coyotes, just don't try to tell me its for the deer, because it won't do the deer numbers any good.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

It will do the deer numbers good saving countless female fawns will mean one thing more deer in the future. Like it or not lonetree predators are always one of the limiting factors of prey.


----------



## Lonetree

Oh, you got me, except that you can't demonstrate your proposed deer increase. Do you understand what compensatory predation means? It means the fawn that you "saved", from a coyote, will die because of some other cause. ie. there is no net increase in deer, because a coyote was killed. 

Coyote predation is compensatory, when you kill coyotes in one area, and you don't kill coyotes in another area, the deer will increase, or decrease, in both areas at the same rate. It has nothing to do with what me or you like, or dislike, it comes down to the cold hard facts, and reality. Your inability, and others, to understand and comprehend how the world works, is a big part of what got us in the trouble we are in. 

If you know so much about deer, and coyotes, answer my questions about the last 6 years of mule deer numbers in the West. Were the deer psychic, and knew there was going to be a coyote bounty, so they started to increase their numbers? 

Tell me why, in the midst of high elk densities, poor range conditions, and increasing coyotes, mule deer numbers double in Yellowstone, from 1937-1940. Let me reiterate, they stopped killing coyotes in 1937, and the deer numbers increased. I'm sorry, did I say increase, meant to say doubled.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

You lonetree cannot make the accurate predictions that a fawn that is saved by killing a coyote is lost somewhere else. You cannot make an accurate prediction. And what bad position are we in now? The last 3-4 years have been looking up on deer and I've been impressed with the fawn crop I've seen this season. Compensating is fine if it saves fawn and young deer crop for recruiting. Open your eyes lonetree go out into the real world and watch areas. Don't read an article and tell me it's more truthful than experience in the real world. Get over your text book robot mind and go actually experience something.


----------



## Lonetree

#1DEER 1-I said:


> You lonetree cannot make the accurate predictions that a fawn that is saved by killing a coyote is lost somewhere else. You cannot make an accurate prediction. And what bad position are we in now? The last 3-4 years have been looking up on deer and I've been impressed with the fawn crop I've seen this season. Compensating is fine if it saves fawn and young deer crop for recruiting. Open your eyes lonetree go out into the real world and watch areas. Don't read an article and tell me it's more truthful than experience in the real world. Get over your text book robot mind and go actually experience something.


You don't seem to know what compensatory predation is. I highly suggest you read up on it, verses additive predation.

I am not predicting that a fawn, that does not get killed by a coyote will die by other means. I don't have to predict it, this has been demonstrated over and over again by actual field studies, in multiple states, over multiple years. I am sorry, but you do not understand what you are talking about. You are some ones political pawn, because in essence, that is all you are repeating, political propaganda. This will do us no good as sportsmen.

As for accurate predictions, I am on record for both the past, present, and future, here on this forum.

As for getting out into the "real world", I should absolutely do it more often. "Go experience something" :mrgreen: If you can handle a 20 mile day, I'll gladly show _you_ a few things.


----------



## Lonetree

There are about 20 questions, that you have yet answer. Lets go back to the one about why the deer herd started to increase at the end of 2011, before the bounty program was put in place. Why did the deer begin to increase? And what held their numbers flat for the 4 preceding years? And why did this occur across the entire West, not just Utah, or Wyoming, or Nevada?


----------



## swbuckmaster

I give was it sun flares?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Really lonetree I can handle everyday on the mountain which is what I do. I've done it my whole life. Don't tell me about the outdoors. And yes you are making the assumptions that the fawn will be killed as a fawn by something else and it for sure wont make it. In fact you just fought the same point again in your last post. Lonetree you've met someone as stubborn as you. You'll never convince me or others predators don't take there toll on deer populations. Lonetree you live in your world and ill watch the real world unfold like its actually happening.


----------



## Rspeters

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the most entertaining, and 1 being the least entertaining, Lonetree's posts are a -3.


----------



## Rspeters

And that's a fact! (like Lonetree's facts)


----------



## martymcfly73

They wouldn't be so bad if he weren't such a know it all douche nozzle.


----------



## Lonetree

:mrgreen: Biggest difference between my arguments, and those that disagree: I can support mine, with real science. Not my feelings on the matter. Seriously, try to actually make an educated argument. I make the not liking me part easy, and the dumb ones fall for it every time. These things have nothing to do with whether I'm likable, I don't give a **** what you think about me, just like what 1-I claims. Put up, or shut up. That's the problem with wildlife conservation these days, it has become a popularity contest. Guess what? I'm not one of the cool kids, nor do I care to be. 

1-I, I can tell you plenty about the outdoors, that's how I make my living. People pay money to go into the wilderness with me. You don't know what compensatory means, but you are going to tell me about predation?.....OK. 

Anyone, care to answer any of the questions I laid out? If you understand the subject matter, and I'm so off base, you should have no trouble telling me what's, what.


----------



## mikevanwilder

Lonetree, I understand what your trying to say here. I agree with you. 
1-I not to get into all the predator vs prey argument. People need to realize that coyotes are very resilient animals and will adapt and overcome any hunting pressure put on them. Say you kill and alpha male in an area, you think you just saved a deer, when in fact you might have just caused 2 or 3 to be killed. Once the alpha male is killed younger coyotes will move into the area and now you have 3 predators instead of the one. 
Say you don't kill the alpha male but another coyote, maybe you'll kill 2 or 3 in the area. Now the females will litter more pups than usual to compensate the loss. 
This is why the DWR was against the bounty, they knew that killing coyotes at the wrong time and wrong places is actually going to hurt more than it helps.
Like you 1-I I have spent my whole life in the outdoors, and this year I have seen, heard and saw sign of more coyotes than in any year I can remember. I believe this is a direct result of the bounty program. By the way I'm not upset about this as I would rather hunt coyotes than deer. I have also seen more deer, fawns inpreticuler than any year I can remember. 
I understand your passion to help deer herds and I'm with you on it, but to focus on predators is going to back fire, and I can see it happening already. 
Good luck with the contest I hope everyone has fun with it.


----------



## Lonetree

While I'm on a tirade, who predicted the current deer increases?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Okay since lonetree is dying to hear me elaborate on compensatory, I will quickly. It basically means I'm trying to put a bandaid (compensate) for the loss of deer over the last 2 decades with this.


Next issue as for people paying you. Well that doesn't impress me so your show off attempt really means little to me, in fact selling our wildlife for a price tag I look down on. I don't need to compensate my time outdoors with a price tag, I just love being outdoors it doesn't mean a profit at all to me.

And mike thanks for your non-arrogant reply, lonetree should be happy with the bounty if that's the case. He seems to believe more coyotes will mean more deer so where doing the right thing if where increasing coyotes by lonetrees logic so where doing great in both our eyes despite I different points of view.


----------



## Lonetree

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Okay since lonetree is dying to hear me elaborate on compensatory, I will quickly. It basically means I'm trying to put a bandaid (compensate) for the loss of deer over the last 2 decades with this.
> 
> Next issue as for people paying you. Well that doesn't impress me so your show off attempt really means little to me, in fact selling our wildlife for a price tag I look down on. I don't need to compensate my time outdoors with a price tag, I just love being outdoors it doesn't mean a profit at all to me.
> 
> And mike thanks for your non-arrogant reply, lonetree should be happy with the bounty if that's the case. He seems to believe more coyotes will mean more deer so where doing the right thing if where increasing coyotes by lonetrees logic so where doing great in both our eyes despite I different points of view.


I don't guide for hunters, at least not for money. People pay to be drug through Western wildernesses, off trail, for a week, with less than 20 pounds of gear and supplies. If you complete the basics, you can opt for courses in inclement weather, with half a map, and less gear. The fishing is pretty nice on many of the lakes though, when it takes two days to get to them. I have covered over 100 wilderness miles in 8 days, and killed or gathered half my meals on the trip. You told me to "Get over your text book robot mind and go actually experience something", so don't back down now. The people that run the trekking school, have lived their lives outdoors too http://backpackinglight.typepad.com/2006_arctic/ Of course you don't get paid to be outdoors, no one would pay you. What would they pay you for?

You still don't understand what compensatory means. Grasping the difference between compensatory, and additive, will help you understand all of this immensely. If you can't tell the difference between, different kinds of predation, you can not possible speak with any authority about the subject.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

You have no authority of the subject either lonetree so why the f*** are you talking about? The people with the authority aren't making the decisions your saying are correct. Deer numbers are growing so instead of looking at your imaginary results over the past 5 years lets look at the results of those who actually have the authority. Deer numbers have gone up in the last 5 years. No matter how smart you feel you are lonetree you really have no say so knock your arrogance down a tad and put yourself in your place. Where you really have no voice or reason with what's really going on. There's too big of voice and will continue to be in the opposite favor of everything you've fought about so like I said keep preaching your points that won't be heard. Your no more of an outdoorsman then me trust me, anyone can go backpacking and camping.


----------



## Lonetree

You don't know what context I am using the word authority in, do you? And you still don't know what compensatory means. All you have done in your last post, is explain exactly what is wrong, with wildlife management, and public education, in this state. Majority rule does not vindicate anything. In fact if that is the only premise by which a mob can rule, it serves only to invalidates their unsupportable ideology.

Deer numbers have increased over the last 2 years, they were flat for 4 years before that. Why are they increasing now? And why are they going to crash? Please, use some of that common sense to explain it to me. And while you are at it, who predicted the increases?

You could not hang with me in the hills for half a day, let alone a week. So you might not want to throw around some of the statements you have made.

I should get some of you guys some brown, wood grain patterned t-shirts, that have "20 mule team" stenciled on them. Then it might make more sense to the spectators. :grin: You have no clue how any of this works.


----------



## Kevin D

Rspeters said:


> On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the most entertaining, and 1 being the least entertaining, Lonetree's posts are a -3.


If its just entertainment you want, perhaps you should check out the dancing babies on Youtube.....


----------



## Kevin D

#1DEER 1-I said:


> You have no authority of the subject either lonetree so why the f*** are you talking about? The people with the authority aren't making the decisions your saying are correct. Deer numbers are growing so instead of looking at your imaginary results over the past 5 years lets look at the results of those who actually have the authority. Deer numbers have gone up in the last 5 years. No matter how smart you feel you are lonetree you really have no say so knock your arrogance down a tad and put yourself in your place. Where you really have no voice or reason with what's really going on. There's too big of voice and will continue to be in the opposite favor of everything you've fought about so like I said keep preaching your points that won't be heard. Your no more of an outdoorsman then me trust me, anyone can go backpacking and camping.


Perhaps you're right 1-I and all the scholars and PHD's have it wrong. If so, the burden is on you to prove yourself correct. To say you're correct based solely on your vast experience as an outdoorsman is not a scientifically acceptable argument. You gotta back it up with facts, you gotta show us your data, you gotta open yourself up to the scrutiny of your peers. Otherwise, people are just going to dismiss you as an uneducated blowhard. Just saying....


----------



## Lonetree

1-I, Additive predation is predation where predators kill prey, and it "adds" to the overall mortality of the prey. This is the kind of predation that you seem to believe all predation is. Compensatory predation is the kind of predation in which the prey that is killed by predators, does not add to the overall mortality of the prey. Coyote predation on mule deer, is compensatory in nature. That is to say that the deer that are killed by coyotes, are going to die anyway. Which is why killing coyotes does not increase the number of deer. Compensatory predation increases when you have other underlying problems, such as disease. If you have a large number of deer being killed by coyotes, that is not normal. It indicates that you have something wrong with the deer. And the solution to the problem is not to kill coyotes, that can not increase your deer. If you have deer declines, and high coyote predation, all that says is that there are factors reducing the deer numbers. Anyone that thinks killing coyotes is the solution, knows nothing about how the real world works. And unfortunately this list of people includes you, several "sportsmens" groups, and people in the DWR. Several years ago, Wyoming implement a coyote bounty, because they were experiencing high coyote predation. The bounty did not increase deer numbers. Over a year after the bounty was stopped, the deer numbers did rise. This happened not because there were more or less coyotes, that has no bearing on deer numbers. It happened because the actual limiting factors, that were suppressing deer numbers, changed. Why are we targeting coyotes? Because its easy. We don't have high lion numbers, and we don't have wolves, so we have to have some kind of boogie man, so coyotes it is. This easy way out, intellectually dishonest, means of wildlife management, is what causes the wildlife problems we have. And just because the bumpkin proletariat endorses it, does not make it right, or just, it shows how ignorant the masses are, and how impotent, we as sportsmen are. The fact that we allow such ignorance to dictate, and further degrade our wildlife management says much about us as sportsmen. Your right 1-I you are on the side that makes policy. that does not make it right, it only means that you and a lot of other folks, are the problem. And hundreds of wrongs, don't make a right.


----------



## swbuckmaster

Last I looked at the doe transplant survey 90% of the adult deer have died to cougars. I'm sure the fawns will be mostly dieing from coyotes. 

This is killing them from both ends.

Lt your argument is like saying a sheep herd is going to increase in numbers with coyotes feeding on their fawns and cougars feeding on the ewes!

Guess what LT you may be correct and the herd might increase if the sheep herder didn't want a cut but if the sheep herder wants to maximize his cut there isn't any room for the lowly coyotes and cougars. I think that's what the majority of the sports man want. I think that's what 1-I wants.

Now if you make a living taking people out looking at nature or taking them out hunting cougars you might be biased the other way.

I think in nature if your dealing with diseased animals they will die in winter or by the disease its self or coukd even die by the lowly coyote. But to say they will die either way is nonsense. Mule deer are pretty resilient animals. I've seen them live through winters after getting hit by cars. I've found them with arrow heads in them from years before. I've seen them with limbs blown off and with bullets in them.


----------



## Lonetree

swbuckmaster said:


> Last I looked at the doe transplant survey 90% of the adult deer have died to cougars. I'm sure the fawns will be mostly dieing from coyotes.
> 
> This is killing them from both ends.
> 
> Lt your argument is like saying a sheep herd is going to increase in numbers with coyotes feeding on their fawns and cougars feeding on the ewes!
> 
> Guess what LT you may be correct and the herd might increase if the sheep herder didn't want a cut but if the sheep herder wants to maximize his cut there isn't any room for the lowly coyotes and cougars. I think that's what the majority of the sports man want. I think that's what 1-I wants.
> 
> Now if you make a living taking people out looking at nature or taking them out hunting cougars you might be biased the other way.
> 
> I think in nature if your dealing with diseased animals they will die in winter or by the disease its self or coukd even die by the lowly coyote. But to say they will die either way is nonsense. Mule deer are pretty resilient animals. I've seen them live through winters after getting hit by cars. I've found them with arrow heads in them from years before. I've seen them with limbs blown off and with bullets in them.


And how many resident deer have been killed? If lion predation was an issue, we should see similar mortality with resident deer, yet we don't. This would indicate that the predation seen with the transplanted deer, is compensatory in nature, and mortality is due to the transplant. I say the transplant, because that is the only defining difference between the two groups. If this were not the case, we would see similar mortality from lions, in the resident deer population too.

Comparing sheep and deer, is silly, that's part of the problem we have with wildlife management, we make a lot of comparisons to domesticated animals. Maybe that is what some people want....domesticated animals.

Diseased deer typically don't die in winter, even most winter mortality, is expressed in the spring. This is due to feed changes, and the increase in sunlight, which increases metabolisms. These things are the final death nail, that finish weak animals off. You will also see higher predation at this time of year, because the weak are being picked off, this is compensatory.

Coyotes are not naturally additive predators of mule deer, this is a fact. When you have high coyote predation, it means something else is wrong. This is not nonsense, this is borne out in predator study after predator study. You can remove all the coyotes you want, it can not increase deer numbers, because that is not the limiting factor. Even removal of lions, that can be additive predators, has been shown to have no positive affect on contemporary deer declines. Why? Because predators are not the limiting factor for mule deer. These studies have been conducted in Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, and Colorado.

This is the reality of the situation. Your feelings do not change this. The fact that we manage our wildlife based on feelings, is why we have the problems we do. You can feel what ever you want, your feelings can not increase mule deer.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Rspeters said:


> On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the most entertaining, and 1 being the least entertaining, Lonetree's posts are a -3.


I disagree 100%...right now it looks as if class is in session! Lonetree is pounding on the pulpit but some of his students just don't get it...this is a scenario I see almost every day!


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

> And how many resident deer have been killed? If lion predation was an issue, we should see similar mortality with resident deer, yet we don't. This would indicate that the predation seen with the transplanted deer, is compensatory in nature, and mortality is due to the transplant. I say the transplant, because that is the only defining difference between the two groups. If this were not the case, we would see similar mortality from lions, in the resident deer population too.
> 
> Comparing sheep and deer, is silly, that's part of the problem we have with wildlife management, we make a lot of comparisons to domesticated animals. Maybe that is what some people want....domesticated animals.
> 
> Diseased deer typically don't die in winter, even most winter mortality, is expressed in the spring. This is due to feed changes, and the increase in sunlight, which increases metabolisms. These things are the final death nail, that finish weak animals off. You will also see higher predation at this time of year, because the weak are being picked off, this is compensatory.
> 
> Coyotes are not naturally additive predators of mule deer, this is a fact. When you have high coyote predation, it means something else is wrong. This is not nonsense, this is borne out in predator study after predator study. You can remove all the coyotes you want, it can not increase deer numbers, because that is not the limiting factor. Even removal of lions, that can be additive predators, has been shown to have no positive affect on contemporary deer declines. Why? Because predators are not the limiting factor for mule deer. These studies have been conducted in Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, and Colorado.
> 
> This is the reality of the situation. Your feelings do not change this. The fact that we manage our wildlife based on feelings, is why we have the problems we do. You can feel what ever you want, your feelings can not increase mule deer.


Lonetree not every resident deer have a collar put on them. I would take quite a guess that the results are pretty high up there to for predation on resident deer and fawns. I do not believe in a lot of areas in the state are at the DWR's current objective, which would be what they see fit for carrying capacity like you keep bringing up. In this situation the limiting factor is not carrying capacity at this point which means your compensatory knowledge means nothing if the other limiting factors aren't limiting the deer herds either. Very few units are anywhere near the DWR's set objectives. Predators are a problem, and they are a limiting factor keeping our deer herds from reaching their maximum population potential.

See truth is it doesn't matter how you feel either, sportsman of all kinds want what's best for our deer herds. Just because you don't agree with their views and they don't agree with your views doesn't mean you should be so arrogant as to not sit back and realize you don't know everything, you haven't answered the question of "how do we fix this" and nothing you or people who agree with you have done ANYTHING to help the situation anymore than anyone else. YOU'VE FIXED NOTHING LONETREE, NONE OF US HAVE. We are all reaching for a solution to meet our goals but truth is no one, not the DWR, not the sportsmans groups, not you, not me, NO ONE has figured out the best answer to the question yet so get off your pulpit and realize all your doing is sitting here preaching, you've done nothing that has changed any part of the problem, your being a part of the problem as much as anyone else and not part of the solution. So take your arrogant as comments and shove them up your ass until you have proven results from the bull**** you want to feed people is actually proving its results and helping our problems.

Killing coyotes isn't the solution, but it is a part of the solution, there is much bigger more important things to be done, but predator control helps. Period. Maybe not in every situation, but in some situations and yes even across our state Lonetree predator control does help. And even if you disagree with predator control lonetree, it isn't doing the deer/elk/grouse/pheasant/chukar/ other wildlife any harm that's for sure. So stop preaching and I'll take a step back, you take a step back, and we'll both look at the real picture and understand where each other are coming from.

I believe your a good sportsman with the right things in mind and both our minds and hearts are in the right place for the wildlife. Where not so different in our goals, just our views. If the solution could be found 100% for certain on one side or the other, and we all worked together towards that main solution we would accomplish it no questions asked. But the solution has not been found, and not me or you have found the solution that solves all our problems. So stop being so arrogant and listen, if you do other people just might to.


----------



## wyoming2utah

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I do not believe in a lot of areas in the state are at the DWR's current objective, which would be what they see fit for carrying capacity like you keep bringing up.


Just an FYI--the DWR's objective may well be above the units carrying capacity. All of the habitat work across Utah is being done to increase the carrying capacity. The DWR could easily set objectives that are above the carrying capacity for a unit...carrying capacity does NOT equal objective!

carry on!


----------



## Lonetree

1-I, you don't know what you are talking about. If you understood anything about reality, science, wildlife, etc. You would stop attempting to make convoluted arguments to support yours, and others, feelings on this matter. Even if all the resident deer, do not have collars on, the ones that do, deviate statistically, from the collared transplanted deer. This is a fact, this is something quantifiable, unlike your feelings on the matter. If lion predation, was an issue in that area, the collared resident deer, would have similar rates of lion mortality, as the collared transplanted deer. This is regardless of how many resident deer, are collared. You and anyone else here can not support your feelings on the matter. Reaffirming your feelings, over and over again, is just the propagation of propaganda. And its not even your propaganda, which makes you someone else's *****, on top of everything else.

I have stated my solution, contrary to some peoples feelings, and beliefs on the matter. I have set forth a hypothesis that originally stated that mineral deficiencies(specifically selenium), brought on by several possible conditions, were the limiting factor in mule deer declines. This is not some feeling I have, there is years of study on Big horn sheep in Wyoming, black tailed deer in California, and Patagonian Huemel in Argentina to support this hypothesis. And with recent revelations, the hypothesis has expanded to identify causes, and further explain why supplementation, at a certain level can only partially reverse the affects of these declines. This is science, not how I feel on the matter, I started out as a skeptic of this, when I was first introduced to it. And through my continued skepticism, and challenging of the idea, I ended up expanding the idea, rather than disproving it. This has to be tested, and verified as a limiting factor, before anything can be done about it, that is how science works.

This a very large issue, and frankly the greediest generation, and their instant gratification children, are not equipped, at any level, to begin to deal with this. Much like many of the other issues that plague our wildlife.

The science on predator control, does not support yours, or others beliefs and feelings on the matter. That's just the way it is. When using sound science in the implementation of wildlife management you don't just make up a problem, to attach a solution to, because you feel a particular way. You first have to identify and verify that there is a problem, before you can formulate solutions.

If predator control "helped", and predation was a problem, then you would be able to scientifically verify that killing coyotes increases deer populations(nice try in your expansion of species to attribute feelings to) This has not been demonstrated. Three of the largest predator control studies ever conducted, were conducted in Idaho, Colorado, and Wyoming from the '90s, through the late 2000s. These studies confirm that coyote predation is "compensatory" and is not a limiting factor in deer declines. Let me reiterate, it does not even say that it was a "part" of it. In the Idaho study, they expanded the model to test whether lion predation was a limiting factor in deer declines. Mountain lions are known to be additive predators of mule deer under many circumstances. In the Idaho study, removal of coyotes, did not increase deer populations. And even after the removal of lions, the deer populations could not be positively affected. This means that predation, is not a limiting factor in contemporary deer declines. This is not how all these researchers feel about this, this has nothing to do with their beliefs on the matter, many went into these studies expecting to prove predation was a limiting factor. This information represents the scientific reality of the world we live in. The one that you are in denial about, because you feel that your beliefs override facts.

Many sportman might indeed believe, that their minds and hearts are in the right place for us as sportsman, and wildlife. But that's the problem, it has nothing to do with beliefs and feelings when it comes to scientifically sound wildlife management. As long as we remain ignorant, and allow the DWR, and their policy whores and sell outs to continue with the business of propaganda, and no real solutions, as usual, we have signed our fate as sportsmen. And that fate is a very bleak future. So I hope you all feel good about that, because that is where your feelings are taking us.


----------



## Lonetree

"I do not believe in a lot of areas in the state are at the DWR's current objective, which would be what they see fit for carrying capacity like you keep bringing up"

I never brought up carrying capacity, or objective. They are irrelevant things that get way more attention than they should.

And I almost forgot, you have not seen arrogant, not even the beginnings of it. Frankly, your ignorance, and repeated attempts to pass it off as something more than opinion, reeks of far more arrogance, than I could ever muster. The act of repeatedly trying to pass off propaganda as fact, is in itself, a very arrogant act.


----------



## pelican

Arrogance??? Possibly 

Narcissistic personality disorder ...... absofreakinlutley!!!

I am just trying to keep up so tell me if I am missing something. Killing predators does nothing, over grazing and carrying capacity means nuttin, but a single mineral deficiency, selenium, this is the death nail and the largest issue in declining deer herds?


----------



## Lonetree

pelican said:


> Arrogance??? Possibly
> 
> Narcissistic personality disorder ...... absofreakinlutley!!!
> 
> I am just trying to keep up so tell me if I am missing something. Killing predators does nothing, over grazing and carrying capacity means nuttin, but a single mineral deficiency, selenium, this is the death nail and the largest issue in declining deer herds?


You are missing quite a lot. Overgrazing was never mentioned, so that would require another thread. Killing predators, does nothing? Well, not exactly, it kills predators. But in the context of deer declines, no, it does not produce positive increases in deer numbers. Therefor predator control in the name of "helping" deer, is a red herring, a waste of money, and continues to take focus away from actual problems that do have a limiting affect on deer.

As for selenium, it is the key mineral in wildlife mineral deficiencies, but there are others that have a role, namely magnesium, zinc, and copper. And it is more than just a mineral deficiency, it is what causes those deficiencies, and how it has an affect on the plants that deer eat, and a direct affect on the deer, and their health, above and beyond their feed.

If you have not followed, you may want to reserve your comments, as they could be misconstrued as uninformed, or detached from context.

It has been clearly established that I am arrogant, elitist, a prick, a know it all, etc. That, like many peoples feelings and beliefs on this matter, is a very separate issue, from the science on the matter. And in no way diminishes the facts of the matter. It only serves to exspose those that cannot support their positions, and extends my platform. And in the same way that sportsman can not separate the propaganda fed to them by the DWR, and sportsmans groups, the ignorant will not be able to separate their feelings about me, from the facts of the matter. This is intentional, why do think I elicit the responses that I do?


----------



## Lonetree

*Narcissistic personality disorder* (*NPD*) is a personality disorder[1] in which the individual is described as being excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power, prestige and vanity. This condition affects one percent of the population

Preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy: To make this case, you need to show how my preoccupation with deer health, pissing people off, and concern for the future of sportsmen(that's plural, and beyond myself) plays in to my feelings of "personal" inadequacy. Do I have those feelings? yes, we all do. Does fighting uphill battles help to easy those? No, simple easy victories would surly do more to ease ones feelings about inadequacy.

Power: There are much better ways of obtaining power, than crusading on a forum. Alienating masses of people, does not serve individual power.

Prestige: "reputation or influence arising from success, achievement, rank, or other favorable attributes." This is a vice of those that make lots of friends, and rack up lots of easy wins. The people that pat themselves on the back at WB meeting for example. Read the favorable attributes part.

Vanity: "is the excessive belief in one's own abilities or attractiveness to others" I understand quite well, how people feel about me, as I have stated before, in the context of these conversations, that is intentional. I am intentionally unattractive in my tact. As for abilities, if I were attempting to showcase my abilities. I have many that could be very easily touted on this forum, rather than making a hard case for deer.

Pelican, who are you playing to? And might you be projecting a little. I mean you did introduce the diagnosis?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Just stop lonetree. You have a know all, show all, only way attitude. I agree, predators aren't the problem, carrying capacity (which is also very scientific, but because lonetree says it is irrelavant it must be right?) isn't the problem, that mineral must be why our deer herds have not boomed yet. Absolutly if we add this mineral our deer herds are going to do great. You just uncovered what hundreds of biologists never could lonetree, your amazing. You found the one simple solution as to what we need to do and what the problem is with everything. Our sportsman groups and division need to quickly siwtch their funding to address this issue and make sure we take care of it. 

I raise cattle lonetree, minerals are important for weight gain and better health but are not essential unless conditions are overly wet or bad. Most minerals come fine from what my cattle eat.

You've yet to come up with an improvement or solution lonetree you came up with another problem. But your very arrogant and a know it all so I'm sure you have more to explain and babble about go ahead.


----------



## martymcfly73

Lonetree, Don't forget know it all asswipe and douche nozzle. 1 eye really hates you.


----------



## pelican

I've kept up just fine. You just keep swirling around like cotton candy. You wrote the lack of selenium was a limiting factor but predation was not..... just being a "bumpkin proletariat" I think predators, carrying capacity, grazing by domestic livestock all play apart. I've read that as many as 60% of fawns are killed by predators....I have listened many nights to coyotes following deer where they winter and give birth. I think you are wrong saying those same fawns would die even if there were no predators.I've also read we would need to kill 60-70% of the coyotes and maintain that every year. This is the problem with predator control. Most people kill coyotes while their pelts are worth something and then only as a target of opportunity. To have the results people are hoping for, more dogs need to be killed march through August. Kill the female after she has been bred and given birth...go to the den and kill puppies, you need to flat out he a ruthless killer yourself. Most people won't dig out a den or target females with pups. This is why your argument against hunting predators has some weight.


----------



## HighNDry

This thread has been interesting. 

I read a story about a study done in Yellowstone Park about the wolf reintroduction. It stated that the wolves have actually keep the coyote population in check by killing them and sending them packing to areas where the wolves don't roam. The study also stated that the trout population and size have increased in the wolf areas.The study shows that the elk population, which was way too large without a natural predator, was kept in balance by the wolves, thus, allowing the denuded willows and grasses along the streams to grow, thus increasing the available shade on the water, keeping it cooler and providing more cover for the trout.

I have read some of these studies that say killing coyotes will actually increase their numbers. I think one of them was done by Utah State. I also have heard that Utah State in the past was working on projects that would create sterile coyotes that could be introduced to help control numbers.

Anyway, I have enjoyed reading both comments. I would hope the name calling would stop. I would hate to see this thread ended by a moderator. There is valuable learning here if we just take off our blinders.

Perception also plays a roll in wildlife management. There are anti-hunters who take statements like "having to be a ruthless killer" and turn it against our cause. I actually love coyotes. I think they are one of the most intelligent animals we have. I think they have a place in our environment. I actually like the yipping, howling, and barking when I hear it. It makes me realize I live in or near a wild place and I like that thought. I hunt them, but I don't have to pull the trigger every time I see one.

A good book to read about how a narrow focus, and undying, unyielding hatred towards something can have grave consequences is Nicholas Evans book, "The Loop." It is about a rancher in Montana that hated wolves to the max. He had a son who loved wolves. The book (fiction) explores the feelings of a father and son on opposite ends of the wolf issue. I won't spoil the ending for those who want to read it. Some will say "But it's fiction. It isn't real. It didn't happen!" Well, I used to be like that but then a college professor of mine told me that fiction is real and it does happen--even if it is in the imagination of the writer and the reader. Anyway, this thread reminds me of that book and how differing opinions can cause feelings and sometimes actions that are extreme.


----------



## Rspeters

Yeah Lonetree, unfortunately your long-winded, seemingly endless responses, as well as your "I'm better than you, you idiot peasants" attitude are taking away from any valid content you might have. Also, in my opinion you use the word 'fact' a little loosely. If you really want to educate us dummies, you might try taking a different approach. Of course now I'm expecting a post from you attempting to disprove everything I've just said.


----------



## Lonetree

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Just stop lonetree. You have a know all, show all, only way attitude. I agree, predators aren't the problem, carrying capacity (which is also very scientific, but because lonetree says it is irrelavant it must be right?) isn't the problem, that mineral must be why our deer herds have not boomed yet. Absolutly if we add this mineral our deer herds are going to do great. You just uncovered what hundreds of biologists never could lonetree, your amazing. You found the one simple solution as to what we need to do and what the problem is with everything. Our sportsman groups and division need to quickly siwtch their funding to address this issue and make sure we take care of it.
> 
> I raise cattle lonetree, minerals are important for weight gain and better health but are not essential unless conditions are overly wet or bad. Most minerals come fine from what my cattle eat.
> 
> You've yet to come up with an improvement or solution lonetree you came up with another problem. But your very arrogant and a know it all so I'm sure you have more to explain and babble about go ahead.


The deer herds are increasing right now, and have for the last two years. And in your post, you explained part of the reason why. See, some people do listen. And I did not uncover this issue, I only expounded upon it, and expanded it. Simple solution? There can't be a solution, until the problem has been established and understood. That is the problem with the predator solution, there is not a predator problem. Simply providing selenium, via salt licks, has been shown to halt declines in bighorn sheep, but that by itself can not increase their numbers, or reverse declines. This fact is key, to understanding the bigger picture. It has been shown that providing selenium to black tailed deer via boluses can increase productivity by as much as 300%. In other words, it grew the deer population. Predator control can not do that. And while habitat improvements have been shown to increase deer numbers, they don't come close to 300%, not even 25%. Simple supplementation is not practical. And all any of this shows, is that there is a problem, without understanding the cause, viable solutions can not be executed.

Carrying capacity is a relative thing. If the nutritional values, because of mineral deficiencies, of the feed, holds animals at a certain level. Then that could be called "carrying capacity". But if we know that carrying capacities could be, and have been higher, then how do you establish that capacity. Because of this, carrying capacities, separate from unit objectives, are irrelevant to the current conversation. Any attempt to establish a capacity, would be, if not arbitrary, it would be relative to historical numbers, and those historical variables.

My grand parents, great grand parents, and great-great grandparents were all in the cattle business, I spent a lot of time on my grandfathers cattle farm, and great grandparents dairy. I am sure that they and other cattleman would be interested to here that minerals are not essential. Woooow........


----------



## Lonetree

pelican said:


> I've kept up just fine. You just keep swirling around like cotton candy. You wrote the lack of selenium was a limiting factor but predation was not..... just being a "bumpkin proletariat" I think predators, carrying capacity, grazing by domestic livestock all play apart. I've read that as many as 60% of fawns are killed by predators....I have listened many nights to coyotes following deer where they winter and give birth. I think you are wrong saying those same fawns would die even if there were no predators.I've also read we would need to kill 60-70% of the coyotes and maintain that every year. This is the problem with predator control. Most people kill coyotes while their pelts are worth something and then only as a target of opportunity. To have the results people are hoping for, more dogs need to be killed march through August. Kill the female after she has been bred and given birth...go to the den and kill puppies, you need to flat out he a ruthless killer yourself. Most people won't dig out a den or target females with pups. This is why your argument against hunting predators has some weight.


Just because coyotes kill fawns does not mean they reduce deer numbers. That is why there is a difference between additive, and compensatory predation. Everything you just wrote, is how you feel about this, and nothing more. It ignores decades of research and science. Its conjecture.


----------



## Lonetree

Rspeters said:


> Yeah Lonetree, unfortunately your long-winded, seemingly endless responses, as well as your "I'm better than you, you idiot peasants" attitude are taking away from any valid content you might have. Also, in my opinion you use the word 'fact' a little loosely. If you really want to educate us dummies, you might try taking a different approach. Of course now I'm expecting a post from you attempting to disprove everything I've just said.


My attitude, can not diminish the validity of my arguments, and the science that support them, it can only bias you to them. As stated, this is by design.


----------



## Lonetree

martymcfly73 said:


> Lonetree, Don't forget know it all asswipe and douche nozzle. 1 eye really hates you.


Still no valid argument?


----------



## pelican

Basic math says if you have 100 deer and predators eat 40 to 60 of them, tells me they've drastically had a part in the over all reduction of those that live and those that don't and in FACT reduce deer numbers. Nobody said lack of minerals and other nutrients do not affect the animals, we are just saying that its not the only limiting factor.


----------



## Lonetree

pelican said:


> Basic math says if you have 100 deer and predators eat 40 to 60 of them, tells me they've drastically had a part in the over all reduction of those that live and those that don't and in FACT reduce deer numbers. Nobody said lack of minerals and other nutrients do not affect the animals, we are just saying that its not the only limiting factor.


Predation, additive predation, is only a limiting factor, when those animals killed, would not be killed other wise. And the predation is THE cause of the declines, or at least part of it. You test this by going to an area, and removing large numbers of predators from one area, but not from another area. You then study the two areas over time to see what affects the reduction of predators has on the prey. This has been done, many times, over many years, in several states, with deer and coyotes. When you remove large numbers of coyotes in an area, the deer do not do any better, than in the areas where the coyotes were not removed. The same percentage of deer die in either area. The area that did not have coyotes removed, of course has way more deer killed by coyotes, but by percentage, there is no significant difference between the two areas. Area 1 with coyotes stared with 100 deer, and now has 80 deer, and area 2 with highly reduced coyote numbers, started with 100 deer, and now has 80. This has been demonstrated over and over again. This is the definition of compensatory predation.


----------



## swbuckmaster

Lt its hard to read your long winded posts can you add some pictures to make easier to understand. 

Lt If a deer gets hit by a car is it additive predation? By your argument you could say it isn't because the deer would have died in the spring any ways because it was looking for selenium along the road.

Is it additive predation if a human kills a fawn or doe? Prolly not it would just die in the spring. The doe or fawn would not allow a human to kill it if it wasn't deficient in selenium. 

I say we just grow the herds by making us purchase salt blocks with our five bucks and then have the dwr issue more buck tags and doe tags. Lord knows bucks don't have fawns to feed coyotes and killing more deer will allow more feed for the deer that are left. They will then explode exponentially in numbers especially if we introduce more cougars and coyotes. :thumbup::thumbup: for more game LT's game managment plans. 

Anyone have a spare pointy tinfoil hat I can borrow I can't remember where I placed mine the last time I went the rounds with LT


----------



## swbuckmaster

Found it









I hope this protects me from a sun flare. Dont want it to burn any more hair off.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

> The deer herds are increasing right now, and have for the last two years. And in your post, you explained part of the reason why. See, some people do listen. And I did not uncover this issue, I only expounded upon it, and expanded it. Simple solution? There can't be a solution, until the problem has been established and understood. That is the problem with the predator solution, there is not a predator problem. Simply providing selenium, via salt licks, has been shown to halt declines in bighorn sheep, but that by itself can not increase their numbers, or reverse declines. This fact is key, to understanding the bigger picture. It has been shown that providing selenium to black tailed deer via boluses can increase productivity by as much as 300%. In other words, it grew the deer population. Predator control can not do that. And while habitat improvements have been shown to increase deer numbers, they don't come close to 300%, not even 25%. Simple supplementation is not practical. And all any of this shows, is that there is a problem, without understanding the cause, viable solutions can not be executed.
> 
> Carrying capacity is a relative thing. If the nutritional values, because of mineral deficiencies, of the feed, holds animals at a certain level. Then that could be called "carrying capacity". But if we know that carrying capacities could be, and have been higher, then how do you establish that capacity. Because of this, carrying capacities, separate from unit objectives, are irrelevant to the current conversation. Any attempt to establish a capacity, would be, if not arbitrary, it would be relative to historical numbers, and those historical variables.
> 
> My grand parents, great grand parents, and great-great grandparents were all in the cattle business, I spent a lot of time on my grandfathers cattle farm, and great grandparents dairy. I am sure that they and other cattleman would be interested to here that minerals are not essential. Woooow........


Lonetree you get to caught up in your grammar bullcrap. Just because there is additive and compensative doesn't mean that every situation is additive. YOU CANNOT ACCURATLY PUT ON RECORD OR SAY THAT EVERY FAWN (which deny it if you want but this is what you are saying) THAT IS KILLED BY A COYOTE WOULD DIE OTHERWISE OF A DIFFERENT CAUSE HAD THE COYOTE BEEN TAKEN OUT OF THE EQUASION. You are not psychic you do not hold that power, science cannot even prove that point for you. Out of the 40-60% of fawns killed by coyotes you CANNOT, do you hear that word, CANNOT say or preach it as truth that that 40-60% of fawns would have died (especially on all units in all areas) even if they had not been eaten by coyotes. Your science based studies are in certain situations and not for every situation. Get over additive and compensative, they mean nothing to me. A fawn that dies from a coyote may not have died, may make it throught the winter add to the herd and raise many fawns in its life adding to the population of deer........oh wait I forgot there was no chance for that it died from a lack of minerals because there's no possible way any fawn that escapes a coyote that was killed by a hunter would ever survive and be a part of the herd, sorry I keep forgeting that complete bull**** that your trying to preach.



> Just because coyotes kill fawns does not mean they reduce deer numbers. That is why there is a difference between additive, and compensatory predation. Everything you just wrote, is how you feel about this, and nothing more. It ignores decades of research and science. Its conjecture.


Yes it does lonetree, if where losing 40-60% of fawns every fawn crop yes it does. On a unit that has 4,000 does that have fawns and 2,000 are lost to coyotes that is a signifigant difference in just one season if that other half would have lived and added into the population. You can't say losing 2,000 fawns to coyotes on a unit is a good or neccessary thing. And you cannot prove in any way shape or form of bullcrap that you want to word in a paragraph 10 pages long that those 2,000 fawns would have died anyway so they were a lost cause. So don't bore us with complete bull**** assumptions that they would be lost for other reasons. YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT AND NEITHER CAN YOUR ARROGANCE.



> My attitude, can not diminish the validity of my arguments, and the science that support them, it can only bias you to them. As stated, this is by design.


It diminishes it fully. No one cares what you have to say because you've came up and studied the smallest points (minerals, as the biggest problem our deer herd has faced in centuries) and go on and on about them, and try to stomp others into the dust who don't agree with such a perposterous point. Listen to others points and people might give a **** what you have to say. You have some points, and SOME good points, but you don't have the only points so don't act like it.

and plus one sw


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

So lets say this.

The Monroe unit has an estimated population of 5,200 deer lonetree. With a 15:100 buck to doe ratio you have about 780 bucks which makes for 4420 does. Out of those 4,420 does lets say 70% get bred and have fawns that spring that 3,094 fawns if each doe has one fawn so well round up to 3,200 for twins that some will have, probably a low estimate in every way. Out of those 3,200 fawns you loose 35% well say to coyotes (low estimate) so you loose 1,200 fawns to coyotes every season on this one unit with that percentage. That's not a small part of your recruitment lonetree open your eyes, its far more fawns than are dying on the unit for lack of selenium I'll gurantee that. That is a huge chunk of your fawn crop, do you get that? Losing that amount every year is without a doubt dropping the fawn recruitment to well below what it could be.

I forgot to address one of your other pokes at me in my last post as well. Other farmers and ranchers can say whatever, I got 1.85 at the lowest out of my calves this year. I think I'm raising a pretty good share of cattle to get that price, and customers are happy with what they get. I didn't say minerals weren't essential but I don't put salt rocks, mineral licks, or anything else in any of my pastures, the cows get plenty of the minerals from the things they eat to keep plenty healthy. My cattle have great muscle, great growth rates, great temperment, and great heath. I don't pump them full of minerals, medications, hormones, or anything else for that matter. I have top quality angus beef and they are all very healthy and sale for top dollar every year. So what was that you or any farmer you know had to say to me?


----------



## stillhunterman

swbuckmaster said:


> Lt its hard to read your long winded posts can you add some pictures to make easier to understand.
> 
> Lt If a deer gets hit by a car is it additive predation? By your argument you could say it isn't because the deer would have died in the spring any ways because it was looking for selenium along the road.
> 
> Is it additive predation if a human kills a fawn or doe? Prolly not it would just die in the spring. The doe or fawn would not allow a human to kill it if it wasn't deficient in selenium.
> 
> I say we just grow the herds by making us purchase salt blocks with our five bucks and then have the dwr issue more buck tags and doe tags. Lord knows bucks don't have fawns to feed coyotes and killing more deer will allow more feed for the deer that are left. They will then explode exponentially in numbers especially if we introduce more cougars and coyotes. :thumbup::thumbup: for more game LT's game managment plans.
> 
> Anyone have a spare pointy tinfoil hat I can borrow I can't remember where I placed mine the last time I went the rounds with LT


Seriously swbm? That's your contribution here? I guess the old saying kinda fits eh? How does it go? 'Birds of a feather...' Too bad and a bit disapointing.


----------



## swbuckmaster

It was mostly ment as a joke! Looks like I failed!

I simply don't agree with LT that coyote or cougars don't affect the herds. 

I will agree with him that its not the main thing keeping the deer population down and some of his theories have merit. 

But I honestly feel there is nothing we can do to address some of his solutions and honestly believe if the predators are kept in check and when the stars align, the sun flairs quiet down and we get dry springs with good summer rains. The deer herds will rebound much quicker than it will if we just let the predators go.


----------



## Lonetree

swbuckmaster said:


> Lt its hard to read your long winded posts can you add some pictures to make easier to understand.
> 
> Lt If a deer gets hit by a car is it additive predation? By your argument you could say it isn't because the deer would have died in the spring any ways because it was looking for selenium along the road.
> 
> Is it additive predation if a human kills a fawn or doe? Prolly not it would just die in the spring. The doe or fawn would not allow a human to kill it if it wasn't deficient in selenium.
> 
> I say we just grow the herds by making us purchase salt blocks with our five bucks and then have the dwr issue more buck tags and doe tags. Lord knows bucks don't have fawns to feed coyotes and killing more deer will allow more feed for the deer that are left. They will then explode exponentially in numbers especially if we introduce more cougars and coyotes. :thumbup::thumbup: for more game LT's game managment plans.
> 
> Anyone have a spare pointy tinfoil hat I can borrow I can't remember where I placed mine the last time I went the rounds with LT


Yep, the Earth is flat, and the sun rotates around it. I mean just look around, its common sense. What does it feel like, to be part of the problem?


----------



## stillhunterman

This is an interesting thread, revealing fairly typical insight on both sides of the predator/prey issue: The emotionally charged ill-informed 'I feel because' side, and the emotionally charged informed douche nozzle side; classic! I like that both sides are openly conversing because it gives the readers of this thread a good perspective to choose how they will disseminate the information gained.

Personally, I believe LT is on to something, and in his many posts here has hit several nails square on the head. Haha, for those who think LT posts long winded responses, you probably haven't read some of mine! :mrgreen:

Couple of things: LT has it right when he said 1-I's ideology is being pushed by not only individuals, but wildlife organizations who should know better, and game agencies who buckle under the 'squeeky wheels' and waste more and more hard to come by monies trying to un-prove what has already been proven time and time again.

Here is a short conversation I had with one of the above individuals: I only post it to confirm what I said above, so I think it's relevant. It was in response to a post about a recent mountain lion study that revealed the cats may be eating more than previously thought (from Canada).








06-22-2013, 02:45 PM 
Stillhunterman







 
Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: SLC, Utah
Posts: 15



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MDF Regional Director*
> _combine the high density of mountain lions with other predators, all at high populations and it is a wonder why ungulates in certain areas are in decline._


While I believe there is some validaty in multi-predator addative effects on localized ungulate popultaions, the overall science continues to advocate cougar predation as compensatory when speaking to mule deer as a whole population, though my own personal conclusions are still being drawn. The science is still young when referencing cougars, though it is making more progress now than in the past twenty years.

Multi-predator studies are in their infancy, and much remains to be learned. Predators kill large numbers of ungulates, no doubt, especially mule deer; but at this point, when talking about mule deer herd declines and/or stagnation in populations, I believe predators, like vehicle kills, loss of habitat, urbanization of winter/summer range, migratory pathways being lost, etc., are only symptoms of a deeper root cause.

So much time, effort and money is being spent on projects that yield little if any results-including predators-that deeper more significant scientific inquiries are being side stepped. I hope a bit more 'out of the box' thinking in our wildlife management arenas will take hold, and lead to some significant advances on mule deer population dynamics/management. One can only hope I suppose... 
__________________
www.unitedwildlifecooperative.org








06-25-2013, 08:17 PM 
Stillhunterman







 
Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: SLC, Utah
Posts: 15



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MDF Regional Director*
> _Predation is one hurdle mule deer face in order to achieve population levels desired. StillHunterMan, you are correct in all of the issues that are in front of the mule deer. There is no one " fix it" issue and there is no one thing to point our fingers at. All or a combination of these "symptoms" combined hinder the population. One thing that has been identified is that when fire repression started in the late 60's and 70's, that is when the mule deer population started to head down. Than you add in the other issues and it is a domino effect. The other issue, which we have no control over is, weather. What we can try to control and help the deer is habitat, harvest and predator control. There has to be a balance between predators and prey. We can control the number of tags available as well as the quantity of bucks and does to be harvested. but in a lot of cases due to public and/or political pressure the methods of management can be limited. Many areas are in a sad state and just like D.C., nothing moves or minor reactionary methods are used._


MDF,

I understand what you are saying, and I understand why for most of it. Much of it is the same old mantra hunters have been told for a very, very long time. There are many correlations one can draw when the mule deer herds started their decline, but correlation doesn't neccessitate causation. The predator issue is extreemly volitile and emotional, and the science behind predator/prey relationships is often overlooked or denied. The predator hurdle you speak of is no hurdle at all when you are dealing with a healthy, robust deer population. Pure fawn saturation/recruitment takes care of that very handily, the way nature inteded it to. On the other hand, when you have a healthy deer population facing other factors in addition to predators, then yes, heavy predation can probably stagnate localized herd growth, as the science tells us. It also tells us predation on struggling herds is for the greater part, compensatory. Predators make for an easy 'blame' or scapegoat.

It's also easy to say there isn't a single issue that can't be addressed when conservation organizations and state game departments are focused on issues that have been done over and over, year after year, decade after decade, with no results. Cut tags! Been there done that, all across the west, many times, over and over: results=0 Build fences/overpasses/underpasses! Doing it: results=0 Kill predators! Been there done that, study after study: results=0... And on and on.

Of course weather is huge issue with ungulate population dynamics, always will be: But a healthy herd will rebound after severe weather knocks them down, an unhealthy one won't. It's a frustrating issue to say the least, and hunters are grasping onto anything that sounds believable or 'sensible' that they are being told or hand fed.

What will the near future bring? Unless some new thinking hits those in charge of our wildlife upside the head, the future will bring more of the same: 0... I love your D.C. referrence, point right on!








__________________
www.unitedwildlifecooperative.org

That being said, one can definately tell where I stand on this issue. I'll make the rest of the post as short as possible for you swb:mrgreen:



> Lonetree you get to caught up in your grammar bullcrap. Just because there is additive and compensative doesn't mean that every situation is additive. YOU CANNOT ACCURATLY PUT ON RECORD OR SAY THAT EVERY FAWN (which deny it if you want but this is what you are saying) THAT IS KILLED BY A COYOTE WOULD DIE OTHERWISE OF A DIFFERENT CAUSE HAD THE COYOTE BEEN TAKEN OUT OF THE EQUASION. You are not psychic you do not hold that power, science cannot even prove that point for you. Out of the 40-60% of fawns killed by coyotes you CANNOT, do you hear that word, CANNOT say or preach it as truth that that 40-60% of fawns would have died (especially on all units in all areas) even if they had not been eaten by coyotes. Your science based studies are in certain situations and not for every situation. Get over additive and compensative, they mean nothing to me. A fawn that dies from a coyote may not have died, may make it throught the winter add to the herd and raise many fawns in its life adding to the population of deer........oh wait I forgot there was no chance for that it died from a lack of minerals because there's no possible way any fawn that escapes a coyote that was killed by a hunter would ever survive and be a part of the herd, sorry I keep forgeting that complete bull**** that your trying to preach.


Here is just a tidbit from Colorado's biologists; I think they know a couple things about deer.

*Recent Studies of the Effects of Coyote Control on Mule Deer Populations*
*:*​
_Montana _​
- Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks initiated studies in 1997 to assess the benefits of​
coyote control to pronghorn and mule deer populations in central Montana. Coyote control was​
conducted on one herd unit, and not on 2 adjacent units. Mule deer and pronghorn population​
responses from the unit where coyotes were controlled were compared to those where coyotes

were not controlled. Coyotes were killed via aerial gunning from helicopters and fixed-wing
aircraft and snaring. During the first 2 years of study (1997 and 1998), nearly 200 coyotes were
killed, 68% from helicopter gunning, 21% from fixed-wing aircraft gunning, and 11% from
snaring. Aerial gunning required slightly more than 1 hour of aircraft time per coyote killed at a
cost of approximately $225 per hour. Although pronghorn populations increased on the unit
subjected to coyote control, they also increased in one area where coyotes were not controlled and
decreased in the other. Ratios of fawns per 100 mule deer does on areas where coyotes were
controlled did not differ from areas where coyotes were not controlled and deer populations
declined across all 3 areas. Researchers summarized the early results of the project by
commenting, "_It would appear, that to this point, the killing of coyotes in HD 530 has had little_​
_positive affect (sic) on mule deer fawn:doe ratios or populations_."​
*Predator Control Study in the Piceance Basin of Northwestern Colorado: 1981-1988*​
*:*​

Here in Colorado, we studied the mortality rates of mule deer fawns and adult does in the

Piceance Basin area west of Meeker, Colorado beginning in 1981. We found fewer than 40% of
fawns born each year survived the entire year while annual survival rates of does ($1 year of age)
continually exceeded 85%. Fawns and does differed markedly in their abilities to survive each
year, particularly during winter. The ability of fawns to survive from year to year had much
greater impacts upon the growth rate of the deer population than the survival rates of does.
Although both circumstantial and experimental evidence implicated food shortages as the major
cause of low fawn survival, coyotes were responsible for the deaths of many fawns which perished
during the winter months.
Subsequently, we studied the effects of coyote control on fawn survival during winter.
Mortality rates of fawns were documented for 4 years before coyote control was started and
compared to mortality rates for the following 3 years during which 218 coyotes were killed (1.3
coyotes/mi2/yr). If coyote predation was a major factor limiting deer, fawn survival was expected
to increase during the periods when coyotes were killed. If food shortage was a major factor, fawn
mortality rates were not expected to change during periods when coyotes were controlled. It was
anticipated that the mortality rates would not change but deaths from coyote predation would
decline and be replaced with deaths from other causes. Prior to coyote control (1981-82 through
1984-85), an average of 83% of the fawns died during winter. Coyote predation on deer fawns
varied from year to year, accounting for 49-77% of the total winter fawn mortality. Winter fawn
mortality during years when coyotes were controlled averaged 76% and was not significantly
different from mortality rates during years when coyotes were not controlled (Fig. 12). Decreases​
in fawn deaths due to coyote predation were largely offset by increases in starvation rates.​

As to the trace minerals deficiencies, yeah, Colorado is looking at that too. Huh! Imagine that. Se and Cu are most notable problems in non-infectious 'diseases' that effect deer in Colorado: page 16.​
http://warnercnr.colostate.edu/~gwhite/mdreport.pdf Very interesting read....​


----------



## Lonetree

swbuckmaster said:


> It was mostly ment as a joke! Looks like I failed!
> 
> I simply don't agree with LT that coyote or cougars don't affect the herds.
> 
> I will agree with him that its not the main thing keeping the deer population down and some of his theories have merit.
> 
> But I honestly feel there is nothing we can do to address some of his solutions and honestly believe if the predators are kept in check and when the stars align, the sun flairs quiet down and we get dry springs with good summer rains. The deer herds will rebound much quicker than it will if we just let the predators go.


Wow! more feelings and beliefs. We are not addressing solutions, we are addressing problems. And the way you feel about it, can not change reality. Action can change reality, acting on ones feelings and beliefs can affect reality, but your feelings and beliefs are just that. And there is tangible, quantifiable, peer reviewed science that disagrees with your feelings and beliefs, not just me.


----------



## stillhunterman

swbuckmaster said:


> It was mostly ment as a joke! Looks like I failed!
> 
> I simply don't agree with LT that coyote or cougars don't affect the herds.
> 
> I will agree with him that its not the main thing keeping the deer population down and some of his theories have merit.
> 
> But I honestly feel there is nothing we can do to address some of his solutions and honestly believe if the predators are kept in check and when the stars align, the sun flairs quiet down and we get dry springs with good summer rains. The deer herds will rebound much quicker than it will if we just let the predators go.


Ok. Here's the deal, to borrow a line from goofy :mrgreen:. LT hasn't offered ANY solutions at all! All I see he has done is put forth a theory of what MIGHT be affecting mule deer populations, and he's said more than a couple of time, you can't have a solution until you identify the PROBLEM. And therein lies the problem. Wildlife agencies are so busy dealing with wildlife orgs pushing for things that have been proven time and again in the past NOT TO HELP GROW DEER, that their resourses are being eaten up until they can't expand into new out of the box methodologies.

Why worry about solving an issue that hasn't been proven yet? Let's don't put the cart before the horse. Personally, I think there is plenty of merit in LT's ideas, and I plan on doing what I can to see it through. Would be nice to have some other out of the box thinkers join in...


----------



## swbuckmaster

Lonetree said:


> Yep, the Earth is flat, and the sun rotates around it. I mean just look around, its common sense. What does it feel like, to be part of the problem?


Rolfmao just shot me with a good one!


----------



## Lonetree

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Lonetree you get to caught up in your grammar bullcrap. Just because there is additive and compensative doesn't mean that every situation is additive. YOU CANNOT ACCURATLY PUT ON RECORD OR SAY THAT EVERY FAWN (which deny it if you want but this is what you are saying) THAT IS KILLED BY A COYOTE WOULD DIE OTHERWISE OF A DIFFERENT CAUSE HAD THE COYOTE BEEN TAKEN OUT OF THE EQUASION. You are not psychic you do not hold that power, science cannot even prove that point for you. Out of the 40-60% of fawns killed by coyotes you CANNOT, do you hear that word, CANNOT say or preach it as truth that that 40-60% of fawns would have died (especially on all units in all areas) even if they had not been eaten by coyotes. Your science based studies are in certain situations and not for every situation. Get over additive and compensative, they mean nothing to me. A fawn that dies from a coyote may not have died, may make it throught the winter add to the herd and raise many fawns in its life adding to the population of deer........oh wait I forgot there was no chance for that it died from a lack of minerals because there's no possible way any fawn that escapes a coyote that was killed by a hunter would ever survive and be a part of the herd, sorry I keep forgeting that complete bull**** that your trying to preach.
> 
> Yes it does lonetree, if where losing 40-60% of fawns every fawn crop yes it does. On a unit that has 4,000 does that have fawns and 2,000 are lost to coyotes that is a signifigant difference in just one season if that other half would have lived and added into the population. You can't say losing 2,000 fawns to coyotes on a unit is a good or neccessary thing. And you cannot prove in any way shape or form of bullcrap that you want to word in a paragraph 10 pages long that those 2,000 fawns would have died anyway so they were a lost cause. So don't bore us with complete bull**** assumptions that they would be lost for other reasons. YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT AND NEITHER CAN YOUR ARROGANCE.
> 
> It diminishes it fully. No one cares what you have to say because you've came up and studied the smallest points (minerals, as the biggest problem our deer herd has faced in centuries) and go on and on about them, and try to stomp others into the dust who don't agree with such a perposterous point. Listen to others points and people might give a **** what you have to say. You have some points, and SOME good points, but you don't have the only points so don't act like it.
> 
> and plus one sw


I can say everything, that I have. It is not me just saying it. It is not my feelings or beliefs on the matter. It is decades of wildlife science that supports what I am saying. You still don't understand anything about predator/prey relationships. No, I can not say that a single fawn, that is killed by a coyote, would die by other means. You are absolutely correct. But I can say that killing coyotes, and preventing that one fawn from being killed, or even several fawns, will not increase deer numbers overall. It is that simple, killing coyotes can not increase deer numbers. This is not a trick of grammar or language, this is how the world works. You don't have to believe it, you don't have to feel good about it. It does not care how you feel, or how you believe. The angle at which you perceive it, does not change what it is.


----------



## Lonetree

swbuckmaster said:


> Rolfmao just shot me with a good one!


Seriously, Ptolemaic.


----------



## mikevanwilder

That is very good information Stillhunterman! Thanks for sharing!


----------



## pelican

I'm gonna have to wait until I poop to read what stillhunter wrote, until then I just don't have that much free time.


----------



## Rspeters

Lonetree said:


> Yep, the Earth is flat, and the sun rotates around it. I mean just look around, its common sense. What does it feel like, to be part of the problem?


Gotta love those 'smart' people who seem to have everything figured out in life....Earth is flat, sun rotates around it, and even though coyotes kill deer, they have no impact on the overall deer populations.


----------



## Lonetree

Rspeters said:


> Gotta love those 'smart' people who seem to have everything figured out in life....Earth is flat, sun rotates around it, and even though coyotes kill deer, they have no impact on the overall deer populations.


"and even though coyotes kill deer, they have no impact on the overall deer populations" Yep. Can you demonstrate to me otherwise? Seriously, I have posted, and referenced numerous studies over the years on this subject, on this forum, so what supports your claim otherwise? It can be demonstrated, that the earth is round, and that it revolves around the sun. So, if coyotes impact overall deer populations, you should be able to demonstrate this, right?


----------



## Lonetree

pelican said:


> I'm gonna have to wait until I poop to read what stillhunter wrote, until then I just don't have that much free time.


Let me save you some time, I'll paraphrase. You don't get it. Oh, I almost forgot :grin:


----------



## Lonetree

Rspeters said:


> Gotta love those 'smart' people who seem to have everything figured out in life....Earth is flat, sun rotates around it, and even though coyotes kill deer, they have no impact on the overall deer populations.


I never thought of myself as 'smart', but maybe you are right.

Smart: "to be the cause of a sharp, stinging pain, as an irritating application, a blow, etc." Maybe that's why they say "it smarts" when you get hurt. hhhmmmm?


----------



## wyoming2utah

This thread has been really fun...I am just glad that I am not fighting the good fight! Keep it up LT! Keep it up!

Time and again predators are blamed for declines, yet when predator control studies are instituted, deer numbers don't show a positive rebound. Why? Because predators are NOT the limiting factor!


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

> I can say everything, that I have. It is not me just saying it. It is not my feelings or beliefs on the matter. It is decades of wildlife science that supports what I am saying. You still don't understand anything about predator/prey relationships. No, I can not say that a single fawn, that is killed by a coyote, would die by other means. You are absolutely correct. But I can say that killing coyotes, and preventing that one fawn from being killed, or even several fawns, will not increase deer numbers overall. It is that simple, killing coyotes can not increase deer numbers. This is not a trick of grammar or language, this is how the world works. You don't have to believe it, you don't have to feel good about it. It does not care how you feel, or how you believe. The angle at which you perceive it, does not change what it is.


No you cannot ACCURATELY say all the things you have concluded in your closed arrogant mind. And it is you who doesn't understand, predators are on this planet and in our ecosystem to do one thing, AND THAT IS CONTROL PREY POPULATIONS. So saying they do not effect prey/deer populations is absurd, that is their purpose, that's what nature intended them to do. Don't preach about predator/prey relationships when the most obvious and simple thing is the very purpose of predators is to keep the prey population down. And I'm sorry lonetree but NO you can't say saving those fawns won't increase the deer population, because by saving each and every one of them, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING. Every doe, every fawn, and every buck make up the population don't they lonetree? ABSOLUTELY THEY DO SO DON'T RESIST THAT FACT. And yes what you have been trying to say through 10 pages is that the fawn that was killed by the coyote would for sure without any doubt die of another cause, and there is no possible way that fawn could just live and add to the population if allowed to do so. Predators effecting prey populations is a fact as well lonetree, that's their sole purpose, it has been proven time and time again. This is a fact, and not a fact by you or one study you read up on this one time, this is a fact nature wrote in every predators DNA. They kill prey to survive and natures intention of this is to keep populations in check, in an all natural world, the predator is one of the biggest factors to keep prey populations at lower levels.


----------



## wyoming2utah

1-I...google two documents: 1)Demographic response of mule deer to experimental reduction of coyotes and mountain lions in southeastern Idaho and 2) Effectos of Coyote Removal on Pronghorn and Mule Deer Populations in Wyoming.

These are two real-life actions that did exactly what you are proposing--sustained coyote removal and control on deer populations--and neither had any positive effects on the deer herd.

And, these are just two examples...other examples are out there (including the current example right in our backyard--the current Monroe collar study).


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

So answer me this wyoming2utah, if they are 100% sure there right and they believe 100% this information and research applies everywhere. Then why are they still studying the same thing and not moving on?


----------



## wyoming2utah

I can think of two reasons: 1) They aren't 100% sure 2) pressure from hunting groups, politicians, and hunters themselves. The truth is that sometimes the DWR is forced to do things that even they know is not going to help but it is done in the name of PR or because their hands are tied by political process or they WB.

Read this article from the Denver Post from last year:
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_20630849/colorado-among-states-struggling-stop-decline-mule-deer

Interesting quote: "Certainly predators kill deer. There's no question about that," the Durango-based biologist said. "But I feel like there's a pretty compelling case to be made based on the science in Colorado and surrounding Western states with sagebrush ecosystems that, even though coyotes do kill deer on winter range, unless you have the habitat to support a higher number of deer, you don't necessarily end up with more deer at the end of the winter.

"And that's because a deer that's, say, malnourished is more susceptible to predation. We've done experimental studies where we manipulate coyote density and deer density, and if you kill coyotes, you certainly lower the predation rate on mule deer fawns. But the malnutrition rate and starvation rate goes up, and at the end of winter, you still end up with the number of deer that the habitat can support."

The crazy thing is that the exact same thing seems to be happening on Monroe right now as evidenced by the collar study. Predation went down but other causes of death went up...it is the perfect example of compensatory predation. I have been on the kill-the-coyote bandwagon too. I have felt and even said in the past on this site that I thought coyote predation was hurting our herds...but, our own studies are bearing this out as not true.


----------



## Lonetree

#1DEER 1-I said:


> So answer me this wyoming2utah, if they are 100% sure there right and they believe 100% this information and research applies everywhere. Then why are they still studying the same thing and not moving on?


Because our DWR, is a slave to the feelings and beliefs of people like you and all the "sportsmans" groups.

Google "chad bishop Colorado mule deer study" there is study that was conducted across some large portions of Colorado, and pitted predator control against habitat restorations. Same thing, predator control could not increase deer numbers, but habitat improvements did.

Then Google "effects of trace elements on population dynamics: selenium deficiency in free ranging black-tailed deer" by Werner T. Flueck


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

wy2, I agree with you habitat is a much bigger factor. I do believe that habitat needs to be improved on every unit in the state to get better populations. My hope is that habitat improvements will continue and happen more often and by keeping predator populations down and lowered now, when the habitat has been improved and is there, deer herds will grow more quickly than if the predator situation is left to get out of hand. There are habitat projects going all over the state to improve, sometimes not directly for mule deer, but they are helping mule deer. Such as the water-distribution plans for Monroe mountains south end, to prevent overgrazing and create more watering spots for cattle. This is going to help the deer by preventing the overgrazing on the south end and give deer more water holes as well as elk. This project will help greatly to help increase deer health. There is a project between Annabella and Glendwood scheduled to happen, I'm not sure on all the specifics of the project or when exactly they'll do it but its to get rid of cheat grass in a recently burned area to replace it with forage kochia and a few other valuable food sources for the deer and elk winter range. Then there are all the aspen regeneration project that will help benefit the deer and elk on Monroe. By doing all these things, having predator numbers down once the habitat improvements begin to have there effect I feel will help grow the population more quickly. I love habitat improvement more that predator control, but predator control is an aspect to look at and control.

Because our DWR, is a slave to the feelings and beliefs of people like you and all the "sportsmans" groups.



> Google "chad bishop Colorado mule deer study" there is study that was conducted across some large portions of Colorado, and pitted predator control against habitat restorations. Same thing, predator control could not increase deer numbers, but habitat improvements did.
> 
> Then Google "effects of trace elements on population dynamics: selenium deficiency in free ranging black-tailed deer" by Werner T. Flueck


Predator control combined with habitat improvements will make a difference.


----------



## HighNDry

I never did like Ringneck Pheasants. They are not a native species and have often wondered if the planting of them did not increase the habitats ability to carry more skunk, raccoon, and fox because of the availability of more feed (pheasants and eggs)? But I guess that's another topic.

Thanks for the references on the studies. I will read them when I get more time. In the meantime, I will go out and look at all the domestic elk in the field out near Willard, Utah.


----------



## Lonetree

:grin: I am all for habitat improvements, and they have been shown to increase deer numbers. But those increases are relatively small, and it would take decades to grow the herds with those improvements alone. Unless someone can show that predation is a limiting factor, with actual data, then we are just wasting money, to make people feel better.

So deer started to increase at he end of 2011. Why? we did not have the coyote bounty in place yet, and deer increased in places with habitat improvements, and places without. Deer across the West increased, not just in Utah. Why? If they increase across the West, and decline across the West, then we are looking at a larger Western problem. Not just a mountain range, or valley, but something much bigger. 

If you start to look at things beyond mule deer, you see a similar pattern over the last 30 years. Bighorn sheep declines, moose declines, amphibian declines, etc. Look at those same things over a longer period of time, and it looks the same. If you zoom out even further, you will see some exceptions to this being just a Western phenomenon. the upper Midwest has seen bighorn declines, mule deer declines, and moose declines also. So why there and here?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

The answer to that is that habitat is losing ground for deer in the west, and unlike the eastern United States, farmers are whiners in the west who bitch about the elk, bitch about the deer, and grow more complaints than they do crops. The loss of habitat is a big one, but in places where there is not a loss of habitat cheat grass and non-beneficial grasses, shrubs, and weeds, have encroached on almost all the habitat we have left here in the west. There is virtually no areas in Utah or most western states where cheat grass has not all but taken over , rendering a lot of winter ranges less useful or useless for deer and elk survival during winter. The BLM, forest service, and DWR, along with sportsmens group I agree lonetree, should not waste money on predator control, and leave predator control up to hunters and nature, and spend all that money on fighting cheat grass. By vigorously replanting areas that burn (which in a lot of cases, especially on BLM land is not happening now) quickly with plants such as forage kochia that are beneficial to deer and elk and can compete with cheat grass. Also find methods of planting that allow other plants to grow while cheat grass is killed off. Surly with some research and testing they can find a way to kill cheat grass and it's seeds, but still allow other vegetation to produce. Sage brush stands need to be improved. These are problems we need to face and improve now, so the bottom doesn't drop out later. You are correct predator control can be taken care of once the bigger problem has been solved, but once you solve the big problem there is room to solve the small ones like predation. I am a firm believer that cheat grass is the biggest winner/ and destroyer of the west and our deer and elk herds as well as their habitats. And the sad part is, it has only gotten worse. If valuable food that would nourish our deer and elk herds with the right nutrients could replace the cheat grass we see in our state and others now, I would hands down throw money towards it, because it would be the biggest difference made yet. Problem is, when you watch over 1,000 acres burn on BLM land last year, and absolutely nothing is done, no reseeding no attempt in any way to fight back cheat grass, and of course now all that burned is 100% cheat grass. The problem there is, if the BLM, DWR, Forest Service, and groups won't don't anything about that you start finding other more simple, quicker solutions to the problem, that may not work as well.

In the last 3 years, I've seen around 1,500 or more acres of BLM land burn up less than 10 miles from my house. Out of that 1,500 plus acres, how many do you think were replanted, or the attempt was made to fight off the cheat grass take over where sage brush used to be? Not ONE ACRE. They did nothing but let it burn, and be taken over by cheat grass, not 1 acre, and I honestly can't believe that. When something is done about the useless weed that's devastating our landscape the habitat will become much more useful, and I believe within a decade could improve deer herds quite well. But the fight has to be fought, BLM, DWR, Forest Service, and sportsmans groups can't just sit back and watch the last of our mule deer's winter range burn up and turn to cheat grass and do nothing. They all need to step up to the plate and take care of the problem. It can't all happen in a day, but when a place burns to the ground, especially on a winter range, it should be replanted. The Forest Service is much better when it comes to this than the BLM, I understand funding, but I'm sure the money can be found somewhere. We all care, or at least should about these kind of problems. I would support replanting 100% of the time, in 100% of any area that would benefit our wildlife.


----------



## Lonetree

I agree in many ways, and the cheatgrass issue may well be tied to the mule deer issue, in ways we have not even thought about before. This is even bigger than predator/prey, and would require another 10 pages. But in short some of the same factors that have been shown to suppress deer, have been shown to promote cheatgrass and other invasive plants. It is indirect, and has more to do with soil than plants in many ways, but it is all connected.

Back to late 2011. If the deer are increasing, which they appear to be. I'm sure some of us have noticed the twins, and most have noticed more bucks, and bigger racks too. So why is this occurring? Don't we want to understand that? If we've thrown everything we know at this for 20+ years, without results, and suddenly, without prompting, the deer herds start to grow. Don't we want to know why? Don't we want to know if we can affect that, or what does?

Is our political wildlife power structure, only designed to operate on a doomsday basis, because of the way that system "values" wildlife, and those that benefit from it? And does that structure prevent us, from critically thinking about these issues, because solving them has no benefit to those, that benefit from the status quo?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

I don't see that as that complicated of answers. The year 2010 was one of Utah's top, wettest years on record, for winter, for spring, the year was just wet. Because of this vegetation was abundant and deer were in great health heading into 2011 which makes for better antler growth, better fawn and adult deer survival and better body conditions. At the heals of one of Utah's wettest years on record was 2011 one of Utah's driest years on record. Due to the wet winter of 2010 reservoirs and ponds were still full and vegetation was doing fine, and deer body conditions were still okay in 2011, and 2011's winter was so mild, with very little snow and warm temps, winter survival was at a maximum. 2012 was an average year for the most part, but winter basically held off and temps were still in the 60's until late December with almost no snow on mountains giving deer much more time to build up for the winter. Hence 2012-13 was another great year for winter survival. Perfect weather conditions have played the role in our deer numbers going up and we just had a very good 2 month stretch of rain recently, which will make for good conditioned deer and elk heading into winter, so as long as winter isn't too harsh we should see good survival again IMO.


----------



## Lonetree

The four years prior to 2011 were excessively wet, and deer numbers stayed relatively flat. And yes 2011's winter was mild to say the least, it was dry. So was the spring of 2012. Spring is important because that is the last trimester of pregnancy for the does. And the fawns are going to do as well as their mothers are doing. Spring has the most nutritional variables, of any season for deer. We focus a lot on winter, but spring is far more important. And summer gets neglected too. And summer declines may play a larger role than we realize. Dry springs, and wet summers, statistically look good for deer. That is what has me concerned about this year. we had a wet storm in May, the summer monsoons are very late, and they have hung around too long. It is still too warm, and the air is still hazy, no crisp fall air yet.

I don't think that weather alone, is the sole factor that has held deer numbers down for 20+ years. Wet springs are bad for deer, yet they made it through 4 of them, with out big declines. It seems they were primed for a rebound, and as soon as the conditions were there, ie. dry spring, good summer, mineral cycles, etc. they began to rebound.

The selenium hypothesis says that declining selenium cycles create subclinical mineral deficiencies, that cause deer declines, or suppress growth. Weather cycles, while not the cause, complicate and add to these declines. Here is one paper on selenium and deer www.deerlab.org/Publ/pdfs/23.pdf‎ It is relatively short and to the point. In this paper it explains how to test for subclinical selenium deficiencies. It is not as easy as taking a blood test, like some have mentioned on this forum, in other threads. Sadly with information provided by "qualified" scientists.

Selenium deficiency in deer has already been shown to be a limiting factor in deer. And supplementation has already been shown to reverse this. So if we can demonstrate that selenium is THE limiting factor, then we know where to go next. And that is to find out exactly what drives this. If we know that, then we know how to effect actual positive change. Which is what we all profess to want.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

And lonetree, I'm sure the selenium thing is true, I'm sure it is one of the problems that could be addressed to help our deer herd, I do not believe though in any way shape or form it is our biggest most important problem plaguing our deer. I don't recall wet springs in the last 2 years at all. In fact last year the Wasatch front and state of Utah went a total of 76 days without any form of precipitation, this June there was no precipitation either. Springs have been dry, and the years before 2010 were just average. We have had very late wet summers and summer has lasted too long I agree. It has been getting later and later it seems when winter finally arrives. Like I said last year it was December 23rd I believe before I wasn't able to get to the top of Monroe mountain. That's pretty **** late. So now the question is will this year be any better?


----------



## Lonetree

#1DEER 1-I said:


> And lonetree, I'm sure the selenium thing is true, I'm sure it is one of the problems that could be addressed to help our deer herd, I do not believe though in any way shape or form it is our biggest most important problem plaguing our deer. I don't recall wet springs in the last 2 years at all. In fact last year the Wasatch front and state of Utah went a total of 76 days without any form of precipitation, this June there was no precipitation either. Springs have been dry, and the years before 2010 were just average. We have had very late wet summers and summer has lasted too long I agree. It has been getting later and later it seems when winter finally arrives. Like I said last year it was December 23rd I believe before I wasn't able to get to the top of Monroe mountain. That's pretty **** late. So now the question is will this year be any better?


Last two springs were dry, exactly! Last summer we got the monsoon a little early, but for the proper duration. Wet springs, complicate, and drive mineral deficiencies. Take a look at the study. Coyote and lion control has shown no success in raising deer numbers. Habitat improvements have shown to increase numbers, I don't have numbers at hand, but they are modest. But selenium supplementation, has been shown to be able to add 51 fawns per 100 does?

Bighorn sheep in Wyoming(and through out the West) have declined for the last 30 years just like mule deer. Selenium deficiencies have been shown to be the cause. And supplementation has been shown to stop, but not reverse declines. The difference between the Bighorns if WY and the Black tailed deer in the study, was how supplementation was implemented.

Moose have suffered from die offs for the last 30 years also, and mineral deficiencies, including selenium deficiencies, expressed as White muscle disease, have been identified during these die offs.

And to be clear, I am not saying we supplement, that is not a solution. Only that we try to identify this as a problem. Once identified, we then need to find out why, that is where the solution lies.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

I believe you lonetree. I think habitat and even your minerals supplements would be beneficial prior to predator control. But once those issues are addressed I believe predator control will have paid off. How do we fix this selenium problem lonetree? You see a problem what's the solution?


----------



## Lonetree

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I believe you lonetree. I think habitat and even your minerals supplements would be beneficial prior to predator control. But once those issues are addressed I believe predator control will have paid off. How do we fix this selenium problem lonetree? You see a problem what's the solution?


Still sticking to predator control :mrgreen: Seriously, read the predator control studies that were pointed out. Predator control can not increase deer numbers. At best, under certain circumstances, it could slow declines. We have not seen sustained declines in 6 years. The only way to grow deer herds, is to grow deer. Growing deer involves deer, and those things that make them healthy. Healthy deer are resistant to predation, and they produce surplus deer, that buffer what predation does occur.

A solution to any nutritional deficiency problem, can only be formulated, once the problem has been identified. A deficiency is a problem, but by itself, is only a symptom of whatever causes it. Step 1: Determine that selenium is indeed a problem. Step 2: Identify what causes that problem. Step 3: Depending on what you find out in step 2, you can then formulate a solution. You have to indentify a cause, before you can move to a solution.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

So what would cause this drop lonetree ?


----------



## Lonetree

#1DEER 1-I said:


> So what would cause this drop lonetree ?


Its a big list. Some of the basics are in the Deerlab PDF I provided.


----------



## pelican

So...... about this contest, will there be a pretty girl there to present me with the winnings and give me a smooch?


----------



## Dunkem

pelican said:


> So...... about this contest, will there be a pretty girl there to present me with the winnings and give me a smooch?


 :kiss:


----------

