# More deer tags expected to be released



## LanceS4803 (Mar 5, 2014)

Interesting article:

http://wildlife.utah.gov/wildlife-news/1619-more-deer-hunting-permits-possible.html


----------



## Blackie6 (Jul 7, 2014)

Maybe I'll draw this year ?


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

When will the trophy crowd come in and start their b*tch*ng?


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

This on the first year of my life that I am not putting in for GS Deer. Its all good, I just bought a point and will go hunting deer next year.


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

They need to cut tags hunting sucks, can't find a 200" buck from my truck


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

*"Why are deer doing so well?*
Shannon says several factors have combined to help Utah's deer herds:


At the top of the list are mild winters that have allowed deer to survive until the following spring.
The DWR and its partners have conducted many long-term habitat projects. Those projects are starting to pay off by providing deer with better habitat.
Highway fencing, underpasses that allow deer to cross safely under roads, predator control and other management actions are helping too.
 "We're really excited," Shannon says. "Utah's deer herds are in the best shape they've been in since the early 1990s." "

Complete and utter BS........

They forgot the actual reason the deer population HAD BEEN increasing not only in Utah but in other Western states as well.........The great recession. Enjoy the bump while its here, it won't last.

The DWR does not know why deer populations increase or decline. If they can tell us why they have increased moderately, then they should be able to tell us why they have decreased dramatically over the last 40 years.

The story will be very different a few years from now. If the DWR knew how to increase deer, they would not be talking about possible tag increases, they would talking FIVE YEAR plans based on 3 generation mule deer biology, with solid tag increases.

The simple truth of the matter is that our "wildlife professionals" DO NOT know what has been driving big game numbers for decades.

Edit: None of the reasons that get cited for the last 40 years of declines have changed, and mild winters are the only thing that can account for West wide increases, the rest is just spin.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy (Nov 14, 2008)

Lonetree said:


> *"Why are deer doing so well?*
> Shannon says several factors have combined to help Utah's deer herds:
> 
> 
> ...


You're one of those people who would bitch about litter if you found $100 bill. Be happy. WHATEVER the reason things are looking up.

p.s There is no Santa Clause


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

berrysblaster said:


> They need to cut tags hunting sucks, can't find a 200" buck from my truck


Take a ride on the west side of SLC valley :mrgreen:

-DallanC


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Dukes_Daddy said:


> You're one of those people who would bitch about litter if you found $100 bill. Be happy. WHATEVER the reason things are looking up.
> 
> p.s There is no Santa Clause


Things WERE looking up, and it is a moderate bump. The things driving the bump have reversed, so we are know building for a crash.

That's one of the problems with managing for buck to doe ratios, we are managing for crashes, by several different means.

Things are no where near as good as they were in the early '90s, which was a declining number from 20 years before that. There are still herds that used to number 600-700 animals that are ~150 animals.

There is a wealth of data and information on the symptoms of the last 40 years of declines, but our "wildlife professionals" don't seem to know what they are looking at, and the politicians don't have the integrity to even begin to look.

More than half of what is being claimed as "good" and part of a recovery, ie. higher buck to doe ratios and habitat improvements, are actually symptoms of declines to come, or a cause of those impending declines. But I'm supposed to listen to a guy like you, that knows even less about this than the people making those claims?

We are repeating all the same mistakes that brought us the last 40 years of declines, while patting ourselves on the back. That is blind faith in suicide, so don't lecture me about Santa Claus, while you blindly run with the other lemmings........"look mom, all the cool kids are doing it!"

Have you ever conducted any mule deer research? Have you ever dissected one for medical purposes, or looked at the results of 1000 other necropsies of the last 20 years. Have you conducted blind feed trials, or worked with other researches that have been looking at some of this for over 30 years? Have you burned $4000 a year in fuel covering your study sites? **** no you haven't, you are just some uninformed guy on the internet blindly complaining about my informed complaints. As usual, you have no footing.


----------



## Skally (Apr 20, 2012)

Lonetree said:


> Dukes_Daddy said:
> 
> 
> > You're one of those people who would bitch about litter if you found $100 bill. Be happy. WHATEVER the reason things are looking up.
> ...


So what's the solution? You seem to know all the problems. But don't ever seem to offer a solution


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Recommendations that caught my eye:

About 5,000 more buck deer tags between GS and LE. 

About 2,000 less cow elk tags given across the state. 

About 100 moe LE bull elk tags. (I wonder which unit(s) getting the increase???) 

Bison tags decreased, even though they opened the Book Cliffs...the overall tags are still decreasing. 

I am interested to see the final allocations by unit.


----------



## willfish4food (Jul 14, 2009)

Can someone tell me about unit 8a that they mention? I see unit 8 but no 8a. Also, the "High-country buck deer" hunt they are talking about. How would that work since we already applied? It sounds like a hunt I could get on board with, but I've already applied to a different unit.

Edit: Never mind. Didn't notice it's an LE hunt.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Yep, it's one of the new LE hunts. Really interested to see how many tags each of the late season ML hunts get on the general units. And interested to see how many points it takes to draw them. 

It will probably take 2-3 years of drawing to balance them out.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Skally said:


> So what's the solution? You seem to know all the problems. But don't ever seem to offer a solution


 You need to be more specific. The solution to the problem of declining numbers? Why its not good to manage by buck to doe ratios? Why "habitat improvements" are part of the problem? How big money "conservation" orgs have become anti hunting and drive that same agenda within the DWR? How it relates to Moose, antelope, or big horn sheep? Why we should be forecasting on a 5 year cycle? Or how that corresponds to three generation cause and effect mule deer biology?

First step to any of this would be to apply actual science that corresponds to the on the ground ecological reality of mule deer biology. Not twisting the current conditions to try to fit the PR spin that is being used to cover up the fact that the DWR does not have a clue how to "manage" based on ecological or biological realities.

You have to start with an understanding of what has driven the last 40 years of declines. If you don't know what drives your numbers, you can't "manage" accordingly.

I have some examples here: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/education/ Not all of them are filled in, and I have 30 more to flesh out more fully, as I find the time.

You find what has driven the declines in numbers, and then you can start to work on reversing that, and manage based on a real understanding, rather than speculation and PR spin.

We have a cyclic bio chemistry problem, that leads to generational medical problems, driven by bad science, and a lack of applicable, ecologically, and biologically sound management. Much of the management/solutions are the problem.

What is your solution again? Mine is to apply actual ecological conservation based on science. That is to not kill more deer in the process of using the same old failed "conservation" techniques that brought us all the declines in the first place.

One word on a majority of large(30%-70%) declines over the last 20 years.......Pesticides...........We are seeing a bump in big game numbers because the great recession curbed a lot of pesticide use, and "habitat improvements". But just like with the economic recovery of the late '80s early '90s, we are seeing a rapid expansion of use again, and what will ultimately be the further decline of our wildlife and hunting because of the fall out of these scientifically unsound practices.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> *"Why are deer doing so well?*
> Shannon says several factors have combined to help Utah's deer herds:
> 
> 
> ...


I am curious what you mean by "The Great Recession" being the biggest culprit?


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> ................................
> 
> We are repeating all the same mistakes that brought us the last 40 years of declines, while patting ourselves on the back. That is blind faith in suicide, so don't lecture me about Santa Claus, while you blindly run with the other lemmings........"look mom, all the cool kids are doing it!"
> 
> ......................................


Oh...Santa "Claus", not Santa "Clause". Gawd, I thought some DNR document had a Santa clause in it.

The Utah deer thing is complicated but I'm confident we will sort it all out here on the UWN.

thanks

.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

jahan said:


> I am curious what you mean by "The Great Recession" being the biggest culprit?


Deer numbers started to climb synchronously with the economic down turn.

Having already been looking at things like herbicide use on wintering ranges, and other "habitat improvements" that utilized herbicides, we found a pattern. As economic conditions decline, along with tax revenue, so does the use and scale of use of herbicides in non farm applications. This would include power line and pipe line spraying, "habitat projects", irrigation canals, road side spraying, etc.

So as herbicide use declined in those areas with the falling economy, you see a corresponding increase in wildlife numbers. Which also makes more apparent those cases where herbicides did get used outside of this pattern, or were continued to be used.

You see a very similar economic and fire pattern in the '80s. Lower herbicide use in the early 1980s allowed for a relatively quick recovery of deer after the huge '83/'84 winter. A sluggish economy followed the late '80s, along with massive wildfires. By ~'89 as the economy started to improve, the use of herbicides skyrocketed across the West, much of it very targeted on wildfire areas, reinvestment in infrastructure(power lines and pipelines), and "habitat improvements".

So when the winter of '93 rolled around, we were primed for a major die off. The winter of '93 was nothing compared to the winter of '83, yet the wildlife did not rebound after the early '90s mortality, because deer and other wildlife were facing new problems, they had not dealt with before. Specifically the fall out of pesticide use, that induces a myriad of diseases, symptoms, and reproductive problems. These are many, and depend on the specific pesticides being used.

We are now repeating that same pattern in a hurried frenzy. With the economy improving and tax revenue increasing, we have piled on with massive herbicide use since ~2011. This includes power lines, pipelines, road side spraying, and "habitat improvements", along with shifting practices in irrigation systems. It is many many square miles of treated area, across the West, with much of it targeted directly on winter ranges, and other wildlife habitat. All the power line spraying and clearing, and pipeline construction also create new migration routes that did not exist prior, and draw wildlife into those treated areas as well.

You take a look across the West, over the last 20 years, and you see the same thing over and over again. Large declines, sub par recoveries, and medical problems not seen on a large scale prior. The symptoms of which include mineral deficiencies, skewed sex ratios, suppressed reproduction, migratory changes, etc.

All of which can be explained on a case by case basis by the use of herbicides. Examples here: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/education/

In the following chart you plug in different pesticides in the "Pesticide Exposure" slot, and you see how the affects of that pesticide exposure on wildlife plays out. These conditions have been documented over and over again in wildlife over the last 20 years. It looks like 100 different issues, casued by 100 different things, when it is really 100 symptoms caused by a couple of things across multiple species.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

wyogoob said:


> Oh...Santa "Claus", not Santa "Clause". Gawd, I thought some DNR document had a Santa clause in it.
> 
> The Utah deer thing is complicated but I'm confident we will sort it all out here on the UWN.
> 
> ...


Whats this "WE will sort it all out"? About the only help I'm getting is with spelling, and that's not where the problem is. But thanks for your two cents, change for a pound.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Hey Lone,

Just curious, your chart just states "Pesticide Exposure". What does this mean? There are many types of pesticides. What specific chemicals does this data encompass? Malathion and Glyphosate are both 'pesticides' but they are very different.-------SS


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> Whats this "WE will sort it all out"? About the only help I'm getting is with spelling, and that's not where the problem is. But thanks for your two cents, change for a pound.


Hey, any time. It's a "Moderating" thing. The *Green Guys* are honing up their moderating skills, practicing, preparing, for the 2016 elections.

rattle on



.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Springville Shooter said:


> Hey Lone,
> 
> Just curious, your chart just states "Pesticide Exposure". What does this mean? There are many types of pesticides. What specific chemicals does this data encompass? Malathion and Glyphosate are both 'pesticides' but they are very different.-------SS


Glyph and Malathion are in fact very different, one being a herbicide, and the other being an insecticide, yet they are both organophosphates. And while other results will vary, both of them, along with 2,4-D have been tied to Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. I have seen volumes of necropsy documentation that show deer have been suffering from lymphoma on a large scale for the last 20 years.

So, when you put two different pesticides in the exposure slots, you get two different results. But the the results will be very similar, even related, which certainly complicates things.

So if you plug in the insecticide Dimilin, an insecticide used for grasshoppers, you will jump down the course of Diabetes/insulin resistance. This will play out in deer like this: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/service/10-lander-wy/ You see laminitis, retained velvet(undescended testicles), poor coats, mineral deficiencies, low production, and non breeding bucks.

Plug in the combination of 2,4-D and Dicamba and you get this: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/service/11-whiskey-mountain-wy/ It takes you down the course of Hypothyroidism. It looks different for a couple of reasons, one being a different pesticide, and the other being that we are talking about sheep rather than deer, yet there are many similarities. Reduced numbers, low fecundity, mineral deficiencies, and a difference it the way males are affected verses females, including skewed sex ratios towards males.

In the two before mentioned cases, the researches looking at both of these cases had worked together, and saw the similarities in the cases, but not the commonality. That is the problem when looking at these cases, the exposure may have occurred several years prior, in another area, is ongoing but unknown to the researcher, etc. You don't spray pesticides, and then the deer just tip over in mass the next day. If that were the case someone would have put the pieces together along time ago.

Instead, there is a multigenerational affect that plays out over time and space, and is marked by symptoms that wildlife biology has not kept up with. Overcoming the biology deficiency, with better veterinary science, solved for a few variables, but even that will only take you so far. Veterinary medicine is quite behind what is known, and being learned on the front of autoimmune diseases and metabolic disorders, which is what we are looking at. There are not any deer endocrinologists that I am aware of.

You look at declines of antelope in OR, or deer in MT, or sheep in WY, or moose in UT, or black tails in CA, etc. etc. over the last 20 years and you see specific things over and over again. None of these things can be explained by anything in a WAFWA pamphlet. Even though mineral deficiencies are mentioned, they are thought to be enviromental and primary when they are in fact enviromental, but secondary. Its not so much a lack of minerals in the feed, but secondary mineral deficiencies brought on by metabolic disorders caused by pesticides. This is then exacerbated by other conditions of primary mineral deficiencies in feed under other enviromental factors, that normally would not be so much of a concern.

You have to be able to account for the ecological and biological factors documented across the West, over multiple species, over the last 20 years, that correlate to the wide spread declines seen, in order to be able to formulate any conservation plan that can counter those declines. With out that understanding, your just pissing in the wind, hoping you don't spray yourself. And Utah is just like every other Western state, covered in their own piss, saying "We meant to do that".


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

wyogoob said:


> Hey, any time. It's a "Moderating" thing. The *Green Guys* are honing up their moderating skills, practicing, preparing, for the 2016 elections.
> 
> rattle on
> 
> ...


At least you heard the rattle......


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

So we just need the economy to crash again and we're good?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

TS30 said:


> So we just need the economy to crash again and we're good?


You could go about it that way, sounds just about as logical as the current path we are on, just a better outcome for wildlife and hunters.

Applied science maybe? Nnaaahhhh! that's too hard, and only wildlife and average Joe hunters will benefit from that. And that's not the goal, now is it?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Okay, I'll go the positive route instead of the negative one. Say we successful get organizations to stop using large amounts of pesticides in wildlife range and wintering grounds. 

We're good to go? No more need to worry about the impending crash?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

TS30 said:


> Okay, I'll go the positive route instead of the negative one. Say we successful get organizations to stop using large amounts of pesticides in wildlife range and wintering grounds.
> 
> We're good to go? No more need to worry about the impending crash?


No, we won't be good across the board. Much of it is already set in motion, but we can forestall any more. The greater travesty of not understanding this, and altering what we are doing, is that we will just keep repeating it. Given the current trajectory, that could easily mean extirpation of several more big horn sheep herds, and a continued decline of mule deer.

To not see and understand this in real time in the '70s or early '90s is not a huge surprise. I watched our local deer grow crazy cactus racks, while the buck to doe ratios increased, and the population stagnated. I then watched it collapse after the winter of '93, from several hundred deer, to around one hundred, and then never rebound. I did not know back then what was being put in the irrigation water that all those deer drank. I did not know how the use of herbicides along the dirt roads that these deer wintered on, could affect them. Everyone said it was a hard winter, and it was, so that's why the deer died, right? And yes, that is part of it, but why no real rebound after the hard winter?, they had seen worse winters.

To not be able to see and understand it now, with hind sight being 20/20, is much harder to grasp.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Where I grew up the only winter worse than 93 was 83.


-DallanC


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

DallanC said:


> Where I grew up the only winter worse than 93 was 83.
> 
> -DallanC


And the deer bounced back from '83 way better than they did from '93. A lot has never recovered from the early '90s. One winter does not have the power to suppress herds across multiple states for two decades after the fact, unless something else is at play. The '93 winter was just the trigger, or rather the straw that broke the camels back. We are in a very similar situation as to what led up to '93.


----------



## redleg (Dec 5, 2007)

If Diflubenzuron is causing testicular atrophy and poor reproduction then we are not seeing does followed by twins? If it causes diabetes, hoof diseases or other malformations, then deer are dying and we see bodies lying around?
I was around in the 60s and 70s, when the deer were plentiful. Pesticides were less regulated. (Remember DDT, Diazinon and poison traps for coyotes?) What I remember about those days was that shooting cougars and bears was unregulated. And I remember compound 1080 and strychnine pesticide being used to control predators.
If cougars each kill 50 deer a year and we have 2500 cougars then we are loosing 125,000 deer a year. 98,000 deer hunters with a 40% success rate will take 39,200 deer. And how many are taken by coyotes?


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Hey Lone,

Is the theory that the problem is caused by direct ingestion of treated vegetation or is it more of a cumulative result impacted by nutrient changes in the soil and forage? I ask because of the granitic soil qualifier on your chart. Probably not as simple as adding something that would deter animals from browsing in treated areas?-------SS


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

I just noticed that our bony fish mascot is sporting a huge overbite like some of the pictures on Lonetree's link. Fess up mods, who's been using pesticide on the forum?? My money is on Huge.....always trying to be rid of the pests.:mrgreen:--------SS

Please excuse my tasteless attempt at jest among the serious stuff.....back to business.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

40 years of decline ????
In 1978 I saw 6 does the whole rifle hunt. (I must have been a lousy hunter)
In 1980 I took 2nd place in a "big buck" contest with a 15" 4x3. (18 guys) Now I would get laughed out of camp with that.
For several years there was NO bow hunt south of Hwy 20, and NO muzzle hunt as well.
Had a shortened rifle hunt as well in what is now known as the Zion unit. 
Now we pass up bucks we would have been thrilled to get even a few years ago.
I'm not a trophy only hunter, or a great hunter by any means. I just like to be out and about..............I like hanging out with family and friends. 
But, I have taken 3 of my 4 of my best bucks the last 5 years. 
In my humble opinion It is the best I have seen in my lifetime, and I ain't young !!!


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

2full said:


> 40 years of decline ????
> In 1978 I saw 6 does the whole rifle hunt. (I must have been a lousy hunter)
> In 1980 I took 2nd place in a "big buck" contest with a 15" 4x3. (18 guys) Now I would get laughed out of camp with that.
> For several years there was NO bow hunt south of I-70, and NO muzzle hunt as well.
> ...


I'm probably a bit younger than you, 2 full (just turned 31), but I have to agree about the hunting in our area being a lot better in recent years. In the last 5 years I have killed my 3 biggest bucks and helped my wife kill her 2 best bucks by far. I never saw bucks like these back during my teenage years in the late 90s early 2000s. Back in those days a 20 inch 3 or 4 point was about as good as it got. I remember being so jealous of my brother back in 2000 when he shot a 160 inch 4x5. Bucks like that barely get us excited anymore! My 55 year old dad said when he was in high school he really had to hunt his butt off just to find a yearling fork horn to shoot.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

redleg said:


> If Diflubenzuron is causing testicular atrophy and poor reproduction then we are not seeing does followed by twins? If it causes diabetes, hoof diseases or other malformations, then deer are dying and we see bodies lying around?
> I was around in the 60s and 70s, when the deer were plentiful. Pesticides were less regulated. (Remember DDT, Diazinon and poison traps for coyotes?) What I remember about those days was that shooting cougars and bears was unregulated. And I remember compound 1080 and strychnine pesticide being used to control predators.
> If cougars each kill 50 deer a year and we have 2500 cougars then we are loosing 125,000 deer a year. 98,000 deer hunters with a 40% success rate will take 39,200 deer. And how many are taken by coyotes?


 DDT has been banned since '74, and they still find its metabolites in the fat of deer. We had way more lions back then, than we have know. Everyone has there own recollection of the past, that's fine, but how does it square with the real numbers? In 1976 the were holding West wide conferences about the steep decline in mule deer numbers, Diflubenzuron did not even exist yet, and no one was going to mix 2,4-D with Dicamba for another 20 years. In the '50s and '60s deer numbers were at their height, not the '70s and '80s, the hunting was either sex, and additional doe tags were available, this was in every Western state. This was to try to reduce high deer numbers. By the mid '70s it was buck only, and no one had an answer for why the deer numbers were in free fall. The trend line has been down or flat since then.

So, yes there has been an increase in recent years, synchronous to the economic down turn, which corresponds to reduced herbicide use. So it takes time for the reduced use to have a positive effect, which is what we are seeing now. But even with the increase, and favorable condition, many herds are still predisposed to additional exposure or triggers like harsh weather. We don't know the full consequences of this yet. But, yes we have seen an increase in deer, not a recovery, a moderate increase. I grew up hunting large areas of Northern Utah, even the best areas are half what they were in the 1980s. Some of these areas are within sight of our homes, and have been hunted and watched since the 1930s, I know what it used to be like.

The impending crash: We have had a huge increase in the use of herbicides since 2011, habitat projects, pipelines, power lines, road spraying(county and state). So, again this will take time to play out, here is what road spraying from 2013-2014 looks like in dead deer: http://rutalocura.com/deer I have more, just no time to get it on the web. I pick up and look at dead deer all the time. I just got a box of skulls from MT to look at.

I will post the 1976 mule deer symposium when I get on another computer in a bit. The increase we are seeing now is not recovery, only an increase from a stagnant low. And the higher buck to doe ratios are not healthy for the herds.

Edit: Just to clarify, No one is saying that Diflubenzuron is being used in Utah right now. But you can clearly see the results of where is was used in 2006 and 2010: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/service/10-lander-wy/

We are still somewhat early in some of this, many areas have not seen treatments in over 10 years, and look exceptional. Others are still just shadows of their former glory. Its the big trends that matter overall.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Here is the link to the 1976 Symposium on mule deer declines: http://rutalocura.com/files/1976-Mule_Deer_Decline_in_the_West.pdf

"The cause, or causes, for the reduction was not clearly understood or even defined in many cases. Such influences as predation, competition, weather, disease, habitat changes, and nutrition were suspected causes. Perhaps the main cause of the decline has not been discussed and will need to wait for further research."

Everyone is still tossing around the same information and ideas 40 years later, even though much of it has been disproven. Fire, cattle, sheep, predators, competition, etc. Its all the same dizzy kids on the same merry go round going no where.

The declines of the last 20 years are marked by very specific symptoms, ie. mineral deficiencies, and a range of other medical conditions that typically get ignored by biologist these days, but were documented in many places when they first showed up out of the norm first in the 1970s, and again in mass in the 1990s. You can find reports of under bites in wildlfie documents from CA and MI from the 1970s, these are for more than just deer. They were noted because they were showing up in large numbers and not seen before. Ask a biologist these days what a malocclusion is, or if they have seen one, and you get a blank ****ing stare.

If you can't explain the observed mineral deficiencies, cactus bucks, laminitis, and other medical conditions that have marked the last 20 years of flat and declining numbers of big game across the West, then you don't have anything. These are not just things seen by me and a few other people. We are talking about science conducted by hundreds of biologist and wildlife researchers across the entire West, over the last 30 years......it is the reality on the ground so to speak.

So when some one can explain those things with cattle, sheep, fire, competition, predation, tag numbers, etc. Then maybe you have something, until then it is a complete logical disconnect.

You also then need to be able to work population increases into your model as well, its a two way street.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Springville Shooter said:


> Hey Lone,
> 
> Is the theory that the problem is caused by direct ingestion of treated vegetation or is it more of a cumulative result impacted by nutrient changes in the soil and forage? I ask because of the granitic soil qualifier on your chart. Probably not as simple as adding something that would deter animals from browsing in treated areas?-------SS


Direct ingestion is the biggest, which is why targeted use in "habitat projects" is some of the worst. This is through both eating recently treated foliage, and eating foliage that has taken up remaining herbicides from the soil, or decaying plant matter. This secondary ingestion through untreated foliage depends on the kind of herbicide used, and other factors, such as soil make up.

Soil and nutrient degradation are secondary, but still significant. Mycorrhizae fungus for example attaches itself to the roots of plants and makes nutrient uptake more efficient. In some cases it makes some nutrients available that would other wise not be available. Herbicides have been shown to be very detrimental to these fungi while other fungi that can actually deplete nutrients are herbicide resistant, or even grow in the presence of herbicides, this goes for bacteria as well.

Granitic soil plays into this a couple ways, and includes any other crystalline rock and soil composed of these types of rocks. The main factor is the ability to buffer acid. This has a role in the break down of herbicides, and also in the break down and buffering of things like nitrates(acid rain) that play into this. Herbicides stick around longer in granitic soils. The correlation between cactus bucks and granitic soil has been known for decades, just not the why.

Nitrate deposition(acid rain) has a similar affect on fungi and nutrient uptake as herbicide use, and also works synergistically to compound the problem. This plays out not only in the soil, and in the plants, but in the rumen of an animal as well. You basically have the same thing going on in the rumen, as you have going on in the soil. You have flora and fauna that break down and extract nutrients. Herbicides create a double whammy by unbalancing both of these ecology's. In both cases the good stuff is destroyed while the bad stuff continues on. This is the roots of mineral deficiencies in animals, that are ultimately primary deficiencies brought on by metabolic and wasting disorders. The plant issues are secondary, and compound the primary problem. All of which is worse on granitic soil, in the presence of nitrates.

Nitrates also play a role in inducing metabolic disorders such as hypothyroidism and diabetes. The chart is missing a link from nitrates to diabetes.

You take herbicide exposed animals that are suffering subclinically, and place them in an environment where nitrates are introduced on granitic soil and you just placed the one millionths straw on their back. I have not even got into the use of fertilizers on wildlife habitat and forests, in conjunction with herbicides.

As for keep animals out of an area that is treated, it is called fencing it for 5 years. Animals are drawn to treated foliage over a long period of time, depending on what was used. Some are more palatable for two weeks after the initial spraying, while some plants become like candy to animals months after being sprayed. I say candy, because in the case of auxin mimics like 2,4-D it quite literally has to do with sugar production or "ripening" of plants months after being sprayed.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Like I said, from AZ to ID and CA to NE big game have seen sharp declines since the early 1990s. This was accompanied by copper and selenium deficiencies, and a whole host of other associated medical conditions, in EVERY Western state. This has been documented by hundreds of biologist and researchers. 

If your explanation for the declines, or your subsequent management plan does not acknowledge these realities, its based on fiction and feelings, not science. If you don't know how the past brought you to the present, you can not navigate the future. By default, the past will become prologue whether you know it, or want it to be, or not. In this case, that means more declining wildlife. The ramifications of which range from lost hunting opportunity, to animals being placed on the endangered species list, and everything that goes with that. This is about more than just deer. 

The current regime of making up BS management plans based on nothing but feelings and conjecture as we go, is the work of politicians, and con men. The results of which, by design, or happenstance, can be described only as anti hunting.


----------



## mack1950 (Sep 11, 2007)

im a bit confused just because we have a modest increase in the overall population do the biologist think we should increase the buck permits its like finding a few dollars laying about and running out to Wendover to blow it, would it be a lot wiser to study this situation for a couple more years to see if its just a fluke are if the herds are getting better. I have seen more deer and bucks are looking better but we have just come of 2 of the mildest winters I can remember. sad to say its not about opportunity I m afraid its just a way to get more money from the hunting public.


----------



## redleg (Dec 5, 2007)

Get rid of the cougars and coyotes (and keep the wolves out) and the DWR will be selling 2-doe tags and including a buck tag with every archery, muzzleloader and rifle tag, to control the deer population.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

mack1950 said:


> im a bit confused just because we have a modest increase in the overall population do the biologist think we should increase the buck permits its like finding a few dollars laying about and running out to Wendover to blow it, would it be a lot wiser to study this situation for a couple more years to see if its just a fluke are if the herds are getting better. I have seen more deer and bucks are looking better but we have just come of 2 of the mildest winters I can remember. sad to say its not about opportunity I m afraid its just a way to get more money from the hunting public.


Tags were cut when we went to 30 units under Option 2 in 2011. They are adding back tags that never should have been cut in the first place.

And according to the DWR "We're really excited," Shannon says. "Utah's deer herds are in the best shape they've been in since the early 1990s."

I'm just wondering if that is '92 or '94. Because if it is that good, then we should have tag levels from from before 1995.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

redleg said:


> Get rid of the cougars and coyotes (and keep the wolves out) and the DWR will be selling 2-doe tags and including a buck tag with every archery, muzzleloader and rifle tag, to control the deer population.


That would be great, except that it won't work. Its been tried, study after study has shown this over and over again. Predation is not the limiting factor of mule deer. In the last 30 years there have been two studies that have shown increases in deer, and neither involved predation.

The first was conducted in California in the 1980s: http://deerlab.org/Publ/pdfs/23.pdf which showed that declining black tailed deer that were supplemented with selenium, increased fawn production by over 200%. This was done after it was determined that these deer were selenium deficient. Which has been seen since in every declining big game animal across the West. How does predation cause that?

The second study was conducted in Colorado in the 2000s: http://www.upproject.org/education/gjtalks/CJ Bishop Dissertation_certified.pdf This study showed that supplemental feeding increased mule deer production and survival. Supplemental feeding has been shown to reduce predation, independent of predator control.

And my study that so far has shown that selenium supplementation can increase mule deer numbers, and grow huge racks. Because of the way it was done, we'll see the full results in about 3 years. Supplementation has been halted, and the decline is in effect.

Predator control has not been shown to be capable of increasing deer numbers. Which means that predation is not the limiting factor, but that the limiting factor is related to nutrition. If predation was the limiting factor, then removing predators would increase deer populations, like I said, its been tried, and has not been shown to increase deer.

Tell me again the part about how in the '80s and '90s, deer, bighorn sheep, moose, and antelope declined in every Western state, and exhibited copper and selenium deficiencies as they declined...............specifically the part where lions and coyotes cause this.............right at the same time that lion numbers decreased across the West............the math doesn't work, you can't divide by 0.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Lonetree,
you want to gain peoples respect and interest. I expect you and your followers to be at every RAC and Wildlife Board meeting in the next couple years presenting your info. and begging them to look over your info./data and see if they are willing to make some changes.

As for the OP, I'm excited for the upcoming season and to see those with tags having one of the best deer hunts in many, many years.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

ridgetop said:


> Lonetree,
> you want to gain peoples respect and interest. I expect you and your followers to be at every RAC and Wildlife Board meeting in the next couple years presenting your info. and begging them to look over your info./data and see if they are willing to make some changes.
> 
> As for the OP, I'm excited for the upcoming season and to see those with tags having one of the best deer hunts in many, many years.


 There in lies part of the problem with scientific management, and the way we make policy here in Utah. The RACs and WB are set up between the people and agency biologists. Ultimately the biologists need to be making the scientific decisions and recommendations.

I'm working on a presentation for people on the RACs and WB, but it will take time. I have other responsibilities, I don't pull down 50k a year from the selling off of public trust. I run a privately funded business, consult for others, and have my kids 25-30 hours a week while my wife works as well.

I used to attend all the public mule deer meetings I could, and was engaging a couple of DWR biologists on this several years ago, in the infancy of looking at this. When you have them cornered at a meet and greet or some where else, its one thing, but I have never had a phone call or email returned. I believe I was told by one biologist I would have to wait because deer numbers were rising. This was at a meeting for cutting deer tags. I have engaged several conservation and wildlife orgs, in several states, on the subject as well, mostly just silence from the majority of them.

I have far more traction on this in other states, with other people than I do here. WA state hunters were turning out in the hundreds at their public meetings on these issues, Utah still has their head in the sand, like with everything else. All of the wildlife professionals I am engaged with on this are from ID, WY, MT, WA, OR, and foreign countries. And they all have their own thing going on as well, which is not Utah mule deer.

I am, have been, and will continue to do the work on this. But the current consensus among some is that litigation and a route through the USFWS is the only way to get this done. The states simply do not have the interest of wildlife and hunters front and center. It is just a self perpetuating cluster **** of special interests and state employee fiefdoms, sans any reality based science. We the people of the state of Utah employ people to do this work, they are not doing it. And rising numbers, that they did not bring on, are no excuse for ignoring the ecological and biological realities of what is facing our mule deer, bighorn sheep, antelope and elk. I'm not hearing anyone cheer about the moose numbers, or the bighorn die offs? And no one seems very excited about sage grouse going on the endangered species list.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> There in lies part of the problem with scientific management, and the way we make policy here in Utah. The RACs and WB are set up between the people and agency biologists. Ultimately the biologists need to be making the scientific decisions and recommendations.
> 
> I'm working on a presentation for people on the RACs and WB, but it will take time. I have other responsibilities, I don't pull down 50k a year from the selling off of public trust. I run a privately funded business, consult for others, and have my kids 25-30 hours a week while my wife works as well.
> 
> ...


You need to be contacting "all" of the Biologists, committee and board members right now, not just a couple. Which was a couple years ago.
You seem to have plenty of time to run around checking mineral licks and dead deer on the side of the highways but no time to contact those that can make a difference. WOW!:shock:
Good luck finding a good spokesperson.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

I'm just curious and then I'll slide back into obscurity and the shadows of UWN....

Lonetree,

How is it that you are studying mule deer in Utah with any substantive data being extracted without cooperation of the division? Its clear you think your data and "selenium" hypothesis is FAR superior to any collective mass of biologists data and theory that actually work for or with the division. Yet, how many living samples of blood, tissue, chemical analasys, or control observations have you made on wild deer to support anything you're claiming? I'm quite sure that in Utah, in order to trap a live deer you need a permit or it constitutes harassment of wildlife. You're generalizing data from other states to apply it to Utah in an attempt to discredit the division and establish yourself as the premier source for all things mule deer management yet, I fail to see, as ridgetop points out, a presence of your minions at the RAC's and WB meetings or find anything published that supports your claims here in Utah. When was the last time you attended and spoke at either a RAC or WB meeting? I know first hand that bitching and whining about management practices does absolutely NOTHING to help wildlife in Utah. Alienating and degrading those you presume are not as smart are you isn't an effective method for garnering support in your cause either. Speaking of which, what is your cause? What purpose does your group serve in the scheme of things because if you intend to alter management and biology practices (I personally have no idea what direction you are going) I would be inclined to support any group enabling real scientific management in Utah. 

Last thought before I surrender the thread back to your omnipotence....

More tags = :thumb::rockon:


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Intelligence can be a curse......it often seems that we don't have enough brain power to support advanced analytical skills and any sort of social skills. Maybe someone should study this phenomenon? -------SS


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

ridgetop said:


> You need to be contacting "all" of the Biologists, committee and board members right now, not just a couple. Which was a couple years ago.
> You seem to have plenty of time to run around checking mineral licks and dead deer on the side of the highways but no time to contact those that can make a difference. WOW!:shock:
> Good luck finding a good spokesperson.


I was in contact with a few people on the mule deer committee, I think I was the only one that everyone knew, before introductions. :mrgreen:

So now because I'm conducting field work, rather than talking, that's the problem? It used to be that the problem was that I just talked. As anyone who has watched this play out knows, this has taken some time to get to this point. This is barely the beginning, only the tip of the iceberg.

I invest the time, money, and energy where I can, when I can. And after a 2 hour phone call tonight, that means getting on the road in the morning, instead of taking care of other business.

That being said, I'd like to throw this out there too. We had a photo contest, and we have drawn names for the first couple months, Aug, Sept, and Oct(I have not contacted the winners yet). But we have not met to draw for Nov, and Dec, which are the big ticket items. I would like to say thanks to everyone that submitted photos, several of them helped a lot, and all were valuable.

Yeah, that's 2014, I'm that far behind on a lot of stuff. People are busy, and have a lot going on, just coordinating a few people can be difficult. This is not my full time job, but it has felt like it at times.

As for contacting more people, I will as the opportunities and time arises. Its not like I'm silent, or hiding.

And, what do you mean by "Good luck finding a good spokesperson"? You don't think I'd make a good spokesperson? :mrgreen:

What do you think about having this guy as a spokesperson? Several of us keep nudging him to take the plate. Joe has bit of a different approach than do I.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

klbzdad said:


> I'm just curious and then I'll slide back into obscurity and the shadows of UWN....
> 
> Lonetree,
> 
> ...


I hear you on more tags, that's where this all started.

Utah mule deer seek out copper and selenium, here is work to support to support this: http://utahcbcp.org/files/uploads/publications/ChrisPetersenDissertation.pdf

And the DWR has documentation WRT moose and these same deficiencies. You have not paid attention, the selenium "hypothesis" is not mine. It is the observations of hundreds of wildlife professionals across the West. My interpretation picks up where all those left off.

Additionally I can show you natural copper licks, here in Northern Utah, utilized by declined mule deer, that exhibit multiple signs of metabolic disorders. This lick is accessed by mountain goats as well, that travel ~1000 vertical feet to reach it.

And I've done side by side trials to establish a preference for copper and selenium in many Utah deer. This preference corresponds to deer that exhibit the manifestations of metabolic disorders.

This is all in conjunction with what I have shown to be a magnesium thirst by deer, moose, and elk exhibiting multiple signs of metabolic disorders. This has not been shown before.

Yes, you need cooperation from the division to conduct certain kinds of research, which is why I have gone about what I have done the way I have done it. As have researchers in other states.

My cause?, maybe you missed it, reverse the last 40 years of big game declines. The last 20 of which that have been marked by very specific issues.

I'm not generalizing data from other states, I have rewritten the understanding of that data from other states, several times with the cooperation of the original researcher/s. And I have reproduced/found the same results from other states, here in Utah, with the help of the researchers in those other states.

I'll make you the same offer I have made others, spend a few days with me, in the office, and in the field. Or if that does not work for you, I have made a large amount of this information public, DISPROVE IT! Everyone knows my attitude sucks, what about the science,and the issues at hand? What do you have to say about that, and its implications for wildlife?

The WB and the RACs do not deal with science, that's why some people like them so much. And as for my minions, Beyonce sells lots of albums, and SFW is well represented at the WB and RACs.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Springville Shooter said:


> Intelligence can be a curse......it often seems that we don't have enough brain power to support advanced analytical skills and any sort of social skills. Maybe someone should study this phenomenon? -------SS


Actually, I know a political science professor that has looked into this quite a bit. Internet related stuff, very interesting...........watching it play out in real time, over and over again.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy (Nov 14, 2008)

Lonetree,

I've been studying ants. It appears they are attracted to sugar and they can be burned with a piece of glass. No overbite or underbite; but they do have pincers that hurt. Would you have time to study my findings before I seek to have them published?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Lonetree,
> 
> I've been studying ants. It appears they are attracted to sugar and they can be burned with a piece of glass. No overbite or underbite; but they do have pincers that hurt. Would you have time to study my findings before I seek to have them published?


As usual, fully engaged, and on topic.

Can you tell us how this relates to more deer, and more deer tags?

If you were coming at me for being overly obvious, that would be pretty good, but its built on sand like most of what you attempt to stack up. Try covering it with the sand instead.


----------

