# What did I freaking tell ya



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

From MM.com from a central RAC member.

Just a heads up for everyone-- The Mule Deer committee/ RACs/ Wildlife board will more than likely be proposing 2-3 new LE deer units. One that will be up for discussion will be the Mineral Mt area. Maybe having a couple more LE units would help move folks through the system. The Mineral Mt unit may become a Premium unit like the Henrys/Pauns. We will see what comes out of the Mule Deer committee in the next couple months.
What's your thoughts ?

Tell hunters to stay home and more tags for SFW.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

The demand for trophy quality has caused things like this. Hunters only have themselves to blame...a lot of western states already live in a world like this, unfortunately it was just a matter of time for UT to join in on the fun.


----------



## Kevinitis (Jul 18, 2013)

My thoughts are, that I absolutely do not want more of the public, any weapon areas turned into more limited entry hunts. The only thing that would do is take away more opportunity for the average hunter, who wants to hunt every year. It would be like we have for elk, tons of big bulls everywhere that few ever get to hunt, making the deer hunt essentially once every 15-20 years. I wish they would make more of the limited entry bull elk units any bull.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

I agree Kevinitis


----------



## Doc (Sep 11, 2007)

Realistically, there are "general hunt" areas that have become limited entry. I know of several people that didn't draw for their "general hunt" area. Just a matter of semantics.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Maybe they should be refered more to as limited draw hunts.

I guess those horns hunters who send they were willing to wait got tired of waiting after all.......

And they keep right on taking.................


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

Doc said:


> Realistically, there are "general hunt" areas that have become limited entry. I know of several people that didn't draw for their "general hunt" area. Just a matter of semantics.


 Exactly! The entire state is LE for deer now anyway. It's probably just a matter of time before every region in the state is broken up in to LE boundaries and permit fees go through the roof.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Doc said:


> Realistically, there are "general hunt" areas that have become limited entry. I know of several people that didn't draw for their "general hunt" area. Just a matter of semantics.


No, its a matter of draw odds. 1-2 pts vs 7-10.

Plus you still have ~4,500 lifetime license holders out there.

-DallanC


----------



## Kevinitis (Jul 18, 2013)

I am 0 for 2 on general season tags as of late. 4 of us put in together as a group this year and another two put in separatley to hunt with us. No one drew a tag this year. I was hoping to get my little kids out this year for a deer hunt, but with the way this is going, it's going to be once every three years for general season hunts! How the hell am I going to get my kids into hunting with this nonsense?


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Well, what this deal here tells me, is just like
I figured. They could give a rats @ss less about
Deer. This committee, Wildlife Board, Division
And RAC's is so far in to the LE horn porn game
The Utah deer hunter is screwed. If you aren't
Sitting on 10 points, you don't mean squat to them. 

I filed a GRAMA request for all data coming out
Of this committee about 10 days ago. I'll post
The data as it comes in. 

God forbid they actually do something to benefit
Deer.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

I should rephrase that. Most on this committee
Could give a rats @ss less about deer. There are
A few on there that can see past their wallets and
Look at me hero shots.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

This is nothing new, they first started to talk about the Mineral Mountains as a LE deer unit back in 2012 at the RAC meetings.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

The goal is LESS deer, and LESS hunters. "quality" and horn porn is just the sales pitch. It is the only way to break the back of the NAMWC. Destroy or disable the democracy clause, and completely gut the science mandate, and you then can be king of the forest. 

Lower tags means more money, and in a system that has been built over the last 20 years on monetizing wildlife, you look to what the market will bear, and how you can influence that. Add an army of retarded Utah mule deer hunters, that don't know their ass from a hole in the ground, that will readily pick up the pom poms and cheer, and you have the perfect recipe, to forever destroy Western conservation and hunting as it has been built and known. 

The current plan is based on population and B/D ratios. It is a perfect system to not only repress deer numbers, but hunters as well. Fewer deer hunters, means less resistance to this as well. As we shed hunters from the ranks, they move on, and are no longer a voice for mule deer. That is what they keep telling to do, hey you can always hunt elk. Fewer deer, means a better market for wildlife. Higher buck to doe ratios, suppress deer numbers. So it does not matter how the numbers fall, population verses B/D ratios, we will NEVER see the tags, or the herds recover. 

That is the past, present, and future mule deer management plan. 

While I'm here can I give big shout out to the UWC for selling so many hunters up the river, like every group that ever came before them. ****ing sell outs.


----------



## fastcamo (Aug 27, 2012)

The only thing Utah manages, is the new vehicles they buy themselves every year, they care less what happens beyond that.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

it all about inches that all. The dang trophy hunters are getting what they want and most of them dont even eat the deer. They just want the horns so they can think they are the big bad ass hunter.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

This will end well (sarcasm font)


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Hey Bax, 
why don't you or any of the Mods do something about the language and insults being thrown around.:shock:


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Where are the Mineral Mnts.?


----------



## Kevinitis (Jul 18, 2013)

dkhntrdstn said:


> it all about inches that all. The dang trophy hunters are getting what they want and most of them dont even eat the deer. They just want the horns so they can think they are the big bad ass hunter.


And what does a trophy mean anymore? It used to mean you lucked out or that you are the master hunter who outsmarted that big buck who managed to outsmart everyone else. Now all it means is that you drew the tag, or paid off the CWMU owner.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

opcorn:-O\\__-opcorn:


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Mineral Mts are north of Milford, Ut--------SS


----------



## Elkoholic8 (Jan 15, 2008)

The way I see it, we have no real general season anymore. You have Premium Limited entry, Limited entry, and Low Expectation (formerly general season) limited entry tags, and CWMU. 
General tags went out the window back when we were force fed option WTF, and we lost statewide archery.

The only way to assure a tag every year is to be very flexible with unit and weapon choices. 

I wonder how long it will be before we have spike only deer units??????


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I actually believe that general deer went out the window the first year that they started a draw on deer and did away with being able to hunt the whole state. Since that time a lot of hunters have give up on deer hunting and the areas that you were allowed to hunt in have shrunk.

But Utah is no different that any other western state, it has just taken them a little longer to do it.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Critter said:


> I actually believe that general deer went out the window the first year that they started a draw on deer and did away with being able to hunt the whole state. Since that time a lot of hunters have give up on deer hunting and the areas that you were allowed to hunt in have shrunk.
> 
> But Utah is no different that any other western state, it has just taken them a little longer to do it.


That was some of the beginnings, but nothing as bad as what we are doing now. Back then, we reduced tags with the intention of increasing deer. This time around, at the first sign of increasing deer herds, we reduced tags, and tied tags to B/D ratios. The population started to rise, we cut tags. Managing for B/D ratios has the affect of reducing overall deer numbers, by reducing fawn recruitment. So this time around we are not managing for more deer. We are actively managing for LESS deer, and LESS hunters.

PETA could not accomplish this in their wildest dreams.

But mom, all the other kids were jumping off the bridge.......


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

ridgetop said:


> Hey Bax,
> why don't you or any of the Mods do something about the language and insults being thrown around.:shock:


You can always tell when some one does not have a case, and can't support their position. They make it about something else.

Don't worry, your handlers will have you some talking points shortly, so you will know what to say about all of this.

In the mean time, why don't you explain to us, why you support LESS deer, and LESS hunters.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

GBell said:


> Well, what this deal here tells me, is just like
> I figured. They could give a rats @ss less about
> Deer. This committee, Wildlife Board, Division
> And RAC's is so far in to the LE horn porn game
> ...


 GBell,
thanks for passing along the info. I'd like to see some of the things they are discussing.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> You can always tell when some one does not have a case, and can't support their position. They make it about something else.
> 
> Don't worry, your handlers will have you some talking points shortly, so you will know what to say about all of this.
> 
> In the mean time, why don't you explain to us, why you support LESS deer, and LESS hunters.


Why would we want more deer in units that are at or over objective?
Your very good at picking and choosing the info. that supports "your" cause. 
In general, there is no evidence that says 15-18/100 B/D ratios will be harmful to the deer herd.
But you sure like to believe there is.
Have a good night.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

*Effect of Limited Antlered Harvest on Mule Deer Sex and Age Ratios

*Chad J. Bishop, Gary C. White, David J. Freddy and Bruce E. Watkins
Wildlife Society Bulletin
Vol. 33, No. 2 (Summer, 2005), pp. 662-668
Published by: Wiley
Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3785094

In response to apparent declining mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) numbers in Colorado during the 1990s, buck harvest limitations were identified as a possible mechanism to increase fawn:doe ratios and hence population productivity. Beginning in 1991, the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) reduced buck harvest in 4 deer management units to provide quality hunting opportunities. We examined effects of limited harvest on December ratios of bucks:100 does and fawns:100 does using data from limited and unlimited harvest units. Annual buck harvest was reduced by 359 bucks (SE = 133) in limited harvest units as a result of limiting licenses. Fawn:doe ratios declined by 7.51 fawns:100 does (SE = 2.50), total buck:doe ratios increased by 4.52 bucks:100 does (SE = 1.40), and adult buck:doe ratios increased by 3.37 bucks:100 does (SE = 1.04) in response to limited harvest. Based on our analysis, factors other than buck harvest were regulating population productivity, and limiting buck harvest to enhance fawn recruitment is not justified in Colorado. Limited buck harvest should be considered an issue of quality hunting opportunity rather than deer productivity.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

ridgetop said:


> Why would we want more deer in units that are at or over objective?
> Your very good at picking and choosing the info. that supports "your" cause.
> In general, there is no evidence that says 15-18/100 B/D ratios will be harmful to the deer herd.
> But you sure like to believe there is.
> Have a good night.


Objectives are arbitrarily set numbers. While consideration of "carrying capacity" and social factors are taken into consideration. Objectives always creep on paper to at or near where a unit just happens to be.

Option WTF? and its proponents, want to manage for higher buck to doe ratios, and cut tags. And that is what they did. While deer numbers were already rising I might add. Option WTF? affectively manages for LESS deer and LESS hunters. Not only is it anti deer, it is anti hunting. This go round, they are piling on with even more of this.

We were talking in the late '70s about mule deer declines. That was before 30 more years of declining numbers. Tell me how objectives mean anything? Are we back to pre '90s crash numbers, which were lower that late '70s decline numbers?

Don't forget to explain to your children. My grandfather never told me why he traded my future.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

^^^this^^^ plus wanting a ton of elk on the 
Same range compounds the issue. 

Ridge do a google search for Nevada Fecundity. 
Great data. 

Deer on the ground, specifically female deer
On the ground is a guarantee of nothing. The key
That is missing is PRODUCTIVE deer on the ground. 
We can have good birth and first few month survival
Rate in our herds but if the range won't support doe's
Coming in to estrus in the first cycle, being bred and 
Giving birth to another productive member of the
Herd, we are essentially just growing barren predator
Food and auto insurance claims.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Stockpiling bucks again compounds the issue
Even further. 

The crux of the issue is pretty simple. Do we want
To grow more excess bucks for a more and more
Limited supply of hunters to kill, or do we want to
Grow our deer herds period. Twenty years of data shows
Ya can't do both successfully.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Lonetree said:


> The goal is LESS deer, and LESS hunters. "quality" and horn porn is just the sales pitch. It is the only way to break the back of the NAMWC. Destroy or disable the democracy clause, and completely gut the science mandate, and you then can be king of the forest.
> 
> Lower tags means more money, and in a system that has been built over the last 20 years on monetizing wildlife, you look to what the market will bear, and how you can influence that. Add an army of retarded Utah mule deer hunters, that don't know their ass from a hole in the ground, that will readily pick up the pom poms and cheer, and you have the perfect recipe, to forever destroy Western conservation and hunting as it has been built and known.
> 
> ...


Nobody is selling out. We still stand in strong support of the NAMWC and I can assure you that Lee's position in representing us still stands as it always has. Right in line with our mission statement.

Josh, I'm about tired of your condescending approach of communication on here. I hear from many people that in person you're a very smart and worthwhile person to know and while I respect the research you do and I actually agree with most of your posts to some degree, insulting those whom YOU'VE never spoken to in person without being a d1ck online lends me to believe you'll hate anything with an acronym. For hell's sake, stop being an d1ck.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Hating everything with an acronym is a problem since one loud, obnoxious, faceless voice on an internet forum will never make one iota of difference. People who want to make a difference join with other people of like mind. That is the only way things happen. Unfortunately, many of our opponents are well organized and ahead in the game. So instead of name calling and drudgery, try convincing others with sound arguments, then join with them and apply pressure to advance your cause. Heck...you could even have a napkin meeting. Talk to 1-I about how effective they can be.---SS


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Springville Shooter said:


> Hating everything with an acronym is a problem since one loud, obnoxious, faceless voice on an internet forum will never make one iota of difference. People who want to make a difference join with other people of like mind. That is the only way things happen. Unfortunately, many of our opponents are well organized and ahead in the game. So instead of name calling and drudgery, try convincing others with sound arguments, then join with them and apply pressure to advance your cause. Heck...you could even have a napkin meeting. Talk to 1-I about how effective they can be.---SS


Oh, don't worry, I am going to be eating lots of hypocritical alphabet soup here shortly, I just don't plan on having a side order of crow.

I have been with several groups over the years, in advisory, and leadership positions, across the full spectrum of wildlife and wildlands issues. It is not in my nature to cooperate in such ways.

The sad part about "our" opponents, is that they claim to be hunters, and they claim to do things for mule deer.

As for arguments, I've dropped more supporting evidence for my positions than most here could muster in a lifetime. You get it, or you don't, it is not about me, or how I sell it. If someone will take up an anti deer position, because they don't like the way I sell a pro deer position, it says a lot about them. That is the problem with Utahans, living here in the scam capital of world, its all about who and how the scam is sold, they could care less about the content. I'm not interested in those sheople.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

SS, I agree with the acronym thing to a certain
Point. There ain't many acronyms that don't benefit
Financially from selling a public resource, in fact
Delta Waterfowl and UWC are the only two I can
Think of. Delta ain't on the committee and UWC
Only has one vote. 

The Division and WB is so out of touch with the General
Season hunter it's ridiculous. Don Peay tells the Division
And state Legislature that he is the voice of sportsmen
And it carries weight, even without the financial aspect of it
All. Hell Peay's crony Ryan Benson just got another 2 million
In the last session to lobby against sage grouse. 

I'd say the more obnoxious bastards we have calling, emailing
Calling napkin meetings and filing GRAMA requests the 
Better.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

klbzdad said:


> Nobody is selling out. We still stand in strong support of the NAMWC and I can assure you that Lee's position in representing us still stands as it always has. Right in line with our mission statement.
> 
> Josh, I'm about tired of your condescending approach of communication on here. I hear from many people that in person you're a very smart and worthwhile person to know and while I respect the research you do and I actually agree with most of your posts to some degree, insulting those whom YOU'VE never spoken to in person without being a d1ck online lends me to believe you'll hate anything with an acronym. For hell's sake, stop being an d1ck.


UWC/NAMWC: Prove it. The UWC claims to represent hunters, but they won't even elucidate, to the very people they claim to be representing, how they are representing them, or what there agenda is. They got a seat a the table, and then promptly turned their backs on the people, that got them there. And with what was formerly UWC opposition to business as usual out of the way, it is back to business as usual. You can tell your self all you want that that is not the case, but it is. Maybe try writing your children a letter, to be opened in the future, convincing them of the same.

Guess what, I'm tired of everyone selling out our wildlife and hunting heritage. So stop it.

Oh, its not that simple to just make that demand, and have it come to be? Maybe I need to emphasize the point?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

If somebody can prove Josh wrong on his claims of the UWC I would sure like to see it. I posted questions as to what was happening a few months ago. Got basically nothing in reply other than "be patient". If there is anything going on that the "members" don't know about...........well............some would like to know about it. Anybody have anything more than updates on deer transplants?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> If somebody can prove Josh wrong on his claims of the UWC I would sure like to see it. I posted questions as to what was happening a few months ago. Got basically nothing in reply other than "be patient". If there is anything going on that the "members" don't know about...........well............some would like to know about it. Anybody have anything more than updates on deer transplants?


Don't worry, you are being "represented", you just don't know it.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Lonetree said:


> Oh, don't worry, I am going to be eating lots of hypocritical alphabet soup here shortly, I just don't plan on having a side order of crow.
> 
> I have been with several groups over the years, in advisory, and leadership positions, across the full spectrum of wildlife and wildlands issues. It is not in my nature to cooperate in such ways.
> 
> ...


 Once again....arrogance abounds. Too bad those who have much knowledge suffer the most deficient communication skills. If one really cared about their point they would concentrate on teaching, sharing, and building consensus sans put downs, arrogance, and narcissisms that instantly shut down any chance of meaningful correspondence. Remember, when you start thinking that everyone in the world is stupid but yourself, perhaps you should use a little of your superior brain power to engage in some honest introspection.------------SS


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Springville Shooter said:


> Once again....arrogance abounds. Too bad those who have much knowledge suffer the most deficient communication skills. If one really cared about their point they would concentrate on teaching, sharing, and building consensus sans put downs, arrogance, and narcissisms that instantly shut down any chance of meaningful correspondence. Remember, when you start thinking that everyone in the world is stupid but yourself, perhaps you should use a little of your superior brain power to engage in some honest introspection.------------SS


:rotfl:You still don't get it. If I have offended you, its not my problem.

If you can't untangle me, from the issue, that is you, not me.

Whether I'm openly the devil himself, or whether I dress in sheep's clothing, to make you more comfortable, it does not change the facts of the matter.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

So if you don't care whether or not people listen to you, why are you still talking? I was just trying to offer some helpful advice. I'm not offended one bit. You seem to be the one who's offended and perturbed all the time whenever someone mentions or supports anything that you disagree with. I agree with some of your stuff, some I disagree with. You make it tough to wade through your thoughts and arguments because of unnecessary dooshyness, that's all. For heavens sake, carry on man.-----SS


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> UWC/NAMWC: Prove it. The UWC claims to represent hunters, but they won't even elucidate.................................


Hey LT, go ahead and elucidate.  I did it twice in 1969. It was a blast!!

.


----------



## goosefreak (Aug 20, 2009)

I would be willing to bet that part of the reason why our hunting here in Utah, and any other state for that matter is becoming more difficult/ complicated/ expensive is because you get these people from special interest groups, like PETA and other animal right organizations that "infiltrate" into the Division of wildlife recourses work force. now they have more pull into decision makings, and they have more power in voice in restrictions/ changes/ ect.. and that's something that aint gonna change


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I don't think that it has anything to do with groups like PETA but you have to figure that there is only X amount of animals out there and there are Y amount of hunters that what to hunt those animals. So if you let all the hunters that want to hunt hunt and if even 30% of them kill a animal it won't take long to do away with all the animals. 

Let's use bison as a example. I am sure that there are more hunters than there are animals and the herd would be quickly eradicated if we let them all hunt and kill one. So until there are fewer hunters or more animals or a combination of both it is going to stay the same as it is right now.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> That was some of the beginnings, but nothing as bad as what we are doing now. Back then, we reduced tags with the intention of increasing deer. This time around, at the first sign of increasing deer herds, we reduced tags, and tied tags to B/D ratios. The population started to rise, we cut tags. Managing for B/D ratios has the affect of reducing overall deer numbers, by reducing fawn recruitment. So this time around we are not managing for more deer. We are actively managing for LESS deer, and LESS hunters.
> 
> PETA could not accomplish this in their wildest dreams.
> 
> But mom, all the other kids were jumping off the bridge.......


So you pull one study out and that goes for everywhere. Nice. 
There could have been many other thing happening to affect the fawns.

We have more deer in the state now since option 2.
We have more days to hunt in the field now since option 2
We have higher B/D ratios state wide now since option 2
We have more hunters in the field now since option 2
You and ole #1Deer need to hook up and give each other a hug and talk about how the sky is falling.
While I'll be telling my kids and grandkids how great the hunting was after 2012.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

There are many things that I wished would change from the 2008 deer plan.

- I wished the age trigger point and very high B/D ratios would be lowered on the premium units
- I wished the B/D ratios would be lowered on the regular LE deer units by 5 bucks.
And I wouldn't mind seeing some late season muzzleloader and early season rifle hunts.
I'll reserve any remarks about any new LE's until I know all the details first.

I'm looking forward to GBell's reports.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

GBell said:


> ^^^this^^^ plus wanting a ton of elk on the
> Same range compounds the issue.
> 
> Ridge do a google search for Nevada Fecundity.
> ...


 Gordy, thanks for the info.
I totally get what you and Lonetree are saying about all this but I just don't understand how having unlimited buck hunters in the field each year can increase the amount of bucks surviving each winter.
Will there be more mature bucks post hunt to enjoy and photograph each winter, if we increase tags by 10s of thousands?
I don't think so.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Ridge, I don't support unlimited tags or harvest. 
What I do support is harvesting any buck determined
To be excess. Wether it be B to D ratio or modeled
On total population vs range carrying capacity. If we
Continually stockpile excess bucks and continue
To limit opportunity it will be a disaster. Herds will never
Recover if we are not ensuring productive births. 

Personally, I have no issue with using the B to D ratio
Model as long as it is used in conjunction with range
Capacity and herd populations. 

We absolutely must stop using this model to simply
Guarantee that a limited amount of hunters has targets.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

ridgetop said:


> There are many things that I wished would change from the 2008 deer plan.
> 
> - I wished the age trigger point and very high B/D ratios would be lowered on the premium units
> - I wished the B/D ratios would be lowered on the regular LE deer units by 5 bucks.
> ...


Something we agree on, your first two points.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

ridgetop said:


> So you pull one study out and that goes for everywhere. Nice.
> There could have been many other thing happening to affect the fawns.
> 
> We have more deer in the state now since option 2.
> ...


It is more than just one study. There are several Montana studies, from the early '90s that show the same thing. The MT studies are even clearer, because they have pre '92 decline baselines, that can then be compared with post decline numbers coupled with reduced deer tags. And there are companion studies, that bring in the skewed sex ratios, of post '90s declines, to show those suppressing affects as well.

And while you might not know who Chad Bishop is. Him and his colleagues in Colorado are at least a decade ahead of anything Utah has even thought about. It is another of his studies, that demonstrates, that nutrition is the #1 contemporary factor suppressing mule deer numbers. So this _one _study, is heavily weighted.

"We have more deer in the state now since option 2."-- The herd was increasing prior to the implementation of Option WTF?, not in response to it. That is a verifiable fact.

"We have more days to hunt in the field now since option 2"-- But not as many as we did 20 years ago. It was a step in the right direction though.

"We have higher B/D ratios state wide now since option 2"--They were high before Option WTF, now increasing because of it. B/D ratios have been higher since the '90s crash. This is for two reasons. The first being skewed sex ratios of deer at birth, favoring male deer. The second, which compounds the first, is reduced buck harvest, which was first heavily implemented 20 years ago, after the '90s crash. Both of these things lead to lower over all deer numbers. With a lack of nutrition being the #1 factor suppressing deer herds. Utah is not addressing, the #1, and #2 issues reducing deer numbers. In fact, they are actively pursuing policy, that further suppress deer numbers, through Option WTF? And some people want more of it.

"We have more hunters in the field now since option 2"--Absolute lie, we have had a net loss of deer tags, ie deer hunters since 2012. We have cut 13,000 deer tags, ie. deer hunters. All at the same time, that the deer herd was increasing. Without the "help" of Option WTF?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

wyogoob said:


> Hey LT, go ahead and elucidate. I did it twice in 1969. It was a blast!!
> 
> .


Ergot is the bomb, 10,000 mics!


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> "We have more hunters in the field now since option 2"--Absolute lie, we have had a net loss of deer tags, ie deer hunters since 2012. We have cut 13,000 deer tags, ie. deer hunters. All at the same time, that the deer herd was increasing. Without the "help" of Option WTF?


You have called me a "retard", challenged my education level and now a liar.

In 2011 we had 75,201 general season hunters and 80,425 Total(including antlerless)
In 2014 we have 84,800 general season hunters and 85,855 Total (not including antlerless)
We are indeed on the rise.
That 13k war cry that you, GBell and others were throwing around never happened after 2011.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Ridge- Sorry friend, but your numbers are incorrect. In 2011, the last year of Regional Hunting, there were 89,000 general season permits. In 2014, we have 84,800 general season permits for a net loss of 4,200 permits.

And to claim micro-buck management produced the following results:
"We have more deer in the state now since option 2.
We have higher B/D ratios state wide now since option 2"
is just ignoring the facts. The fact is the herd was already rebounding due to the favorable conditions of 2010-2012 (and which continue through this year)-- all produced under "regional management". Those fine bucks you hunted last year were all produced under regional management. We now have micro-buck management and that isn't going to change anytime soon- but lets not forget that we can not grow deer without favorable conditions- be it under regional-micro-ltd entry buck strategies.

As for the rest of the post, there has not been one strategy passed, nor even discussed in depth on the Mule Deer Committee. All the Committee has done so far was to discuss the random sample survey.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Packout said:


> Ridge- Sorry friend, but your numbers are incorrect. In 2011, the last year of Regional Hunting, there were 89,000 general season permits. In 2014, we have 84,800 general season permits for a net loss of 4,200 permits.
> 
> And to claim micro-buck management produced the following results:
> "We have more deer in the state now since option 2.
> ...


Those numbers (75,201 in 2011) I posted, are "hunters afield" from the 2012 big game report(pg. 12)
So your saying that 14k hunters choose not to hunt that year?
I never said the herds are rebounding because of option 2, just stating that they are not crashing like Lonetree keeps wanting us to believe.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Mike, you'll have to discuss the original topic of this post with Mr. Hansen. He said it, I passed it along.

I really wished I would have paid more attention to your council 6 or 7 years ago. I really wish some on the committee would pay attention over the next few months.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

QUOTE=Lonetree;816690]No one said unlimited. But the continued cutting of tags, has done nothing but contribute to lower deer numbers. But then again, that's what you "quality" guys want. Higher buck to doe ratios, I mean "quality", which contributes to already low overall deer numbers. Those lower over all deer numbers are then used to reduce more hunters, which in turn, helps to increase buck to doe ratios, while lowering overall deer numbers, through reduced fawn to doe ratios, which then leads to reduced overall deer numbers, increasing buck to doe ratios, that then contribute to suppression of deer herds. This in turn helps to keep buck to doe ratios high, which reduces fawn to doe ratios. Which works out as a good excuse to cut deer tags, which then leads to........20 more years of the same low deer numbers. And this is only part of the problem.[/QUOTE]

Josh, Gordy, Where is the line where too many bucks per 100 does is bad for the herd?
Is it 
10/100
15/100
20/100
25/100
30/100
40/100


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Good question, Ridge. If we could predict environmental
Conditions I could give you an answer.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> So you pull one study out and that goes for everywhere. Nice.
> There could have been many other thing happening to affect the fawns.
> 
> We have more deer in the state now since option 2.
> ...


^^^^^^^^^^^^^ YEP ! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Add to this the preditor control, more specific, coyote bounty's...

And our deer herds are HEADING THE RIGHT DIRECTION!!!!!!!

I just spent 2 days on the S Slope scouting, haven't been there since 2011.

Noticable increase in deer numbers --- nice th see!


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Ridge, give the first few pages of this a quick read.

http://www.ndow.org/uploadedFiles/n.../Wildlife_Education/Publications/muledeer.pdf


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

20-25/100 is considered high, and at 4-7/100 it affects the ability of the herd to reproduce at all. Anything more than 10/100 after the hunt could technically be considered excess. 


Anything more than 40/100 fawns/doe ratio, observed during winter counts is indicative of a growing herd.


Here are some 2013 counts out of South Central Idaho. This is an increasing herd, like we are seeing here in Utah. The same increase, that began BEFORE Option WTF?


These are not stacked, the quality guys will jump all over unit 45


Unit 45: 62.7/100 F/D 40.9/100 B/D
Unit 49: 78/100 F/D 15/100 B/D
Unit 54: 50/100 F/D 25.4/100 B/D
Unit 55: 50/100 F/D 25.4/100 B/D
Unit 56: 61/100 F/D 23/100 B/D


These are the same units, where the large scale predation studies were conducted that demonstrated that reducing coyote, and lion numbers, could not increase deer numbers.


Keep in mind that these are numbers from increasing deer herds. It has been shown now, in almost every state, except Utah, that nutrition is the #1 factor that has restricted mule deer growth, over the last 20+ years. So under favorable conditions, where numbers are increasing because of increased nutritional inputs, B/D ratios may only be a drag, or secondary restriction on that growth. During flat, or decreasing numbers, which have been the norm of the last 20 years, they become a primary factor, actively restricting, and suppressing mule deer numbers.


If you take Bishops numbers of fawn to doe ratios declining by 7.5/100 fawn/does ratios, with every 4.52 total bucks per doe increase, then you can start to see how this plays out. The adult buck to doe ratio ends up being 3.37/100 adult B/Ds.


Take unit 56 and increase the adult buck to doe ratio by 3.37 from 23 to 26.37,what does that do to the fawn to ratio? It the goes from 61 to 53.5. It kind a looks like Units 54 and 55. And this is during increasing populations, meaning that fawn to doe ratios are increasing because of fecundity. Fecundity meaning quality (no quotations or italics) and improving fertility. This is do to increased nutritional inputs, not hunter management. 


These herd numbers are not static, and the equations are theoretic. But it works out over the long term trend lines, which is what is important. We had lowered F/D ratios prior to the '90s crash. Increasing B/D ratios only compounds that. 


So when we see conditions that have been more the norm over the last 20 years, of low and flat productivity, increases in B/D ratios, have an even more profound affect on herd maintenance and growth. I always say that B/D ratios were higher after the '90s crash, and they were, but that began before the crash. It began sympatrically with high rates of antler abnormalities, and male reproductive malformations. At that time, this was not due to reduced buck harvest. This was prior to the draws, and reduced tags. The issue of skewed sex ratios at birth, and higher buck to doe ratios because of it, is an issue, in and of its self. But we are compounding the negative affects of it, with the hunter management that we have implemented.


So as we grow B/D ratios, what happens when less fawns are born because we slip back into what has become the norm of the last 20 years? What happens when we have skewed birth sex ratios coupled with that? Start dropping the F/D ratio by even 5, when you're down to ratios less than 50 F/D, which is what happens when environmental conditions affect fecundity, and the affects are exponential. Throw in a bad winter, and we see the next crash, that the deer we not be in a position to recover from.


Managing for fewer deer, and higher buck to ratios, is the strategy of high fence game farming. That is where the concepts and terminology comes from. Some of you guys need to quit pretending, and just get out the proposals for fences, or better yet, move to Texas. The quality argument is a false one at best. Some of the biggest deer I have ever seen were on general units, and I would take two weeks of very little chance of harvesting one of them, over a sure shot couple day hunt, for a bigger one. It is not quality, stop calling it that. It is about ease. And many are willing to trade up the ease of harvest, in exchange for what is good for the long term benefit of mule deer.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mule deer malformations: http://rutalocura.com/deer

I computer modeled these, with my non existent PHD. <<<Edit, this is sarcasm, but I am sure everyone got that, right?

Edit: Just to get ahead of the curve on this. This information has been _peer edited_ by people in this field of study. I know, its not as good as having your buddy see something, and then tell you about it, but that's all I got, I'll whisper it in bubba's ear when I get a chance, so he can whisper it back.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

*P*iling it *H*igher and *D*eeper has to count for something.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> *P*iling it *H*igher and *D*eeper has to count for something.


If you are suggesting that I am PHDing this. Then by all means, take it apart, and prove so. Otherwise........


----------



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

Lonetree said:


> Mule deer malformations: http://rutalocura.com/deer
> 
> I computer modeled these, with my non existent PHD. <<<Edit, this is sarcasm, but I am sure everyone got that, right?
> 
> Edit: Just to get ahead of the curve on this. This information has been _peer edited_ by people in this field of study. I know, its not as good as having your buddy see something, and then tell you about it, but that's all I got, I'll whisper it in bubba's ear when I get a chance, so he can whisper it back.


I haven't read this entire thread, I just looked at the above link. Mineral deficiency are your biggest explanation for things lonetree. Do you have reason or scientific data showing that these abnormalities are more common now than before? Do you have data showing deer 4,5,6 decades ago had less abnormalities or mineral deficiencies than now? I'm not saying you haven't showed anything I would like to see something to compare it to over time, otherwise to me it just seems every animal including humans have abnormalities within there species.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I haven't read this entire thread, I just looked at the above link. Mineral deficiency are your biggest explanation for things lonetree. Do you have reason or scientific data showing that these abnormalities are more common now than before? Do you have data showing deer 4,5,6 decades ago had less abnormalities or mineral deficiencies than now? I'm not saying you haven't showed anything I would like to see something to compare it to over time, otherwise to me it just seems every animal including humans have abnormalities within there species.


Yes there are more of these now, than there were 20-30 years ago. And yes there is peer reviewed information showing that. Most of these conditions are epigenetic in nature, this is not natural variation. That seems to be the automatic response though. Epigenetic conditions, are genetic expression, that is influenced by the environment. When you see quick onsets, and high percentages of an abnormality, you know it is epigenetic. Quick onset rules out simple variable genetic mutation, and the high percentage, does as well. Higher rates, above background and historic rates are indicative of epigenetic expression. Meaning they are influenced by the environment.

Being a rancher, look at the onset of Weak Calf Syndrome, in the early '90s, it follows the same course.

It is more than just mineral deficiencies. It is a combination of mineral deficiencies, and endocrine disrupting agents. Some agents are a double whammy as they produce both conditions. In some cases it is indirect, in others it is direct, and yet in other cases it is the synergistic combination of things that bring on a condition.

In the early '90s Congenital Fetal Hypothyroidism appeared quickly, and at high rates. The same thing occurred with cryptorchidism(cause of cactus bucks) along with several other genital malformations. The gental malformations include misaligned hemiscrota, undeveloped scrotums, and short penis sheaths, to name a few. Along with these conditions, there were skewed at birth sex ratios, in favor of males.

A background rate for cryptorchidism for example would be 2-3% of a population. And with in that 2-3% you would see a wide variation of expression, across the whole population. In other words, you would see a lot of variation, because it is just a variation, caused by multiple things. That is not what we see in these cases of cryptorchidism in deer you see clusters in populations, quick onsets, and high rates, this is epigenetic, and driven by external factors. You can read about an example of cryptorchidism, its rates, and its onset here: http://nerp.pnnl.gov/projects_f&w/muledeer.asp

Most of these conditions see their onset in the earl y '90s, with their rates following ungulate trend lines for the last 20 years. Some conditions show up across the entire West, though they may exhibit differentially from area to area, while others appear to be sympatric with each other, lending to the hypothesis of common cause.

My photo examples are a very small sampling, and just examples. There are thousands more documented.

This is not natural variation.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Cryptorchidism/cancer: A correction to calling Catherder wrong about cancer. In many of the cases of cryptorchidism on Kodiak island Alaska, cancer has been present in the testes. This is not seen in almost all other cases in deer. But the Kodiak island cases of cryptorchidism appear to be severe, with the testes very undescended, high in the body near the kidneys. The cancer is secondary, to the cryptorchidism, and not the cause of.


----------



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

So Lonetree, I'm honestly just wondering, how would we test/see the results of deer getting correct nutritional requirements in the wild and showing great improvements over time? Also do you see anything we can do to reverse this cycle of nutrients loss over time, and any ways to ensure our deer/moose/etc. herds get the nutrition they need so this cycle doesn't get worse? Or do you see this as the explanation of the problem, but with no probable or reasonable ways to fix this problem?


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

1I, I'd like to see tissue samples examined on deer
Taken on the hunts vs road killed deer in late winter. 
Just to see what exactly is in their bodies. Is there
An environmental factor the deer are picking up on winter range??
Is a mountain spring the same as canal irrigation water
That feeds the areas these deer winter in?? I don't know, but
I'd really like this to be found out. 

Not only is it nutrient deficiencies but what about all
The added crap that is not present in the high country.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

GBell said:


> 1I, I'd like to see tissue samples examined on deer
> Taken on the hunts vs road killed deer in late winter.
> Just to see what exactly is in their bodies. Is there
> An environmental factor the deer are picking up on winter range??
> ...


Liver samples specifically. You will see things deficient in a liver assay, that do not show up in a blood sample. Hair samples can show some long term trends for macro nutrients as well. Where as again, blood samples are a snap shot. Test for some of what we are looking at, are in their infancy, and only recently available through recent advances in technology.

It is present in the high country as well.

Winter range would be key. I was looking at May for a long time, because morphologically, that is when physical fetal teste development, and descent, occur. But with recently new understandings of the way in which the masculinization window works, with regard to the sonic hedge hog gene, we are actually looking for things that would affect deer in February. So you hit the nail on the head.

Soil types factor in as well. It has been demonstrated that selenium response disorders in bighorn sheep, and genital malformations that lead to cactus bucks, are more prevalent on granitic soils, this is due to the fact that these soils have no buffering capacity for changing PH, or introduced chemicals.

Depending on which irrigation company you are talking about, they use every thing from glyphosate(rodeo/roundup) to Acrolein. The most recent work places glyphosate as an endocrine disrupting agent. It also works synergistically with other agents, to amplify this affect. Acrolein kills EVERYTHING it is a biocide. If it does not kill it, it forever changes its DNA. Glyphosate is the #1 pesticide used in the world, coming on to the market in the 1970's. The UDWR sprays phrag in the marshes with it, and then burns them. It also gets used for "weed" control on winter ranges across the West. It has been found in 75% of air water, and rain samples. 
It is a chelator, meaning it binds up minerals and makes them unavailable.

This has implications for more than deer. It plays into the last 20-30 years of moose, mule deer, and bighorn sheep declines. It very probably plays into the concurrent onset of whirling disease in trout, at the same time these big game species were declining.

It is not always as simple as agent X is in animal A, and causing it to decline.

http://westernwildlifeecology.org/blog/glyphosates-affect-on-wildlife-ecology/


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> So Lonetree, I'm honestly just wondering, how would we test/see the results of deer getting correct nutritional requirements in the wild and showing great improvements over time? Also do you see anything we can do to reverse this cycle of nutrients loss over time, and any ways to ensure our deer/moose/etc. herds get the nutrition they need so this cycle doesn't get worse? Or do you see this as the explanation of the problem, but with no probable or reasonable ways to fix this problem?


I have covered this before. Short of long term fixes, we have to better understand what is going on. If not, which is currently the case, we are managing blindly. Which can lead to management plans that have further detrimental affects on the populations. Oh, like say, higher B/D ratios.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Check out #7 at the bottom of the page, just added. http://rutalocura.com/deer The coyotes got this one so bad, his penis sheath is short, and his small left testicle is barely descended in front, and on top of his small right testicle.

I say big coyote, but we all know what I am really saying right? ;-) ;-)

We need to raise the predator fee to $20, and get the bounty up to $100. And then immediately increase the buck to doe ratio for this unit. Then we need to decrease tags. This way we can get the fawn count down to the point that all the _big coyotes_ can't do this anymore.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

You sure do crack yourself up.-O,-


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

No really, they did a number on him, didn't you see?

The fact that you couldn't wade through this if it was a kids pool, would be funny, if it were not for the weight of reality.

That deer had some of the best growth I have seen this year. Especially for a two year old. He had fresh growth this year, so he wasn't a cactus buck. Come this fall, even if he wanted to, he may not have been able to breed.

1st off his penis is about 1/3rd the length it should be. This affects the ability of the animal to breed. I don't care what she told you.

2nd, his testicles are small and barely descended through the body wall. This would affect sperm count.

Don't you understand how insidious these _coyotes_ are?


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Can anyone point me to the study that shows selenium levels in utah on an acre by acre basis starting in 1800 to current date on a 10 year sampling rate?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

LostLouisianian said:


> Can anyone point me to the study that shows selenium levels in utah on an acre by acre basis starting in 1800 to current date on a 10 year sampling rate?


Detection limits have only been in the range that mean anything for the last 30 years. And it has only been in the last 50-60 years after discovery of the selenoprotien that we have looked at its role in biology.

And then you have the problem of most early explorers that forgot to pack their spectrometers.

Do you want organic or inorganic selenium numbers? It changes, and reads higher when mobilized, with false availability numbers when it is sequestered.

Also if you are looking at selenium or a lack of selenium as a cause of the conditions that I just posted, you are barking up the wrong tree. That is a separate, but related problem, that leads to other problems, sometimes with the same root cause.

But then again you knew all of this, having a degree in both biology and forestry. Ew, ah, oh! wow!

Seriously, put all that education, and those pieces of paper to work, and bring a real argument. I mean come on, I'm just the crazy selenium guy, ha ha ha, and you are packing two degrees. Put up, or put your wall art to good use, burn 'em to stay warm.

You should really look into that refund, or apply for a job with the State of Utah. No, probably a federal job.

Better yet, why don't you post up those degrees. Seeing as how you seem to be an evidence based guy. I have posted my credentials and brought evidence to support my assertions. How about you do the same? Or is the problem that you can't?

I intentionally left a few big holes for those that are following along, find them yet?


----------

