# Deer health question



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

Saw this deer last night that was taken on the archery hunt. The bridge of his nose had NO hair and had what looked like big bite sores that were healing up. Then he had a small wart growth on his behind. It was only on the surface and when he was skinned out the underside of the skin looked fine. Anyone know anything about these two issues and if they are related or what's up with them? I've attached pics.


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

Anyone?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

This deer: http://rutalocura.com/images/IMG_6581.JPG has a wart, and a bare nose. He also has a small "blister/burn" mark on the top of his nose, it is hard to see. The deer at the top of this page: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/research/orange-crush/ has a more defined "blister/burn" in the same location as the first picture. Both deer had browsed pesticide sprayed plants.

On page 21 and 23 of this document: http://rutalocura.com/files/CANCER_PHOTOS_MONTANA_BIRDS_MAMMALS.pdf there are some domestic goats with "burns" on their snouts as well. On page 25 and 26 of the same document is deer with warts/tumors.

Submit your pics here: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/service/photo-contest/ for a chance to win some gear.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

The 'wart' does look like a cutaneous fibroma. As to the muzzle hair loss, hard to say. Could be from a lice infestation. Any other areas of the body exibit hair loss? DHLS is most prevalent in blacktail and columbian whitetail deer, but has been seen is mule deer on a small scale. Interesting, thanks for posting up.


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

Very interesting read and information! Thanks for posting lonetree. Here is another picture of the "fibroma" while still attached to deer.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

stillhunterman said:


> The 'wart' does look like a cutaneous fibroma. As to the muzzle hair loss, hard to say. Could be from a lice infestation. Any other areas of the body exibit hair loss? DHLS is most prevalent in blacktail and columbian whitetail deer, but has been seen is mule deer on a small scale. Interesting, thanks for posting up.


Does not look like DHLS(deer hair loss syndrome) I have seen blacktailed deer with DHLS in the Coos bay area of Oregon, and near Portland. In the late '90s there were still a decent number of blacktail deer in the Coos bay area, though they were declining. When I was last there about 2 years ago, they were pretty hard to find.

DHLS occurs in the same areas as hoof rot in Roosevelt elk in OR and WA. Just like hoof rot, and most of the cases of cactus bucks in OR(Malheur) and WA(Hanford) it all began in the early nineties, as the deer and elk populations plummeted, same time frame as here. Antelope followed the same trends in the Hart Mt area of OR, over the same time frame, and just like elk with hoof rot, the antelope are copper and selenium deficient.

I can't find the paper right now but DHLS has a definitive immune system connection just like the hoof rot in elk. It tends to be worse in the spring, as coats are changing, and a lot of energy is used for lactation and antler development. as these needs wane, the coats will many times fill in and the lice and mite infestation will wane as well. I can't say selenium for DHLS, but copper deficiencies for sure.

We used to get pack goats out of some of these parts of WA and OR, several had copper deficiencies, and exhibited terrible hair loss in the spring. A copper bolus always helped the Ober I had. But the most dramatic results were the spring he got into the icemelt(magnesium chloride) he ate several pounds of the stuff. He never looked better, and was in the best shape of his life that year.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

bowdacious, do you mind me asking what unit he came off of?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Tons of deer like that on the san juan. Just look at the videos I posted.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Looks like that deer had a close call with a cougar but lived long enough for a paying customer to harvest it.

Good job!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> Looks like that deer had a close call with a cougar but lived long enough for a paying customer to harvest it.
> 
> Good job!


If Lions, coyotes and bears oh my! were the cause of our struggling herds, there would be some serious, scientific evidence of it, and I would be all over it. The simple fact of the matter, is that predation can not explain our declining herds. And the false belief and propagation of that myth has put a serious drain, and distraction on the actual causes of our wildlife declines.

Explain to me how predation suddenly became a problem in the early '90s, and caused the decline of ALL wildlife, across ALL Western states? And while you are at it, explain why moose and deer follow the same population trends/declines, but supposedly suffer from different issues, while elk are apparently immune to lions, coyotes, and bears oh my!?

I fully understand the desire to point to something, and do something about the declines, I really do. But you predator guys have become so much a part of the problem it is not funny any more.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Lonetree said:


> If Lions, coyotes and bears oh my! were the cause of our struggling herds, there would be some serious, scientific evidence of it, and I would be all over it. The simple fact of the matter, is that predation can not explain our declining herds. And the false belief and propagation of that myth has put a serious drain, and distraction on the actual causes of our wildlife declines.
> 
> Explain to me how predation suddenly became a problem in the early '90s, and caused the decline of ALL wildlife, across ALL Western states? And while you are at it, explain why moose and deer follow the same population trends/declines, but supposedly suffer from different issues, while elk are apparently immune to lions, coyotes, and bears oh my!?
> 
> I fully understand the desire to point to something, and do something about the declines, I really do. But you predator guys have become so much a part of the problem it is not funny any more.


And pseudo experts like you who deny predation is a big part of the problem have become so much part of the problem that it's not funny anymore. It's an indisputable fact that predation is responsible for a significantly higher number of deer deaths than hunters. It's also an indisputable fact that areas that have heavy herbicide and pesticide use also have thriving deer populations. There is no long term scientific studies on selenium levels in the west that prove selenium levels 100 years ago were significantly different than now on an acre by acre basis across the whole west. Selenium and other nutrient levels can and do vary significantly from one area to another and within the same hunting unit. The problem is multi-faceted and predation is more than a small part of the problem. In Utah it's estimated that there are at least 2,000 lions. A lion averages 1 deer a week. The math says lions kill in excess of 100,000 deer a year. Add to that predation by coyote and all others and the number is easily 125,000+ per year. Those are PROVEN facts, not theories, suppositions and guesses.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

When you can show me that cougar have gone vegetarian. Then I might be able to believe that they don't kill deer. Pre 90s you ask? Simple 1080 was banned and it took a decade for predators to come back and start having a noticeable effect on our deer herds. To the average joe that is. 

There are places that never had the big deer numbers like southern Utah for example. Yellowstone has never been a good place to go look for lots of deer. Because predators aren't controlled there. Glacier same thing. Yellowstone isn't what it used to be for seeing elk anymore as a result of predators. Has nothing to do with pesticides or selenium. Fact is predators kill and that does indeed have an effect. No mater how good the weather or amount of calories in the feed or what ever you want to look at. If 150,000 fawns are born in Utah and coyote and cougar kill 150,000 deer a yr here. The herd won't grow. Maybe you should apply a little more math and less science to figuring out the great deer dilemma. 

Funny thing is you keep trying to find a problem with the deer herd. Convince us it's sick. When the reality is the deer herd is I great shape. And as healthy as ever before. (Because predators) it's our deer hunting that's hurting not the deer.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

How about you two tell me why in field studies, in Western states where deer numbers have followed a downward trend, when you remove lions and coyotes, deer numbers DO NOT increase? (Idaho, Wyoming, and Colorado studies)

Then explain why when you supplement deer with selenium their population increases: http://deerlab.org/Publ/pdfs/23.pdf Then explain why when you supplement mule deer macro nutrition, their population increases(Bishp, et al Co study)

Now you two tell us again how well our deer herd is doing, how great it is compared with any decade in the past 100 years?

Iron Bear complains about predators being the problem, and then says that the deer herd is in "great shape" Either he is too young to remember things before the early '90s, or he is too old to have mental capacity enough to remember what it was like before the early '90s.

Lost weezy has two college degrees but can't hold is own in a scientific debate with a high school drop out. Lost, show me the data on "thriving" mule deer in pesticide treated areas. In fact show me how mule deer have been "thriving" in the West for last 30 years.

You guys have no basis for just about everything you drivel. It is simply your opinion on the matter supported my nothing but your own echoes.

Back to work.......


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

1080: The use of 1080 was done away with in 1972. In 1985 its use in sheep collars was approved and it has been used in such a manner since then.

Deer were increasing during the late '70s, and early '80s. Deer numbers crashed in '83/'84, but were rebounding again by the late '80s, and early '90s. 1080 is still in use, the same way it has been since 1985, so please explain to us how the use of 1080 correlates, in any way shape or form to deer numbers?.....it does NOT.

Our current deer herds were increasing prior to coyote bounties, and there has NOT been a secondary increase in deer numbers since the implementation of the bounty, so why don't some of you explain how killing coyotes increases the deer population?.......it does NOT.

Tell me why mule deer populations in Fremont and Natrona Counties in Wyoming have suffered significant declines, antler malformations, dental malocclusion, hoof diseases, testicular malformations, and reduced fecundity since 2010, when tens of thousands of acres in these two counties were sprayed with pesticides? Interestingly we see these issues decline the further you get away from the spray zones. Maybe its because of coyotes?

How come when you do a GIS overlay of elk that suffer from hoof rot, antler abnormalities, and copper and selenium deficiencies in WA and OR, the overlay of pesticide use in clear cut logging that began in the early '90s in the area, matches perfectly? Did I mention the decline of black tail deer in the area, also correlates perfectly? http://jongosch.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Hoof-Disease-Map.jpg

I'm sure you guys have already done this work though, and ruled these out as possibilities when scientifically verifying your predator pit BS.

I mean you probably already did regressive GIS analysis of Northern Utah pesticide use, and how it relates to deer malformations, and population trends......right?

I'm sure you probably factored in how aerial deposition of pollutants combines with, and is sometimes driven by these applications, and feeds into the loop as well....right?

Trans-Pacific particle migration.........Check!

So is it the coyotes that are causing so much trouble with moose and bighorn sheep,or is it the mountain lions and chupacabras?

Lions and coyotes, and bears oh my!


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Removing or reducing predator primarily cougar has resulted in increased mule deer numbers in several units in Utah. Don't know what your smoking. 

300,000 deer in Utah. I'd say they were in no danger what so ever. 

Want to let 100,000 hunters go out and kill upwards of 30,000 buck when there is less than 60,000 buck statewide. There's your problem. I know deer nuts my be an intriguing topic to you but it has little to do with my general hunt.


----------



## Elkaholic2 (Feb 24, 2013)

Iron Bear said:


> When you can show me that cougar have gone vegetarian. Then I might be able to believe that they don't kill deer. Pre 90s you ask? Simple 1080 was banned and it took a decade for predators to come back and start having a noticeable effect on our deer herds. To the average joe that is.
> 
> There are places that never had the big deer numbers like southern Utah for example. Yellowstone has never been a good place to go look for lots of deer. Because predators aren't controlled there. Glacier same thing. Yellowstone isn't what it used to be for seeing elk anymore as a result of predators. Has nothing to do with pesticides or selenium. Fact is predators kill and that does indeed have an effect. No mater how good the weather or amount of calories in the feed or what ever you want to look at. If 150,000 fawns are born in Utah and coyote and cougar kill 150,000 deer a yr here. The herd won't grow. Maybe you should apply a little more math and less science to figuring out the great deer dilemma.
> 
> Funny thing is you keep trying to find a problem with the deer herd. Convince us it's sick. When the reality is the deer herd is I great shape. And as healthy as ever before. (Because predators) it's our deer hunting that's hurting not the deer.


Remember that Yellowstone had a certain predator removed from the ecosystem and then returned with a greater larger form. Elk, deer, moose, bison learned to live without this predator. then suddenly had a force to deal with that they had no knowledge of or how to evade this force known as the wolf.

Yes, of course predators will decrease population of prey animals. In a healthy ecosystem predators have little effect on major die offs. (Population dynamics)

If predators are a key and only factor for the loss of deer anywhere in the west. Then why are shiras moose and big horn sheep declining as much as 50-70% accross their historic range? As well as mule deer?

There is a lot more to the pie!

Weather events (winter mostly)
Predation
Highway mortality
Poor range conditions
Loss of wintering habitat (human encroachment)
Poaching
Hunting

All these things compound on each other when the species is suppressed! I.e. Moose, mule deer and sheep.

Wildlife managers that work for state and federal governments are in a tight spot between money for research and a budget! More tests and field research needs to be done. Biolologist and researchers need to unite and more important the average sportsman needs to get involved and educated.

It won't be long before mule deer are were moose are right now. The dwr will tell you that moose are at objective and that's why they cut cow tags out and bull tags back. When in fact they are suffering and in major trouble. They have tick infestations, hoof deformation, and are mineral deficient. The same thing is going on with mule deer

I wonder what mule deer would be like if they weren't viewed as a commodity! And rather a species that's sensitive to the changing west over the last 100 years.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

It's complete buffoonery to talk about hunter management or tag allocation if you don't address the single biggest factor that kills deer. Human kills aren't magically additive while natural predator kills somehow are compensatory and don't matter. Give me a break. 

There are 100 deer in Utah for every moose. Again 300,000 deer is no indication that the deer herd is in any kind of trouble health wise. 

Moose are in trouble? News to me. There are more moose in Utah then just about any other time. So they cut a few tags here and there. But it's not as if we are going to loose moose in Utah. Id say the real problem with moose is the same as deer. To many folks want to go after them. Simple supply and demand.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Interesting that the only places that are having an issue with too many deer are laden with human activity pesticides and largely void of natural predators. Bountiful, Highland, Herriman.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> It's complete buffoonery to talk about hunter management or tag allocation if you don't address the single biggest factor that kills deer. Human kills aren't magically additive while natural predator kills somehow are compensatory and don't matter. Give me a break.
> 
> There are 100 deer in Utah for every moose. Again 300,000 deer is no indication that the deer herd is in any kind of trouble health wise.
> 
> Moose are in trouble? News to me. There are more moose in Utah then just about any other time. So they cut a few tags here and there. But it's not as if we are going to loose moose in Utah. Id say the real problem with moose is the same as deer. To many folks want to go after them. Simple supply and demand.


I am pretty sure Iron Bear is some sort of troll that has not been out of his moms basement since the '80s.

So because we have 300,000 deer that means we are doing good? So every conservation org, F&G department, WAFWA, and Western hunter has it all wrong, mule deer are doing just fine? They have not been in decline for the last 30 years? And I'm smoking something? Put the needle and spoon down man!?!

Actually, if deer are doing fine, why do we need any predator control?

It is news to Iron Bear that Utah's moose have had a rocky last 20 years? But we are supposed to believe the other things that he types?

More moose in Utah that any other time?? Are you kidding? Did you never get out in the hills back in the '90s. Maybe you are talking about the '50s? Any other time??

Iron Bear, seriously, explain to us how moose, elk, deer, bighorn sheep, and antelope populations suddenly declined 30%-80% in the early '90s, in every Western state, with a sharp onset of diseases, malformations, and mineral deficiencies.......how........what caused it? coyotes? lions? racoons? hippies? Obama? Bush? was it the chupacabras? come on you can tell us?

While you are at it, why does increasing nutritional input(macro and micro) increase deer and sheep populations, but predator control does not?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> Interesting that the only places that are having an issue with too many deer are laden with human activity pesticides and largely void of natural predators. Bountiful, Highland, Herriman.


Actually, early impressions are that Bountiful has relatively low pesticide usage. Maybe a few acres of spraying when you add it all up. Some units in Utah on the other hand have square miles of sprayed area.

But really, is it too many deer based on a historic number? Or because the areas have built up and there are more people and houses that were not there 30 years ago? So now that there are more people there, the deer are a problem? If people built on the Henry's, do you think people would think the deer were a problem when they ate their bushes, and get hit by their cars?


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

“A belief is not merely an idea the mind possesses; it is an idea that possesses the mind” 
― Robert Oxton Bolton


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

So are jack rabbits in trouble too?


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Lonetree said:


> So because we have 300,000 deer that means we are doing good? So every conservation org, F&G department, WAFWA, and Western hunter has it all wrong, mule deer are doing just fine? They have not been in decline for the last 30 years? And I'm smoking something? Put the needle and spoon down man!?!
> 
> Actually, if deer are doing fine, why do we need any predator control?
> 
> Iron Bear, seriously, explain to us how moose, elk, deer, bighorn sheep, and antelope populations suddenly declined 30%-80% in the early '90s, in every Western state, with a sharp onset of diseases, malformations, and mineral deficiencies.......how........what caused it? coyotes? lions? racoons? hippies? Obama? Bush? was it the chupacabras?


All the groups concerning themselves with mule deer you sight. Are motivated by hunters and help or pacifying them in term of helping there hunting prospects. None of them think that mule deer are endangered as a species.

Yes deer have been in decline for 30 yrs and that's by design. Just like the jack rabbit decline over the last 30 yrs. land managers and "game" managers turned "wildlife" managers don't like to kill off one species to cause a plague in another.

Deer are doing fine. Its us hunters who are sucking hind tit. Simply too many of us for the limited resourse. Simple math really, can't kill more deer then you recruit. I know a cougar kills deer I also know hunters do to. It's easy to cut tags I also think we should cut predation too. Or don't cut tags. And let's not try to recruit more hunters to the fray. Seems foolish we spend millions managing hunters and recording kills down to the animal when it comes to humans. But have absolutely no idea how many deer are killed by predators.

Either the deer herd is at capacity and all kills human and predator are compensatory. Or they are not and both are additive.

Again I don't agree that moose are in a major decline since the 90s to the point we need to freak out. Don't know about the elk declines in Utah. But wolf have put a hurting on the weather and habitat for elk up north. Deer and sheep decline again are universal just like the absence of widespread use of 1080 banned in the early 70s but still illegally used well into the 80s by many ranchers.

I laugh that you think I'm looking for a boogie man. A chupacabra?

Selenuim? Weird balls? Underbite? Hoof problems? I'm not an avid reader of your post but I have the impression you are trying to over complicate the issue.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

You crack me up, you talked yourself in one of the funniest circles I have ever seen. 

"Deer are doing fine. Its us hunters who are sucking hind tit. Simply too many of us for the limited resourse. Simple math really, can't kill more deer then you recruit."........So I guess figuring out why deer have been declining for 30 years and fixing that, making for more deer, would not solve the problem? :grin::grin::grin::grin::grin::grin: Comedic genius.

Predators are not limiting recruitment, this has been tested and studied. Nutrition is limiting reproduction and recruitment not predators. Our deer herds have been shown to be limited by nutrition, not predation. Supplementing black tailed deer with selenium was shown to increase the fawning rate by over 200%. Supplementing bighorn sheep with selenium was shown to stop population declines. Supplemental pellet feeding of mule deer was shown to increase the population trend. Predator control has not been shown to be able to do this. Also in the case of black tailed deer and bighorn sheep, the supplemented populations had reduced predation, without predator control.

The nutrition thing is not that simple, it is not simply just a matter of feed availability.

(this side of my mouth)The deer are just fine...........(the other side of my mouth)we need to kill predators because they are killing all the deer, you know, the ones that are doing just fine, but have been declining(by design) for 30 years.:mrgreen:


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Deer warts: I was just sent a brief piece of information that I found very interesting. It fills a few holes. So the warts that our deer have are caused by a papilloma virus, almost all warts are. Same goes for humans and warts. In humans there are over 200 different strains of the pappiloma virus. The virus is species specific, and other mammals usually suffer from multiple strains as well. 

So on to the interesting part. Zinc deficiencies are the number one predisposing factor for wart growth. Zinc deficiencies in wildlife tend to be more overlooked. Our moose are currently suffering selenium, copper, and zinc deficiencies. In the past, and in other states, moose have been deficient in chromium and cobalt as well, at times of decline.

Zinc deficiencies are causative of some genital malformations in deer as well. Specifically short and underdeveloped penis's and penis sheaths. I have found these defects in the same populations of deer that have warts. 

For those that remember the early '90s with any clarity,we saw a lot of this kind of thing(disease, malformation), specifically some of the highest rates of antler deformity and cactus bucks, right before the big crash.

A note on deer penis length, don't try to Google that information :mrgreen: 7cm is the normal/average length.


----------



## Elkaholic2 (Feb 24, 2013)

"Again I don't agree that moose are in a major decline since the 90s to the point we need to freak out. Don't know about the elk declines in Utah."

Moose Die-Off Alarms Scientists - NYTimes.com - The New York Times
www.nytimes.com/2013/10/15/.../something-is-killing-off-the-moose.html
Oct 14, 2013.

Maybe call your local biologist and see what he has to say about moose! All three sub-species in North America are in rough shape!

"But wolf have put a hurting on the weather and habitat for elk up north."

So did the wolves get ahold of bush's weather machine? And wolves are eating all the grass, forbes, browse in the greater montana, idaho and wyoming wolf recovery zone?

Of course changing the ecosystem with a killer like the wolf will put a hurt on prey species.

Cutting tags, supply and demand, deer economics? Which are socially a problem when it comes to the politics of mule deer.

So iron bear, are you arguing the social hunter management of mule deer? Or the biology, ethology, and ecology of mule deer?


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Mark my words habitat and weather will be sighted as reasons for elk herd declines in areas where wolf exists. 

I'm tired of the nonsensical conversations that go on about what happened to the deer herd what we can do to fix it and over complicating the situation then ultimately looking to take once again from the hunter. By either cutting tags limiting area or limiting the amount of days and hours on gets to hunt. In any case its the hunter that gives up. 

It's not rocket science. It wasn't PhDs that got us the deer herds of the glory days. It wasn't a perfect storm of weather and minerals. It was plain and simple. We took predators out of the pictures. Not totally eradicated them but the numbers were drastically down from what we have today. Especially on a per deer basis. 

Back east hunters are allowed to hunt long seasons and harvest many many deer because predators are still largely absent east of the Mississippi. Back east humans are the major predator just like we were from the 30s to the 80s. We've have been replaced. And it no mystery to biologist, land managers, cwmu operators and sadly conservation groups like SFW, as to the what's and whys of the deer herd. The DWR knows it could manage for and have 900,000 deer in Utah if they had the will to do so. 

Every ungulate species in Utah has seen a increase in population over the timeline of the mule deer decrease. 

Utahs crummy habitat can increase all other species including cattle. But can't keep a buck from starving out a fawn in the winter. 

Anybody ever took the time to look closely at browse to look for signs of over browse? Or somehow nutrient void? I don't know how one could tell that but I take for granted an apple of any color from anywhere has about 100 cal give or take. It's not as if you can run into an Apple that had only 30 cal when comparable size. So I highly doubt the sage out there is void of sufficient nutrients. 

So I see underutilized browse all over in my stomping ground. And truly the biggest threat I see to capacity around here was that POS Dixie harrow. Which results in turning browse to graze. 

FYI this is what the world gets when I don't draw a tag. I should be up the hill with no cell phone access. Instead of ranting and schooling on the internet. But noooo! The cougar has its rights and 50 houndsman somehow out weigh 100,000 deer hunters. And I'm told to stuff it and pray for better weather.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

maybe you should have got a different tag and gone hunting.........


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

"But wolf have put a hurting on the weather and habitat for elk up north."

So did the wolves get ahold of bush's weather machine? And wolves are eating all the grass, forbes, browse in the greater montana, idaho and wyoming wolf recovery zone?


:mrgreen: that's good. The position he is arguing, is what ever can be both contrary to what I say, and pro predator control. There in lies the problem, at some point it will become contradictory, and nonsupporting, like most ideological stances. 


Elk up North: Where you find rocky mountain elk declining, you find malformations such as misaligned hemiscrota, under bites(thyroid malocclusions), migratory behavior, and low progesterone levels(thyroid disruption) Not all of these elk are sympatric with wolf packs. Where RME are doing well, you don't see these things, and many of these elk are sympatric with wolf packs. 

Same goes for Roosevelt elk, where they are in decline, you see disease and malformations, hoof rot, abnormal antler growth, under bites, etc. Where they are doing well you don't see these things. Roosevelt elk in parts of WA and OR have been declining for 20 years just like some rocky mountain elk herds, but no wolves to point at, so the conversation goes a little differently.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

"Every ungulate species in Utah has seen a increase in population over the timeline of the mule deer decrease."

Not so, moose have seen declines, as have antelope in many places, and elk declined 20 years ago with the deer crash. Bighorns have seen population declines as well, with entire herds being wiped out. The only thing keep the numbers on paper up, is transplants from other states. The only big game species that has not had declines, even though it looks like it on paper, are mountain goats. Why do think the DWR is going to put them any where they can? They are expanding on their own, and not declining. 

Lion numbers have been down, plain and simple. Back when we had 3 times more deer, we easily had 10 times more lions. Lions do seem to be increasing though.

Let me translate what Iron Bear means when he say "over complicated" he means it will require tough decisions, actual thought, and real wildlife management. To be fair, he is sort of a realist here, he recognizes the abdication of responsibility on the part of wildlife managers, and conservation orgs, the same way he recognizes it in himself. 

It is much easier to ignore a real problem, that is not fully understood, and won't be easy to fix, by creating proxy solutions that won't actually fix the problem, but that can be continually beaten, because they are simple and rooted in easily understood rhetoric. 

I find it funny that it seems I have to routinely remind people that my goal is more deer.

This is what happens when the UPS guy does not show up with my tools. If we want more deer tags, we need more deer. Predator control has not been shown to be able to do that.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Nope more moose more antelope and more elk today in Utah then we had in 1970. That's when deer started on the decline. More sheep too goat manage to avoid most predators out there on the cliffs. I've heard that any of the sheep decline incidents were due to cougars. They removed them and the sheep did better. Antelope are so fast and mostly live out in open country so predation is a lesser factor for them. They did however over hunt them out on the plateau and had to cut back tags. 

Yep lion numbers are down I agree. I know you are smart enough to understand that cougar need deer to live. So number of deer is relative to the capacity of the cougar population. So therefore cougar should be managed on a per deer basis not per acre. With 100,000 deer hunters in mind. 

Actually the predator control I'm calling for is quite detailed. And is going to take a considerable amount of science and forethought as well as constant monitoring. We should know just about every single cat in the state. Tagged and categorized. Some female should be captured and spayed and and we should leave mature toms to cover large territories. It going to take total cooperation from the houndsman. Which IMO should be handsomely compensated for it. The DWR should know just about how many deer are killed per yr by cougar. And then prioritize hunter harvest for 100,000 humans. We should keep up and increase efforts with coyote reduction. 

As for conservation groups. Well they need something to save in order to recruit and retain. So the deer have served pretty well in that regard. So I wouldn't expect anything other than the same old same old from them. 

I'm not sure why you insist predator control does not increase prey base. That's weird science can you explain? I'll preface that capacity had nowhere been proven.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

"I've heard that any of the sheep decline incidents were due to cougars"

You "heard" huh? Have you ever heard of ovipneumonia? So you mean to tell me that when F&G departments go in and cull entire herds of Bighorn sheep, it is to save them from mountain lions?

"Antelope are so fast and mostly live out in open country so predation is a lesser factor for them" 

Here is a freebie for you, so you can better articulate your anti predator position. Antelope population trends, are one of the only that have shown a positive increase with the removal of coyotes. This does not take into account whether this a secondary phenomenon, regardless, coyote removal has been shown to positively influence antelope population trends.

Much of the rest of your post: You think I over complicate things? 

"I'm not sure why you insist predator control does not increase prey base. That's weird science can you explain? I'll preface that capacity had nowhere been proven." 

In 9 out 10 studies conducted on predator control in the Western United states, in the last 15 years, it has been demonstrated that the removal of lions and coyotes does not increase population trends. The one lone exception was a modest long term increase in antelope numbers in Wyoming with the removal coyotes. The same study showed no improvement for deer.

Only nutritional supplementation has been show to stop, or reverse population decline, and to grow herd numbers. Removing predators does not increase the prey base, only additional recruitment within the prey base, can increase it. Dead mountain lions have fawns? That is better than bucks that have fawns.

Question: If all the wildlife is doing so well and increasing, then why are you not out hunting? And why do we need predator control?


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Nope plenty of deer in terms of species survival. Not enough deer to let 200,000 hunters harvest 60,000 deer. 

Because predators kill more that 100,000 deer in Utah. So humans have to be very select on what we can responsibly harvest. 

Were the last at the table. We only get the scraps so to speak.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

How many deer were in Utah before settlement? 

Is Utah deer herd at an all time historic low? 

Pesticides? Atvs? Road kill? Winter kill? Shed hunters? Housing development? Acid rain? Hoof and mouth rot? Blue tongue? Chronic wasting disease? Parasites? Or was it that the browse was void of nutrients? 

And miraculously in 1928 a meteor of pure selenium exploded over the entire western US and in unison deer hard all over the west increase to as much as 10x their historical numbers. 

Or did it have more to do with eliminating predators for the benefit of livestock. 

It may be 9 out 10 predator studies you read you interpreted the finding as predator control being ineffective. 

I haven't got the time or the motivation to research it again but in the past I have sighted several units seeing very substantial increases in deer population post predator removal/reduction primarily cougar. 

Zion, pine valley, panguitch. East canyon. Just to name a few.


----------



## Charina (Aug 16, 2011)

Iron Bear said:


> Interesting that the only places that are having an issue with too many deer are laden with human activity pesticides and largely void of natural predators. Bountiful, Highland, Herriman.


IB, I've read your ideas with an open mind for quite some time. Disagreed with some, agreed with others, always read with interest and considered what you have had to say. But this thread has change that. Your arguments are so largely without merit, I'm not sure I want to even consider anything said in the future. 

The above is just one of several examples of what can only be described as "ridiculous". First, to conclude it is the lack of predators that causes any "issue with too many deer" (as if the populations in these cities support your assertion) is inappropriate unless you deal with the myriad of other factors - such as irrigation, cultivation of browse, fertilization, etc, etc, etc. Second, I can't speak for my neighbors in B, but I'm certainly not out there spraying herbicides on my pansies, petunias, corn, tomatoes, and other desirable plants that I'm having a hell of a time keeping the deer off of. 

Whitetail hunting in non-desert areas as an argument supporting your predator argument? Are you kidding me? 




Iron Bear said:


> And miraculously in 1928 a meteor of pure selenium exploded over the entire western US and in unison deer hard all over the west increase to as much as 10x their historical numbers.
> 
> Or did it have more to do with eliminating predators for the benefit of livestock.


Again, you point to a multi-faceted circumstance and claim it has to be your pet theory that is supported. You point to livestock, which researchers point to as opening up areas for more browse to grow. Did you consider that factor? Did you consider the potential effect of livestock and mineral supplementation that followed (probably more effective at spreading trace minerals all over the west than any hyperbolistic meteor could be)? Did you consider that hunting had been closed in 1908 for 5 years, and deer browse had been scarcely used for the previous two decades prior to 1928? Did you take into account effects of wildfires, timber cutting, land cultivation, and a hundred other factors in addition to coyote and lion control? Your reasoning is so lacking support it is hardly worth reading any longer.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Charina said:


> Your reasoning is so lacking support it is hardly worth reading any longer.[/FONT][/COLOR]


Any longer? No offense, but it was "hardly worth reading" from the beginning!


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Charina said:


> Again, you point to a multi-faceted circumstance and claim it has to be your pet theory that is supported. You point to livestock, which researchers point to as opening up areas for more browse to grow. Did you consider that factor? Did you consider the potential effect of livestock and mineral supplementation that followed (probably more effective at spreading trace minerals all over the west than any hyperbolistic meteor could be)? Did you consider that hunting had been closed in 1908 for 5 years, and deer browse had been scarcely used for the previous two decades prior to 1928? Did you take into account effects of wildfires, timber cutting, land cultivation, and a hundred other factors in addition to coyote and lion control? Your reasoning is so lacking support it is hardly worth reading any longer.


These are many of the reasons that I personally believe that we had a perfect storm for inflated deer herds up through the early 80's. After that the west has experienced a perfect storm to reduce deer numbers.

I don't think the answer is just nutrition and I certainly don't think it is just predator control. Weather, nutrition, pesticides, weed killers, fertilizers, acid rain, predators, elk populations, roadkill, too many roads in the hills, population growth, poaching, etc. etc. etc.......they all work together to help reduce the size of a herd, unless something or a combination of things exert enough force to make a change.

One person says that aside from nutrition and weather, death is compensatory. The other says they are all additive. They both look at the same picture but focus on different pixels.

I believe the truth lies in the middle.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Unfortunately that MF'r LT baited me into 10 more rants than I should have. Couple that with disgust and boredom. And once again I have marginalized and discredited myself. It's not the first time here and not the last. 

I rest assured knowing that Muleskinner is correct that the truth lies somewhere in between. Many factors are at play in wildlife dynamics. There is indeed more than one way to skin a cat. 

So I'll let you all rest a bit and forget that Utah does indeed have cougar and they do indeed kill deer. (More than humans) and if we want to save a deeds life stopping a hunter from killing one is not the only way to save a deer from being killed. 

I'm taking Mr muleskinners advice and heading out this friday for a couple weeks up the hill. Gonna go kill a spike on Monroe for 1 eye.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> These are many of the reasons that I personally believe that we had a perfect storm for inflated deer herds up through the early 80's. After that the west has experienced a perfect storm to reduce deer numbers.
> 
> I don't think the answer is just nutrition and I certainly don't think it is just predator control. Weather, nutrition, pesticides, weed killers, fertilizers, acid rain, predators, elk populations, roadkill, too many roads in the hills, population growth, poaching, etc. etc. etc.......they all work together to help reduce the size of a herd,* unless something or a combination of things exert enough force to make a change*.
> 
> ...


Personally, I don't think there is a silver bullet, but I am working on the premise that there just might be a combination of just a few things that may exert enough force to make the change you are speaking about. There are enough arrows pointing in certain directions to give merit into further research into those similar directions: And it isn't pointing towards predators. It will take a lot of support, compromise, money and dedication to carry this to whatever end it will lead to. I can't see spending millions on keeping tabs on cougars to the extent IB is speaking about...-O,-


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I can't resist. Dammit! 

So we don't need to know how many deer predators kill. But we need to know how many deer humans do. And it can't be more than a certain amount. 

Why is human harvest additive and natural predation compensatory? Honestly that defies any logic no matter how big of a fool one may think I am about the issue. 

Can we have unlimited hunter harvest? Or does it have to be governed? 


Nobody here understands that a deer we don't kill just serves as potential food for a predator. So cut the annual harvest of about 30,000 buck and that is increased capacity for about 200 cougar. 

So cutting tags and then not putting measures in place to prevent an increase in predation will negate what the hunter sacrificed. This has been going on since the 80s. This is why we don't get more deer from cutting tags. In the long run that is.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

"The key to sound big game management is predator management first." < This last part is wrong, and very uneducated as to how big game management even intends to work.

The key to big game management, is being able to recognize what factors are suppressing herd numbers, and what factors may become suppressing factors. And then being able to over come those limitations to increase numbers, or reduce those same game numbers for the benefit of the species when needed. Predator control only applies when it is a limiting factor, which Iron Bear and all the other SFW fiends, can not demonstrate. Predator control is a sales pitch, and political tool, used by and against other tools.

Iron Bear, thanks for playing.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

"So cutting tags and then not putting measures in place to prevent an increase in predation will negate what the hunter sacrificed. This has been going on since the 80s. This is why we don't get more deer from cutting tags. In the long run that is."

Straight from the Don Peay, rebranded predator pit, now known as anode, or wait is it cathode, you know, you put zinc on pipes to keep the water inside form corroding the pipes, err uh something like that. :mrgreen:


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

stillhunterman said:


> Personally, I don't think there is a silver bullet, but I am working on the premise that there just might be a combination of just a few things that may exert enough force to make the change you are speaking about. There are enough arrows pointing in certain directions to give merit into further research into those similar directions: And it isn't pointing towards predators. It will take a lot of support, compromise, money and dedication to carry this to whatever end it will lead to. I can't see spending millions on keeping tabs on cougars to the extent IB is speaking about...-O,-


Yea he had some extreme examples but they aren't without merit either. Do we need to collar every cat? I hope not. Can more tags be issued? I certainly think so.

How much harm is being done by performing a long term predator study? Is it just the cost that is killing people? What has it been? Roughly $5 million over the past 6-7 years? All the while people complaining that no other studies are being performed. Malarkey........there are studies going on all over the place. In every state, at every university and their findings are shared.

All I read from some on this forum is that predator control/management is completely ineffective. It takes all of a few seconds on Google to find studies that point to the contrary. Problem is when they are brought up on here they are dismissed by "those in the know" as being hogwash. Iron Bear has lost no more credit from me than those that claim he is 100% wrong and that predation is 100% compensatory aside from 2 or 3 instances in the history of mankind.

Want more deer?


kill more elk
kill more coyotes
kill more cats
close more mountain roads/trails and enforce a lower speed limit in areas with high populations of deer.
stop/reverse development in deer habitat
clear more pinyon and juniper.........a lot more
plant more beneficial foods
clean the air
stop/limit the use of weed killers, pesticides and harmful fertilizers
create mild winters, wet springs and stop drought
It will work. I promise. Furthermore Lonetree will have all of the nutrition he can stomach.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

The truth lies in a shallow grave somewhere, forgotten and left there in the early '90s. 

Little hints of what were to come, appeared in the '60s and '70s, and the early '80s should have been more of a wake up call than it was, but we missed it.

Since the early '90s the West has been in a complete ecological collapse, plain and simple! Those that have spent any real time in the hills over the last 30 years, have witnessed this, though some did not seem to notice.

Everybody likes to talk about their own little part of the world, I get it, I have my own. It has changed dramatically in the last 20 years. Seeing grouse migrate up the mountain 300 birds at a time was once taken for granted, now when you see 25 its "impressive". When I first started deer hunting, I walked away from more 160"+ deer in the first two years, than I probably saw in the next 10. When the snow would fly, the deer would single file down through the cliffs, by the hundreds, in multiple spots. The winter range would hold a 1000 deer. Now when we get 100 hundred head, the kids get excited, while my dads deer camp has sat vacant for almost 20 years. Lions? they were everywhere, can't hardly find one these days.

I used to pick up so many deer and moose antlers, that I could not carry them all home, I would stash them under trees for the next time I came through, which might not be until the next year. That was not horn hunting, that was just hiking. My dad used to throw antlers tha o for hundreds of dollars now, in the flower beds. When the cutthroats would spawn, we used to "assault fish" the streams. We would work mile long sections, with snow still on the ground, and catch 200 fish a day, with at least a bite on every cast. We would keep a few to eat, and hike out. Now days, catching 20 is phenomenal.

When we would get home from school(just kidding I usually did not go, but like to tell the story like my father does) we would grab the shotguns, and WALK to the chukar grounds. Back then I used to load several boxes of shells a week, and we did not practice, or shoot clays, we did not need to. Pheasants were a bonus on the way in and out. These days there are no pheasants, and there are not 1/10 the chukars there used to be. 


Sagegrouse? Avoiding “flock shooting” meant you had to not pull the trigger, because when they came up in swarms, it became hard to pick a single bird.

That all ended 20 years ago in the early '90s

Now when I talk to people in Wyoming, Arizona, other parts of Utah, Montana, Washington, Oregon, California, and Idaho, the story from veteran outdoorsmen that were there, is the same. It crashed in the early '90s and never came back.

So then you look at the scientific literature, I've looked at a lot, and you start talking to those people(I have spoken with some of the finest in several states) that have spent two decades now on the ground studying specifics of this, and they all tell the same story. Moose, deer, bighorn sheep, antelope, grouse, amphibians, trout, and everything else declined sharply, and has yet to recover to pre '90s numbers. 

Now taken on a unit by unit basis, or a species by species basis, one can make all kinds of cases as to what is going on, and what is and what is not happening. But seriously, in all sincere honesty, can someone explain this happening across entire meta populations of almost all species? And while you are at it, explain why the rates of malformations, birth defects, and diseases that are associated with the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal (HPG) axis follow all these declines that all began in the early '90s across the west.


Then tell me how predators cause this?


Some more “truth”: Many of the things that are afflicting our wildlife now, that were not issues before the early '90s, and marked the massive decline of our wildlife in the early '90s are currently rising, and have been in some cases since 2007 when deer, moose and bighorn populations started to rebound in many places across the West. That is how this goes, we see subpar recovery, accompanied by hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal (HPG) axis issues, and then decline. 




It is looking a lot like the early '90s unfortunately.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

When I say "nutrition" it is not as simple as just eating. It is in many cases "antidotal", and only complicated by soil and plant nutrition, or a lack there of. 

Some of you can keep "moderating", and some can keep pointing towards entire lists of things that have been tried, and do not work. It won't change the weight of the reality of what is occurring.


----------



## Charina (Aug 16, 2011)

Iron Bear said:


> So we don't need to know how many deer predators kill. But we need to know how many deer humans do. And it can't be more than a certain amount.


I'm not sure anyone is saying that it isn't useful to know predator take. Well . . . perhaps LT is, but such a tact is as suspicious to me as any position claiming one singular issue as the silver bullet. I actually chuckle a little bit at how a fuzzy photo of a deer can be evidence of the need for a pedicure and appointment with an orthodontist!

Legal human take is about the only factor that can be controlled completely in the short term. Plus, it's a lot easier to control than most (all?) other factors. Predator control may or may not be a good thing (I tend to think it has some value, but not critical), but that is irrelevant to the management of numbers in the short term. Hunting numbers is about all that can be controlled with certainty.

I worry about the differences between human and 4 legged predation. Human predation seeks to take the most fit. 4 legged seeks to take the least fit. What's the long-term effect of those different pressures? 4 legged are dependent on the resource, and fluctuate according to prey levels. Humans are not, and will take and take until it is all gone. Deer evolved with 4 legged predators and have done ok with that situation for thousands of years, but did not evolve to deal with high-powered rifles. Those are just some of the factors that I think of that cause me to have higher concern about unlimited/high human take as compared to natural predators.



Iron Bear said:


> Nobody here understands that a deer we don't kill just serves as potential food for a predator. So cut the annual harvest of about 30,000 buck and that is increased capacity for about 200 cougar.
> So cutting tags and then not putting measures in place to prevent an increase in predation will negate what the hunter sacrificed. This has been going on since the 80s. This is why we don't get more deer from cutting tags. In the long run that is.


You have a valid point IMO that more deer can result in more predators if there is no control of predators. They are completely dependent on their prey, and boom/bust cycles of predators following prey populations is pretty well established. BUT that doesn't negate the need to maintain at least minimum buck/doe ratios, and that for many areas, turning an unlimited number of hunters loose could drive that number low enough to suppress fecundity.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Lonetree said:


> When I say "nutrition" it is not as simple as just eating. It is in many cases "antidotal", and only complicated by soil and plant nutrition, or a lack there of.
> 
> Some of you can keep "moderating", and some can keep pointing towards entire lists of things that have been tried, and do not work. It won't change the weight of the reality of what is occurring.


Uh yea......I think we all know what nutrition means/is.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Uh yea......I think we all know what nutrition means/is.


Uhh, no, as I just explained, you don't!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

"I actually chuckle a little bit at how a fuzzy photo of a deer can be evidence of the need for a pedicure and appointment with an orthodontist!"--Charina

Laugh all you want, it is only because you do not know what you are looking at. I have literally viewed Thousands of pictures from almost every Western state. Many of them being taken by biologists, and F&G personnel There is small sample of them here: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/service/wildlife-malforamations/

Any of you can cast doubt on me, or anything I do as an individual, but that does not change the science and reality on the ground, across all Western states, as studied by hundreds of people. It only makes the subject about me and you, nothing else.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

"BUT that doesn't negate the need to maintain at least minimum buck/doe ratios, and that for many areas, turning an unlimited number of hunters loose could drive that number low enough to suppress fecundity." --Charina

That number would have to be well below 5 bucks to 100 does. The current science is that relatively lower buck to ratios of 15 bucks to 100 does, increases fecundity, while higher buck to does ratios decrease fecundity. For roughly every 3 bucks you add to the buck to doe ratio, you reduce the fawn to doe ratio by about 7, which decreases fecundity.

So if you are making an argument about the current system of Option WTF?, you have it wrong.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Lonetree said:


> Uhh, no, as I just explained, you don't!


Uh yea I do. Do you have another prize for the winning definition or do you just feel the need to declare that you are the smartest uneducated man on earth...........again........and again.....................and yet......... A G A I N?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

I have it! We are suppressing deer numbers, intentionally, so we can keep lion numbers down, so there are more deer.........I'm having a hard time following some you guys.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I bet you are. You'll have bet luck if you keep things in context.

By "we" you mean "they" right?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Uh yea I do. Do you have another prize for the winning definition or do you just feel the need to declare that you are the smartest uneducated man on earth...........again........and again.....................and yet......... A G A I N?


If you feel that way, it is you, not me.

You and several others have referred to forage, and then to the "nutrition" that I commonly refer to. It is not that simple. Animals suffering from HPG conditions have higher nutritional requirements from healthy animals. Simply planting more forage, regardless of quality, can not overcome this.

I was trying to clarifying this.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> I bet you are. You'll have bet luck if you keep things in context.
> 
> By "we" you mean "they" right?


WE are all affected by this as hunters.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Lonetree said:


> If you feel that way, it is you, not me.
> 
> You and several others have referred to forage, and then to the "nutrition" that I commonly refer to. It is not that simple. Animals suffering from HPG conditions have higher nutritional requirements from healthy animals. Simply planting more forage, regardless of quality, can not overcome this.
> 
> I was trying to clarifying this.


I have never used the word forage once. I said "more beneficial foods"

hence the difference between straw and oats. filler vs nutrition.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

what was your solution again? Oh yea...........paradigm.....paradigm......paradigm


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Thanks for splitting that hair, I still don't believe you are understanding, nor should I care.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

:mrgreen: You have a good day Mr. pot


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)




----------



## Charina (Aug 16, 2011)

Lonetree said:


> "I actually chuckle a little bit at how a fuzzy photo of a deer can be evidence of the need for a pedicure and appointment with an orthodontist!"--Charina
> 
> Laugh all you want, it is only because you do not know what you are looking at. I have literally viewed Thousands of pictures from almost every Western state. Many of them being taken by biologists, and F&G personnel There is small sample of them here: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/service/wildlife-malforamations/
> 
> Any of you can cast doubt on me, or anything I do as an individual, but that does not change the science and reality on the ground, across all Western states, as studied by hundreds of people. It only makes the subject about me and you, nothing else.


Viewing thousands of pictures doesn't make you any more of an expert than viewing thousands of pictures makes a teenager a gynecologist!

While you have presented some things of interest and value, as I have said to you before, your message is completely lost in your presentation. I'm not interested in more crapola about how you intentionally try to be a jerk in order to be more effective by making ideas stick. Most of what you have of value is _rejected_ because of your presentation. 

If the "facts" were so cut and dried as you have presented them to be over the last few months, the EPA would be all over it faster than they were with DDT in the day when there was widespread resistance to such measures. You have a theory, it looks to be supported, but the jury is clearly still out. Your harping on the singular message constantly that EVERYTHING is due to one thing or another is as silly as someone stating predator control is the only issue.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

And there it is............your denominator. Like clockwork.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> And there it is............your denominator. Like clockwork.


:mrgreen:


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Charina said:


> Viewing thousands of pictures doesn't make you any more of an expert than viewing thousands of pictures makes a teenager a gynecologist!
> 
> While you have presented some things of interest and value, as I have said to you before, your message is completely lost in your presentation. I'm not interested in more crapola about how you intentionally try to be a jerk in order to be more effective by making ideas stick. Most of what you have of value is _rejected_ because of your presentation.
> 
> If the "facts" were so cut and dried as you have presented them to be over the last few months, the EPA would be all over it faster than they were with DDT in the day when there was widespread resistance to such measures. You have a theory, it looks to be supported, but the jury is clearly still out. Your harping on the singular message constantly that EVERYTHING is due to one thing or another is as silly as someone stating predator control is the only issue.


No, DDT was in use for decades before anything was ever done.


----------



## Charina (Aug 16, 2011)

Lonetree said:


> No, DDT was in use for decades before anything was ever done.


Because it wasn't understood. Once known, the move was swift, despite great outcry from the public.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

"Viewing thousands of pictures doesn't make you any more of an expert than viewing thousands of pictures makes a teenager a gynecologist!"--Charina

Only if said teenager, did not have all the other prerequisite lab and field work to support claims about lone observations of pictures that only he were viewing.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Lonetree said:


> "Viewing thousands of pictures doesn't make you any more of an expert than viewing thousands of pictures makes a teenager a gynecologist!"--Charina
> 
> Only if said teenager, did not have all the other prerequisite lab and field work to support claims about lone observations of pictures that only he were viewing.


still doesn't make him/her a gynecologists..............even if said teenager has argued to death with the best of them.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Charina said:


> Because it wasn't understood. Once known, the move was swift, despite great outcry from the public.


And we are still suffering from the affects of DDT. Things like 2,4-D, clorothalonil, atrazine and Glyphosate all induce HPG conditions, and their use has been documented over and over again in association with wildlife declines since the last round of EPA registrations in 1992. Have you studied any of this? Do you have any reference or experience on the matter?

The current program of pesticide approvals relies on studies of singular compounds, done by the pesticide industry. This does not look at the the finished product, only the "active" ingredient, not the adjuvants that work with the active ingredient and make it a poison. Nor does it look at the use of these in combination with other compounds, which occurs all the time. These studies are not released to the public. And the EPA has been very reluctant, because of industry pressure to consider the mass of scientific information that shows how bad some of this stuff is.

I have not even got into human child birth defects, and learning disorders that have risen and fallen synchronously with our wild life populations. Rates of autism have risen exponetially since the early 1990s, and were considered rare before that, just like the malformations now seen in wildlife. You can chart neural tube defect cases(unsurvivable birth defects) with the ebb and flow of deer numbers in several states. Pesticides have been implicated in all of these things.

Please do not attempt to lecture me about things you know nothing about.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

So we have established I'm not a gynecologist. Now for some of your arguments to work,you have to discredit actual gynecologists.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

nope.............you may be a gynecologist but you are not a biologist.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> nope.............you may be a gynecologist but you are not a biologist.


Technically true, yet I have worked in the field of wildlife management, and am currently consulting(paid) on wildlife management issues for Glacier national park, along with others in Oregon.

And despite my current and former work with actual wildlife biologists and professionals, or my recently peer edited writing on the subject(better than peer actually, MIT professor) you are right, I do not have a degree in wildlife biology.

Nor do I have a degree(or high school diploma) in any other field that I excel in. Are you a biologist?


----------



## Charina (Aug 16, 2011)

Lonetree said:


> And we are still suffering from the affects of DDT. Things like 2,4-D, clorothalonil, atrazine and Glyphosate all induce HPG conditions, and their use has been documented over and over again in association with wildlife declines since the last round of EPA registrations in 1992. Have you studied any of this? Do you have any reference or experience on the matter?


And what the hell does lingering effects have to do with the EPA or other bodies being willing to move on a current issue that is properly vetted? Your posts are still borderline junk status whether or not DDT, PCB's or other persistent chemicals have continuing effects. And the reply quoted above is a prime example of one of the issues lowering their value. Still beating incessantly on the same note, avoiding/ignoring that which you don't agree with.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Perspective: LostLouisianan is supposedly a biologist.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Charina said:


> And what the hell does lingering effects have to do with the EPA or other bodies being willing to move on a current issue that is properly vetted? Your posts are still borderline junk status whether or not DDT, PCB's or other persistent chemicals have continuing effects. And the reply quoted above is a prime example of one of the issues lowering their value. Still beating incessantly on the same note, avoiding/ignoring that which you don't agree with.


You originally referenced DDT and the EPA, not me. I just clarified the facts surrounding your inference. And now you are bring up PCBs.

If you have an actually argument that disputes anything I have written, then please introduce it. Making this about me, rather than the subject at hand just shows you are not versed on the subject matter, and can not support your arguments.

If my posts are borderline junk, you could bring a borderline counter argument to dispute them.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Lonetree said:


> Technically true, yet I have worked in the field of wildlife management, and am currently consulting(paid) on wildlife management issues for Glacier national park, along with others in Oregon.
> 
> And despite my current and former work with actual wildlife biologists and professionals, or my recently peer edited writing on the subject(better than peer actually, MIT professor) you are right, I do not have a degree in wildlife biology.
> 
> Nor do I have a degree(or high school diploma) in any other field that I excel in. Are you a biologist?


No I am not. I excel at nothing other than spotting bull**** from any distance.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Charina, are saying that pesticides do not induce the conditions that I have said they do?


----------



## Charina (Aug 16, 2011)

Lonetree said:


> Nor do I have a degree(or high school diploma) in any other field that I excel in. Are you a biologist?


I have a prime example to measure you by then. Dad.

No PhD, so he never would be taken seriously, and always had to be the junior author, despite doing all the work, writing the manuscript, etc. Even when he single-handedly discovered a new species in the PNW, on his own dime, on his own time, he was still junior author. I'd never knock anyone without a degree having the been around one of the best un-credentialed field biologists around. The profession does enough of that garbage.

Still, the difference between his open-mindness about things he is the world's expert on, and things you claim to 'know' is profound. Stark. Revolting. You are a discredit to the information others are discovering that may be of value in game management.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> No I am not. I excel at nothing other than spotting bull**** from any distance.


Yet you bring nothing to dispute said bull****.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Charina said:


> I have a prime example to measure you by then. Dad.
> 
> No PhD, so he never would be taken seriously, and always had to be the junior author, despite doing all the work, writing the manuscript, etc. Even when he single-handedly discovered a new species in the PNW, on his own dime, on his own time, he was still junior author. I'd never knock anyone without a degree having the been around one of the best un-credentialed field biologists around. The profession does enough of that garbage.
> 
> Still, the difference between his open-mindness about things he is the world's expert on, and things you claim to 'know' is profound. Stark. Revolting. You are a discredit to the information others are discovering that may be of value in game management.


To come after me on this, because of the way you feel about it, is coming after half a dozen people just like your father. This is not my singular idea or thought, and certainly not solely my work on the matter. Which is why you can't dispute it, despite your feelings on the matter.

If it is bull ****,like you and mule say, then you could actually dispute it with something other than attacks on the messenger. but you can't.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Lonetree said:


> Yet you bring nothing to dispute said bull****.


I have never disputed your stance on nutrition. That is a hayseed in your pile of bull****. You would like to think that I have attempted to dispute it because it gives you grounds for an argument and an opportunity to belittle others. Telling people they are wrong, ill-informed, ignorant or can't see the big picture is your calling card. It must make you feel better about yourself or something. Everybody can have their own opinion as long as it is line with yours. If not they are members of the SFW, ignorant biologist, or effing hypocrites right? Mr Pot wasn't it? I might be high but I know BS when I see BS.

What is your solution again?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> I have never disputed your stance on nutrition. That is a hayseed in your pile of bull****. You would like to think that I have attempted to dispute it because it gives you grounds for an argument and an opportunity to belittle others. Telling people they are wrong, ill-informed, ignorant or can't see the big picture is your calling card. It must make you feel better about yourself or something. Everybody can have their own opinion as long as it is line with yours. If not they are members of the SFW, ignorant biologist, or effing hypocrites right? Mr Pot wasn't it? I might be high but I know BS when I see BS.
> 
> What is your solution again?


With mule it is all about me, and not the subject at hand. He says what I am saying is bull****, and then back peddles that he never disputed one singular piece of what I have said.

People can have all the opinions on the subject they like, that is their right. But don't try to pass them off as anything other than opinions, supporting opinions.

Mule, if I have spewed bull **** as you claim I have, be specific, and dispute it. My guess is you will just make it about me again though, rather than the subject matter.

Solutions? Like the solutions in search of problems we currently have, or identification and understanding of the problem at hand?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Charina, here is an example of one of the people you say are a discredit to wildlife science: http://jongosch.com/local-farriers-research-connects-herbicides-to-hoof-disease-in-elk-horses/

Those elk have been declining in Washington for 20 years, just like our deer. And have suffered from a myriad of conditions during that time, many of them the same conditions seen in our own deer and moose populations, including (everyone's favorite) selenium and copper deficiencies, hoof diseases, under bites, abnoemal antler growth, reduced fecundity, etc. Strange thing is, these things were not seen before the early '90s, and aerial spraying of herbicides. And you only find hoof rot in Washington's Roosevelt elk, where they spay pesticides.......HHHmmm

I have watched deer and moose eat pesticide laden vegetation in Utah. In one of those treated areas, the prevalence of HPG driven malformation is highest adjacent to treated areas. Here are a sample of some blurry pictures of that: http://rutalocura.com/deer http://rutalocura.com/deer2


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

From the EPA themselves: "In longer-term studies, at dose levels above the threshold of saturation for renal clearance, 2,4-D is toxic to the eye, thyroid, kidney, adrenals, and ovaries/testes. Rat lowest observed adverse effect levels (LOAELs) are based on gait abnormalities in a neurotoxicity study, skeletal abnormalities in pups in a developmental study, and decreased weight gain in a chronic toxicity study. Dogs show a LOAEL based on decreased body weight gain and decreased food consumption, and rabbits show a LOAEL based on ataxia, decreased motor activity, and abortions"

This from the people that say 2,4-D is safe to use. There has never been ruminant testing of 2,4-D, which gets used in the areas of the before mentioned malformations. Along with several other "products".

The way food gets processed in a ruminant animal like deer, elk, moose, and sheep, is very different than that of a rat. This is because of the way that microbes "ferment" the contents of the rumen. You place pesticides in there, and you get very different results than than what you see in rats. Microbial activity has been shown to break down pesticides. Most of the compounds produced by pesticide degradation, are worse than the parent compounds.

There are chemical processes that take place in ruminants, that can transform a poisonous substance, into an even more potent substance. This could not be any more true of picky eaters like deer. And Roosevelt elk that browse at far greater rates than do rocky mountain elk, which tend to graze more.

Just some more bull****, I thought people might find interesting.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

According to you:


Roadkill is compensatory
Predation is compensatory (aside from a couple of minor examples)
Cars and trucks don't seek the weak. in fact they don't seek them at all. Roadkill is purely circumstantial. There is no intent. Roadkill is a big issue and it is purely additive unless they happen to kill a deer that that is on it's way out anyhow. Money and effort spent to prevent it is money well spent IMO and the opinion of many others. If the deer that are killed are compensatory, those that die in the crash while hitting the animal should be considered compensatory as well.

Cougars kill more doe than anything. Doe are the key to growing more deer are they not? If coyotes happen to find the kill and consume it the cougar kills again to survive. Excess coyotes do lead to more kills. I have read study after study that have shown this to be true. Fawns that are taken can't be all compensatory do to the fact that many would make it if given the chance. There have been numerous studies that have proven that predation is in many instances additive. Fact is you just don't want to seem to believe any of them. Fine. That suits you. It doesn't suit everybody. The predation control studies for the most part have been short lived. Many believe that predation control can indeed be effective if performed in the right manner in the right situations. Those that don't believe it almost always fall back to the theory that habitat is always at the maximum carrying capacity. You dismiss so much on here and get to long winded that most don't care to take the required time to dispute anything. Somebody post a link and you dismiss it or claim that somebody already proved it wrong.

The bull**** that I refer to is that endless dribble that you will surround your facts with while belittling others. I will be the first to admit you have led me to learn a lot on here. I have read deeper into the subjects of nutrition, predation, roadkill etc. due to some of your posts. I have spent time on your sight to try to get a grasp on the studies that you perform. If you would take a different approach at times someday guys like me that look to donate to a worthy cause might throw you a few bones in the hope that we all can gain something.

If that is backstepping in your opinion so be it. Bull**** comes in many forms. I think it is bull**** the way you attack people and write it off because you are "not here to make friends" and "don't make it about me". If anybody has made it about you it is you. Nobody else. You like it that way. It always provides a wall to bounce a ball off of as a distraction. You are the one that seems to prefer looking like an unsociable misfit and resorting to name calling. I think it is bull****.


----------



## Kerr (Aug 28, 2013)

*Warts*

I was with my brother on the archery hunt in the fish lake area this last weekend and he took a spike that was covered with warts like the one that was pictured here. The buck had rubbed some of them raw and they looked very nasty. He called a DNR agent who came out and inspected the kill and was told that the meet was fine and the warts, besides being ugly, were nothing to worry about. After this I noticed at least one other dear in the are, a doe, that had similar warts. I don't know anything about the hair loss.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> According to you:
> 
> 
> Roadkill is compensatory
> ...


Road kill is compensator in many cases, and I have down played its role for long time. In many cases it is very additive, yet possibly only secondary in the way it affects deer populations. If you chart road kill, on sprayed highways verses unsprayed highways, mortality is higher on sprayed highways. And on these sprayed highways you find higher rates of deer and moose that frequent roadside salt licks, which also lead to more collisions. So it is not purely circumstantial.

I am not the one saying predation is compensator, just about every predator study done in the last 20 years bears this out. I have cited these studies here in the past. Yet all the predator crowd can come up with is here say, and an enclosure study. I cited the other case of additive predation. Lets see your sources on additive coyote and lion predation, and not a white tail study from Tennessee. Some thing from the West, involving mule deer.

So really it still just comes down to me? You don't like the presentation, and the way I go about things? The way you feel about me, is not my problem. Politicians and salesmen tell people what they want to hear, that's not me.

"Many believe that predation control can indeed be effective if performed in the right manner in the right situations. Those that don't believe it almost always fall back to the theory that habitat is always at the maximum carrying capacity. You dismiss so much on here and get to long winded that most don't care to take the required time to dispute anything."

This is typical. I am full of ****, because you say many "believe" that predation can indeed be effective" which is contradictor to the current science on predator removal. Yet you then turn around and say I dismiss "so much". While at the same time the position of habitat/nutrition is just a fall back, even though you have never called it bull****? This is not about beliefs and feelings, that's the problem with our current wildlife management, people believe and feel a whole lot of scientifically unsound bull ****.

People "don't take the required time to dispute anything"? what page are we on? You guys have spent plenty of time, simple fact is you can't dispute it, because you don't understand what is being discussed, but you will have us "believe" that you do, regardless of the facts. You have not made one honest attempt to dismantle anything I have presented in this thread, only called bull****. Bull**** on what part, the deer and wildlife part specifically, we know how you feel about me. Straighten everyone out about the deer and wildlife, and how unfactual my bull**** is.

You and "many" others "beliefs" are not relevant to the science of the matter.


----------



## Charina (Aug 16, 2011)

Lonetree said:


> To come after me on this, because of the way you feel about it, is coming after half a dozen people just like your father. This is not my singular idea or thought, and certainly not solely my work on the matter. Which is why you can't dispute it, despite your feelings on the matter.





Lonetree said:


> Charina, here is an example of one of the people you say are a discredit to wildlife science: http://jongosch.com/local-farriers-research-connects-herbicides-to-hoof-disease-in-elk-horses/


My feelings on the matter? Attempting to discredit half a dozen people? You know nothing of what you speak on now. 

You don't even comprehend what you fail to comprehend, do you? In this thread alone, numerous times you have completely failed to follow from A -> B -> C. Darting off here, assumptions there, incorrect conclusions all over the place, inserting rediculous personal attacks and then accusing others of starting such. You can't even follow a simple topic within a thread, and you expect readers to give you any credit for being competent in relation to what you say you have researched? YOU are the one that subjects yourself to discrediting, and YOU alone. Quit your crap hiding behind legitimate people and pulling them into this and smearing them with your reputation. 

You either need to get back on the Ritalin/Adderal/Straterra/etc, or find some other method of self-stimulation other than starting conflict. And for the sake of legitimate research and findings, quit making a joke of it with your posts.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I would bet that more deer die from roadkill than selenium deficiency or malnutrition. The dead deer I see are typically healthy aside from being........well you know.......dead. 

The predation studies are out there for everybody. You can find them yourself. I have posted them on here before. Do your own reading with an open mind instead of what you want to believe and what supports your stance. While nutrition is key it is not the only thing that matters. That has been my stance. If your science doesn't support that I suggest you head back to the lab.

I would love to see the charts that pattern the roadkill on sprayed vs. unsprayed highways. I have Googled for them. I assume they are not on an Etch and Sketch.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Charina said:


> My feelings on the matter? Attempting to discredit half a dozen people? You know nothing of what you speak on now.
> 
> You don't even comprehend what you fail to comprehend, do you? In this thread alone, numerous times you have completely failed to follow from A -> B -> C. Darting off here, assumptions there, incorrect conclusions all over the place, inserting rediculous personal attacks and then accusing others of starting such. You can't even follow a simple topic within a thread, and you expect readers to give you any credit for being competent in relation to what you say you have researched? YOU are the one that subjects yourself to discrediting, and YOU alone. Quit your crap hiding behind legitimate people and pulling them into this and smearing them with your reputation.
> 
> You either need to get back on the Ritalin/Adderal/Straterra/etc, or find some other method of self-stimulation other than starting conflict. And for the sake of legitimate research and findings, quit making a joke of it with your posts.


Supporting citations?

Lets be specific, is it mineral deficiencies? pesticides? their effects?

Lets see your research, and your colleagues?

Seriously, it is a post about deer health. If I am full of **** you should be able to specifically site which part is bull ****.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> I would bet that more deer die from roadkill than selenium deficiency or malnutrition. The dead deer I see are typically healthy aside from being........well you know.......dead.
> 
> The predation studies are out there for everybody. You can find them yourself. I have posted them on here before. Do your own reading with an open mind instead of what you want to believe and what supports your stance. While nutrition is key it is not the only thing that matters. That has been my stance. If your science doesn't support that I suggest you head back to the lab.
> 
> I would love to see the charts that pattern the roadkill on sprayed vs. unsprayed highways. I have Googled for them. I assume they are not on an Etch and Sketch.


So you have collected and necropsied road kill animals? Some researchers have been doing this for 20 years and would disagree with you. You can see a small sample of that here: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/service/wildlife-malforamations/

I have surveyed and studied hundreds of miles of highway in Utah, Idaho, and Montana. Here is a sample of a Utah highway from this spring: http://rutalocura.com/deer http://rutalocura.com/deer2.html

I have never said malnutrition was killing deer, you don't understand the role of "nutrition" in this context, I have tried to explain this, if you don't grasp it, sorry, it is a complex subject. "Nutrition" is a matter of both increased need, and the way in which it limits carrying capacity because of this, and the things that drive this. Which is not simple forage supply, its not about "malnutrition" in a traditional sense.

You have NEVER posted contemporary mule deer predation studies from the Western United States, that support predator removal to increase deer numbers, because they do NOT exist. As usual you have no support for your argument. I and others have posted the studies that show that predation is compensatory, and we have posted the studies that show nutrition has and can increase deer numbers, unlike predator removal, because that is the current science on the matter.

At the bottom of my pages http://rutalocura.com/deer.html there are simple Google Earth images that plot road killed deer and antelope with malformations verses sprayed highway and sprayed power line right of ways.

I will tell you just like Charina, be specific, if there is some bull****, cite it specifically, explain why scientifically it is unfounded. I don't care how you feel about it, your feelings and beliefs have no bearing on the science. Although your feelings and beliefs combined with a lot of others, can and do support scientifically unsound management practices in this state and others.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Two contemporary predator removal studies from the Western United States that were not small, or short term. They show that within recent history, in the Western United States, that removal of predators does not increase mule deer populations.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wmon.4/abstract

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jwmg.126/abstract


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

"Of course, actually, the non-conformist, whether in matters of this sort or any other, is not just the antagonist of the more conforming viewpoint; he may represent something that the conforming person has almost allowed himself to consider and then has set aside. At least, this is sometimes so. As Emerson has put it, “In every work of genius, we recognize our own rejected thoughts.” That is what the non-conformist restores to us–whether we wish it or not: our own rejected thoughts.
"And this is the reason that the non-conformist can make the rest of the people so uncomfortable. It is not because he thinks differently–but because they see that they might, too. And they are afraid of it."


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Selenium supplementation study, that showed a 260% increase in productivity(fecundity) in California black tail deer. Iron bear says its easy to put them on the ground, it is keeping them alive that is hard, yet there is not a thread of science to support this claim.

Predator removal has never been able to demonstrate population increases let alone a 260% increase in productivity.

http://deerlab.org/Publ/pdfs/23.pdf


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Go back and read my post. Once again you have taken things out of context by focusing on the pixels. You side track yourself quite easy.

I have shown reports and studies that show where and when predation has been additive in nature and how excess coyotes can lead to additive predation by mountain lions. The predation by mountain lions and coyotes can be additive in nature and can be dependent and independent of one another. It has happened more than the few times that you continually loosely reference and chances are it is happening as we speak in many areas.

I have never posted a predation removal study that has been effective nor have I claimed to. Although you have even stated that they have been shown to be effective on a small population of antelope in Wyoming if I remember correctly. I have simply stated that many believe that it can be effective if performed the proper way. Finding the proper way would be the key right?

Are all under bites and over bites caused by mineral deficiencies? Can most, if not all, be caused by a recessive gene? Is there an unknown recessive gene that may cause an animal not to absorb and process the needed minerals which in turn lead to the malformations? It may have nothing to do with roadside spraying at all. True or not? I don't have to prove you wrong to show that you can be.

Don't go bashing other peoples theories or thoughts when you and all your superior confidantes are falsifiable as well.

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work" - Thomas A. Edison


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Anybody read the Colorado study, where nutritional supplementation was shown to increase mule deer populations? You know, in much the same way that predator removal has been shown to NOT be able to increase deer numbers in scientific studies.

Maybe you guys have read the study that showed that selenium supplementation stopped bighorn declines in Wyoming, increased productivity, and reduced predation over non supplemented populations?

Or maybe some of you have heard about and/or seen some of the selenium supplemented bucks that have come off the Ogden extended....HHmmmm....I wonder how that happened? I wonder what happens when you remove the supplementation?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Go back and read my post. Once again you have taken things out of context by focusing on the pixels. You side track yourself quite easy.
> 
> I have shown reports and studies that show where and when predation has been additive in nature and how excess coyotes can lead to additive predation by mountain lions. The predation by mountain lions and coyotes can be additive in nature and can be dependent and independent of one another. It has happened more than the few times that you continually loosely reference and chances are it is happening as we speak in many areas.
> 
> ...


Not one, not even 1 citation, just more feelings and beliefs on the matter.

Show where and how predator removal has, and is increasing mule deer numbers in the west. Not what some people might believe. Show us.

No recessive genes, I already explained genes to you, go look it up. It is epigenetic in nature, not genetic. Simple rate of occurrence rules out genetics, it is environmental influences upon genetic expression. Your assertion is NOT true, this has been verified by an geneticist. recessive genes do not show up at these rates, wane, and then show up again at high rates. That is genetics 101 Under bites are caused by disruption of the thyroid. You can see this in humans in the form of cretinism, and later onsets in life with hypothyroidism induced TMJ.

I am not dealing with "theories" here. You are throwing around theories, in an attempt to support beliefs and feelings. You have not studied any of this, you do not grasp the subject matter, even on a basic level.

IF it is falsifiable, show it as such! All you can do is cast doubt, because this is all over your head. But because its me, you can't leave it alone.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mule, If I need to know about concrete, I'll ask you.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Feelings and beliefs: the stuff that PETA and the antis are full of. Then again, maybe it is not just them?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Has anybody seen how much of the power line right of ways have been sprayed on Highway 6 this year?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

You get comments like this from muleskinner: "I would bet that more deer die from roadkill than selenium deficiency or malnutrition"

Does not matter that 90% of big game declines in the Western United states are marked by copper and selenium deficiencies. Muleskinner would rather guess or "bet" as to the reality on the ground. Because that is the only thing that people that do not know the actual subject matter can do..........is guess.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Here is what deer in South East Oregon look like: http://www.huntfishnw.com/index.php?topic=6879.0

Mule deer and antelope there have been in decline since....since.....when was it? Oh yeah, back in the early '90s

All the antelope suffer from copper and selenium deficiency, beginning with and correlating with their declines in the early '90s. This paper: http://www.azgfd.gov/pdfs/w_c/research/antelope_study_plan.pdf discusses declining antelope populations in AZ, and the fact that they are copper and selenium deficient. They declined at the same time. These populations declined by 30%-70% in just a few years. It then references SE Oregon, and Idaho's declining antelope populations, and the copper and selenium deficiencies seen there as well.

Its amazing how I just make this bull**** up isn't it? The hard part is photo shopping all the photos,creating all the unique websites, and getting papers to look official. Do you know how hard it is to plant documents on official state websites? I really like the method of scanning typed papers into PDFs, makes it look authentic and 1990s period. I found an old Remington type writer on Ebay the other day. Wait until you see what I'm going to falsify from the '50s.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Perhaps you could share data on the copper and selenium levels over the last 200 years with a good sample rate? 5 soil samples from a study area is hardly a comprehensive sampling rate, and the report even admits the levels can vary greatly within each individual study area. No conclusion of proof is offered in the study report only the "expectation" that they will find low levels in areas of decline. Hell if I go into a study with a pre determined outcome I can skew the samples and study areas to give the results I want. Reading the report offers no conclusive evidence of a link of low levels consistently across the study areas or that any low levels haven't existed already for many decades.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

LostLouisianian said:


> Perhaps you could share data on the copper and selenium levels over the last 200 years with a good sample rate? 5 soil samples from a study area is hardly a comprehensive sampling rate, and the report even admits the levels can vary greatly within each individual study area. No conclusion of proof is offered in the study report only the "expectation" that they will find low levels in areas of decline. Hell if I go into a study with a pre determined outcome I can skew the samples and study areas to give the results I want. Reading the report offers no conclusive evidence of a link of low levels consistently across the study areas or that any low levels haven't existed already for many decades.


Read it again, it references other studies where the copper and selenium deficiencies are definitive(in wildlife). You are referring to soil selenium levels, not animal selenium levels, those are two very different things.

Then read this: http://deerlab.org/Publ/pdfs/26.pdf
And this: http://deerlab.org/Publ/pdfs/25.pdf English summary, page 183
And this: http://deerlab.org/Publ/pdfs/61.pdf

Here is reference material to Hart mountain Oregon: http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70021454

The Hart mountain study does not take into account things like this: http://deerlab.org/Publ/pdfs/24.pdf And it assumes as you do, that soil availability of Se is a constant, which it is not.

Your 200 year question, is meaningless, because much like mercury, selenium availability is dependent on speciation, ie. the form that the selenium is, or is not available in. Much of this involves the "selenium cycle": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selenium_cycle these cycles can take decades, or like in recent work done here in Utah, it can cycle in 24 hours.

This is still only part of the picture. Bioavailability of selenium is dependent upon ecological conditions, that are not static, PH, soil type, temperature, time of the year, etc. In fact plain old selenium, is completely worthless to animals, where as reduced forms of selenate, or selenite, are readily taken up by animals. So you have a naturally variable amount of selenium in the soil to begin with, that is marginal or low in many areas. Picky browsing of specific plants that are high in selenium(observed and tested), and migration to places with better availability can take care of this.

Now lets add something to the mix, that reduces that availability even further, by influencing the selenium cycle. Say for example something like nitrate levels. Nitrate deposition has been shown to altler the selenium cycle, converting bioavailable selenite, and slenate, into elemental selenium. In this form, it is of no use to animals. So the same amount of selenium still exists in the soil, but it can not be taken up by plants, or used by animals.

And we have not even got into how you can methylate selenium right out of the soil.

That scenario in and of itself is not good, but by itself, it can only account for a part of what we see. You have to look at the biological need of the animals, in regard to micro nutrients. When yo see wildlife malformations, like we have seen over the last 20 years, that correlate to wildlife declines, we also see mineral deficiencies in copper, selenium, zinc, magnesium, chromium, cobalt(B vitamins), etc. The malformations and the mineral deficiencies go hand in hand. And yet while the mineral deficiencies may play into the malformations, possibly even complicating, or creating some varieties of them. These marked deficiencies are not caused solely by the unavailabilty of minerals in forage, that is merely another complicating factor, when it coincides.

Malformations such as under bites are caused by thyroid disruption. Animals including humans with thyroid conditions and diseases, require more micro nutrients than healthy animals. In the case of hypothyroidism, this would include selenium, zinc, and magnesium. In hypothyroid cases these nutrients are used up and depleted rapidly in the conversion of T4 to T3 in the thyroid. In healthy individuals Excess T4 that is not converted into T3 is sent to the liver(shows up as selenium) for use at a later time. It is because of this function that healthy animals can live for long parts of the year in selenium deficient environments.

This is also the reason why serum selenium concentrations and blood selenium concentrations are not the same thing. This is why simple blood tests can not conclusively detect for selenium deficiency, specifically in the case of thyroid disruption, or subclinical deficiencies.

What causes thyroid disruption? Endocrine disruptors like pesticides do.

200 years of selenium numbers? You could calculate the potential selenium availability, across the entire West, for the last 10,000 years, based solely on geology. That won't do you any good, because this is not 6th grade life science material.

I would seriously ask for a refund.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

In other words.........."no he can't"


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> In other words.........."no he can't"


Bingo!!!!!!!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> In other words.........."no he can't"


Because it has nothing to do with a static selenium level in the soil, read the post and the reference material, and get a clue. We went from 6th grade life science to the second grade. 

My time machine is in the shop right now, so going back 200 years, will have to wait until my flux capacitor comes in. in the mean time there is this: http://i2.wp.com/jeffreydachmd.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/MAPSoilSeleniumUnitedStates.jpg

Yep, you guys got got me good, caught me with no way to go back in time 200 years.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Read it, and make a real attempt at scientific debate, that is what can NOT be done here.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

You guys are the equivalent of ****** kids throwing ice cubes at the sun.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

good thing about kids is that they have an open mind. Pay attention you may learn something from them.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Yeah......I'm the guy that is not open minded, keep throwing those ice cubes.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

and you keep staring at the pixels


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

The guy that argues convention, just accused the guy that is proposing what would be considered unconventional, of not being open minded????

Wet brain, is my guess.

Feel free to offer something of substance, that relates to wildlife, at any time.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

don't go making this about me now. This is your show.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Being focused on a pixel would suggest a vary narrow field here. What I am talking about here encompasses the entire Western United states, and has global implications. So yo are looking at what? the universe?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Try to sound it out:

Read it again, it references other studies where the copper and selenium deficiencies are definitive(in wildlife). You are referring to soil selenium levels, not animal selenium levels, those are two very different things.

Then read this: http://deerlab.org/Publ/pdfs/26.pdf
And this: http://deerlab.org/Publ/pdfs/25.pdf English summary, page 183
And this: http://deerlab.org/Publ/pdfs/61.pdf

Here is reference material to Hart mountain Oregon: http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70021454

The Hart mountain study does not take into account things like this: http://deerlab.org/Publ/pdfs/24.pdf And it assumes as you do, that soil availability of Se is a constant, which it is not.

Your 200 year question, is meaningless, because much like mercury, selenium availability is dependent on speciation, ie. the form that the selenium is, or is not available in. Much of this involves the "selenium cycle": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selenium_cycle these cycles can take decades, or like in recent work done here in Utah, it can cycle in 24 hours.

This is still only part of the picture. Bioavailability of selenium is dependent upon ecological conditions, that are not static, PH, soil type, temperature, time of the year, etc. In fact plain old selenium, is completely worthless to animals, where as reduced forms of selenate, or selenite, are readily taken up by animals. So you have a naturally variable amount of selenium in the soil to begin with, that is marginal or low in many areas. Picky browsing of specific plants that are high in selenium(observed and tested), and migration to places with better availability can take care of this.

Now lets add something to the mix, that reduces that availability even further, by influencing the selenium cycle. Say for example something like nitrate levels. Nitrate deposition has been shown to altler the selenium cycle, converting bioavailable selenite, and slenate, into elemental selenium. In this form, it is of no use to animals. So the same amount of selenium still exists in the soil, but it can not be taken up by plants, or used by animals.

And we have not even got into how you can methylate selenium right out of the soil.

That scenario in and of itself is not good, but by itself, it can only account for a part of what we see. You have to look at the biological need of the animals, in regard to micro nutrients. When yo see wildlife malformations, like we have seen over the last 20 years, that correlate to wildlife declines, we also see mineral deficiencies in copper, selenium, zinc, magnesium, chromium, cobalt(B vitamins), etc. The malformations and the mineral deficiencies go hand in hand. And yet while the mineral deficiencies may play into the malformations, possibly even complicating, or creating some varieties of them. These marked deficiencies are not caused solely by the unavailabilty of minerals in forage, that is merely another complicating factor, when it coincides.

Malformations such as under bites are caused by thyroid disruption. Animals including humans with thyroid conditions and diseases, require more micro nutrients than healthy animals. In the case of hypothyroidism, this would include selenium, zinc, and magnesium. In hypothyroid cases these nutrients are used up and depleted rapidly in the conversion of T4 to T3 in the thyroid. In healthy individuals Excess T4 that is not converted into T3 is sent to the liver(shows up as selenium) for use at a later time. It is because of this function that healthy animals can live for long parts of the year in selenium deficient environments.

This is also the reason why serum selenium concentrations and blood selenium concentrations are not the same thing. This is why simple blood tests can not conclusively detect for selenium deficiency, specifically in the case of thyroid disruption, or subclinical deficiencies.

What causes thyroid disruption? Endocrine disruptors like pesticides do.

200 years of selenium numbers? You could calculate the potential selenium availability, across the entire West, for the last 10,000 years, based solely on geology. That won't do you any good, because this is not 6th grade life science material.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I would love to see one person give one link or reference one study that discredits anything Lonetree has argued....JUST ONE!. Until then....you guys disagreeing with him are getting your arses kicked royally and making yourselves look really dumb in the process!


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Once you guys can understand the difference between a guy stating that predation can be and often times is additive in nature versus stating that predator control studies have shown to be effective.........well then you can start keeping score.

Lonetree loves to put words in peoples mouth and take things out of context while surrounding his statement with a bunch of stuff that nobody has disputed to make it look as if they are. Debate 101.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

Here is an interesting story that a friend shared with me.

His son has been suffering with some mental health issues for the last year or so. He showed no signs of problems until after he graduated from high school. For whatever reason, whether it was stress, maturation or whatever he developed some pretty serious depression.

Initially the doc treated him for bi-polar disorder and the meds worked briefly, but then his symtoms indicated more anxiety than bi-polar. Treatment for anxiety worked briefly, but then his sympoms indicated straight depression. Long story short, more than a dozen medication later the doc felt they should remove him from all medications and try a different approach. 

My friends son experienced a number of ear infections as a child and had been exposed to a significant amount of antibiotics. The doc had found that is some similar cases that patients had showed greater improvement via an adjustment in diet. Findings have indicated that often times the those exposed to heavy usage of antibiotics while young somehow have nutrient deficiencies that seem to correlate with mental illness, particularly mood disorders. His son is doing better now although not completely healthy. He has made much more progress under this regimen than any other they tried.

Now, this is all laymans terms and I'm sure there is a lot of missing info, but the point is this, at best, it is unclear what the short and long term impact of exposure to chemicals and compounds are. Nutrition is about much more than availabilty of food sources.

Is it possible that some of these chemicals and compounds are blocking the ability of plants and/or animals to properly process the nutrients they need? If so, this seems like a much bigger restriction to herd health than predators or cars or roads or hunters. 

The big question I struggle with is this...why have deer herds struggled to rebound from the harsh winters of the early 90's? If it was predators, wouldn't they naturally balance at some point as their food source diminished allowing deer herds to rebound. That never happened. We had hard winters pre 90's, often as difficult as what we experienced in the 90's and deer herds always rebounded. What changed?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Dahlmer said:


> Here is an interesting story that a friend shared with me.
> 
> His son has been suffering with some mental health issues for the last year or so. He showed no signs of problems until after he graduated from high school. For whatever reason, whether it was stress, maturation or whatever he developed some pretty serious depression.
> 
> ...


You are following this exactly. Wildlife in general declined across the entire Western United States in the early '90s, not just here. we had a winter that we point to, but not everyone had that severe winter, nor did their decline happen the same year, some were a little before, some were a little after, but the long term results have been much the same.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Once you guys can understand the difference between a guy stating that predation can be and often times is additive in nature versus stating that predator control studies have shown to be effective.........well then you can start keeping score.
> 
> Lonetree loves to put words in peoples mouth and take things out of context while surrounding his statement with a bunch of stuff that nobody has disputed to make it look as if they are. Debate 101.


I did not even see where that ice cube landed.

I have never said predation is not additive at times, in fact I am the one to cite studies that show that it is sometimes. But in the context of the Western United states, mule deer, and lions, coyotes, and bears oh my! It has been shown to be compensatory over and over again. And it is this context which pertains to the conversation at hand. Not weather red fox predation of shrews in England is additive. Or what has played out in enclosure studies, or possible additive predation of white tails down South.

You are ignorant of the subject matter at hand, and you can not demonstrate other wise. But because I am the one presenting it, you can't stop. Keep scratching that itch, it is going to scar eventually.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I fully see your point and there was another thread that I personally went on several long rants about pesticides, herbicides and even fertilizers. I have agreed many times over on the issue including air pollution, acid rain and to an extent even the possibility of global warming. All I have stated is that there are areas and times that predation is additive. I have never claimed that predation control is or has been the answer but I will not completely discount it's use in any and all forms because there is a possibility that the correct method/approach may be found at some point.

While I have never claimed to be a nutrition expert I do understand that it goes a lot deeper than just eating regardless of what somebody claims that I do or do not know. I don't and won't buy into any silver bullet theory that discounts every other tool/method that can or has been used until the proof is inconclusive. 

Some would love to believe that they are the only ones that are on the correct path to a solution when in fact they could run into the same dead end as everybody else. Some would just as soon have everybody else drop what they are pursuing because it hasn't brought the level back to prior numbers. When it boils down to it the fact of the matter is these same people "believe" or "feel" they have the better method. Until the science proves that it is not falsifiable their "feelings" or "beliefs" are no more correct than the next guy that wants to reduce roadkill or limit predation or any other method that they feel warrants the effort.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

"Some would love to believe that they are the only ones that are on the correct path to a solution when in fact they could run into the same dead end as everybody else. "Some would just as soon have everybody else drop what they are pursuing because it hasn't brought the level back to prior numbers. When it boils down to it the fact of the matter is these same people "believe" or "feel" they have the better method. Until the science proves that it is not falsifiable their "feelings" or "beliefs" are no more correct than the next guy that wants to reduce roadkill or limit predation or any other method that they feel warrants the effort." --Muleskinner

Part of what I am talking about goes directly to reducing road kill. The current science on the matter shows that nutrition is THE limiting factor, while current science also bears out that predation is NOT. Not my feelings on the matter, I have laid the case out with sufficient support. And the counter to said sound scientific assessment of what our wildlife is facing, is childish, unsupported, rebuttals supported by nothing but feelings and beliefs from the likes of you.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Lonetree said:


> This is also the reason why serum selenium concentrations and blood selenium concentrations are not the same thing. This is why simple blood tests can not conclusively detect for selenium deficiency, specifically in the case of thyroid disruption, or subclinical deficiencies.
> 
> What causes thyroid disruption? Endocrine disruptors like pesticides do.
> 
> 200 years of selenium numbers? You could calculate the potential selenium availability, across the entire West, for the last 10,000 years, based solely on geology. That won't do you any good, because this is not 6th grade life science material.


So if what you said above is accurate, how is a scientist going to prove this theory of selenium deficiency?

Thyroid disease is actually testable in humans and some domestic animals so that could be a start, however, what was written above, if true, would suggest to me that thyroid disease is a root cause of the problem, not just selenium.

(FWIW, I'm probably every bit as concerned about the effects of pesticides and pharmaceutical hormones being released into the environment as you are. I guess I'm more worried about why all the male fish are turning into girls.)


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Lonetree said:


> "Some would love to believe that they are the only ones that are on the correct path to a solution when in fact they could run into the same dead end as everybody else. "Some would just as soon have everybody else drop what they are pursuing because it hasn't brought the level back to prior numbers. When it boils down to it the fact of the matter is these same people "believe" or "feel" they have the better method. Until the science proves that it is not falsifiable their "feelings" or "beliefs" are no more correct than the next guy that wants to reduce roadkill or limit predation or any other method that they feel warrants the effort." --Muleskinner
> 
> Part of what I am talking about goes directly to reducing road kill. The current science on the matter shows that nutrition is THE limiting factor, while current science also bears out that predation is NOT. Not my feelings on the matter, I have laid the case out with sufficient support. And the counter to said sound scientific assessment of what our wildlife is facing, is childish, unsupported, rebuttals supported by nothing but feelings and beliefs from the likes of you.


sci·ence
ˈsīəns/
_noun_
noun: *science*
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

At one time current sound science stated that the world was flat, man-made flying was impossible and corn did not exist. Today's current sound science can be found at fault tomorrow. Yesterday's failed attempts can later be made effective.

Read through ALL of my post and find where I have said you were wrong. You still don't get what I meant by your bull****. Your mind is like a steel trap when it comes to communication.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Catherder said:


> So if what you said above is accurate, how is a scientist going to prove this theory of selenium deficiency?
> 
> Thyroid disease is actually testable in humans and some domestic animals so that could be a start, however, what was written above, if true, would suggest to me that thyroid disease is a root cause of the problem, not just selenium.
> 
> (FWIW, I'm probably every bit as concerned about the effects of pesticides and pharmaceutical hormones being released into the environment as you are. I guess I'm more worried about why all the male fish are turning into girls.)


Your very, very right that selenium deficiency is not the sole root of the problem. But it has been demonstrated to be a key piece of wildlife declines. It is a commonality across deer, moose, sheep, antelope, and elk. Environmental selenium deficiencies have been documented, and shown to trigger sharp declines in wildlife. In one of these cases the environmental deficiencies had quick on sets, with nitrate deposition driving a conversion of selenite and selenate to elemental selenium, while also feeding fungus' that was methylating selenium out of the soil.

The response in the animals, in this case bighorn sheep, was just as sharp and dramatic, which would say that a deficiency or subclinical deficiency was already present, but why? These sheep during the same time also expressed higher than background rates of leucism and dental malocclusions, neither being caused by selenium deficiency. These sheep had a very definitive differential between serum selenium concentrations, and their blood levels.

So with lots of hind sight, and looking at other related things, it has come to our attention that the winter range these sheep used had been treated multiple times with herbicides.....you know, to help the sheep.

I proposed a pesticide connection around three years ago but abandoned it after not making any head way. This spring when I was looking at "magnesium thirst" in deer, which actually disproves some previous findings from my own selenium deficiency crowd, I walked right into pesticide connection that I was currently contesting to a large degree, with others that were making that connection. You find wildlife declines, you will find certain diseases, malformations, and conditions. These are usually also accompanied by mineral deficiencies. Then all you have to do is look for pesticide use, and it invariably shows up over and over again. Elk and deer in coastal OR and WA, deer in interior WA, deer and moose in UT, Moose in MN, deer in CA, bighorn sheep in WY, and deer in Wyoming in a separate case, the list goes on.

So yes, thyroid disease would be the root problem in many of the cases, complicated by environmental mineral deficiencies, with the cause of that thyroid disease also causing other issues. Such as hypoplasia and cryptorchidism that occur sympatrically, but are not caused by thyroid disease, but by the same things that cause thyroid disruption.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

muleskinner, either prove me wrong, or wait until later when some one else actually does the work and disproves me and all the supporting subject matter. Until then, you are no better than the PETA crowd that support their feelings and beliefs with more feelings and beliefs.

Pointing out the _potential_ that I am wrong, is very different from doing the actual work of disproving me. It only further demonstrates your weird obsession with me, and your ignorance of the subject matter.

Go slop some ****ing mud, and if we have questions on concrete, we will ask you.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

LT how come the deer numbers in the east arent affected by pesticides and sprays? I can guarantee you they spray the crap out of the sides of the roads way more then they do in utah. Ive actually never seen them spray the side of the roads in utah but I see it all the time back east. They also use quite a bit of sprays on the crops they grow back east but dispite all the spraying they can still harvest ten times more whitetails in the smallest state then we can harvest muledeer.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Never mind they dont have lions and they have better forage.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> LT how come the deer numbers in the east arent affected by pesticides and sprays? I can guarantee you they spray the crap out of the sides of the roads way more then they do in utah. Ive actually never seen them spray the side of the roads in utah but I see it all the time back east. They also use quite a bit of sprays on the crops they grow back east but dispite all the spraying they can still harvest ten times more whitetails in the smallest state then we can harvest muledeer.


Go study it, and get back with us. Who says they are not affected? It is not my specialty, but they have declines, and malformations in the East. Everyone thinking that everything is wonderful back east, is just like people saying other Western states have better wildlife and hunting than Utah, there is no context to any of it.

Comparing Eastern, and South Eastern White tails and anything out West or the upper mid West for that matter is beyond apples and oranges.

Better forage you say? HHmmmm, did you answer your own question maybe? They have a lot of bears and coyotes, and they have wolves and lions in the South East.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

This: http://huntdrop.com/drop/big-nose-deer is showing up all over in white tails back East.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Conneticut, Georgia, west Virginia, and North Carolina have all reported white tail declines in at least the last 10 years. 

And I forgot, they have a lot of bobcats back East as well.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Lonetree said:


> muleskinner, either prove me wrong, or wait until later when some one else actually does the work and disproves me and all the supporting subject matter. Until then, you are no better than the PETA crowd that support their feelings and beliefs with more feelings and beliefs.
> 
> Pointing out the _potential_ that I am wrong, is very different from doing the actual work of disproving me. It only further demonstrates your weird obsession with me, and your ignorance of the subject matter.
> 
> Go slop some ****ing mud, and if we have questions on concrete, we will ask you.


Once again you know nothing about me. Once you own this forum I may take your worthless directives into consideration.

Pointing that you could potentially be wrong also points out that I acknowledge that you may be correct. It may in fact be the only problem that exist. I just choose to keep the other doors and possibilities open.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

:mrgreen: ****ing hilarious! 

I hope you are not giving up, you might be so close to successfully waffling towards one possibility, or maybe another?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

nah......I have been a quitter......school or otherwise.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> nah......I have been a quitter......school or otherwise.


That's almost good, I see what you did their with the quitting school thing.

Because of me and a couple other people, you can now leave high school early(one district at least), and get a diploma, by showing proficiency.

Some of it started with me challenging the principle of the alternative high school I had been sent to, to a test. The challenge was that I would get a diploma, without completion of the next 1.5 years of high school, if I did better on a college entrance exam than him. He jumped at it and said sure. By the next day he had backed down, after the counselor gave him a heads up on my test scores.

I left anyway, and never looked back. It is about merit, not pieces of paper, or just going through the paces, or how you _feel_ about it.

Three years later I had my first engineering job(firearms industry), I was up against 18 college graduates.

You could have 20 degrees under your belt, or two like wheezy, and it would not mean anything other than you had them. Because you can not demonstrate merit, or proficiency. This entire thread proves that. You have nice little quotes from the likes of Edison about work, yet always take the path, that requires the least amount of work......Mr. Pot

BTW, it is possible that the theory of relativity may be disproved.......But until someone does the work..........guess what?.......Its just someones feelings and beliefs on it.

You bring this upon yourself.


----------

