# Utah deer population highest since 1990's



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

I received an email today from one of the hunter education trainers for the state and here are some excerpts from that email.

Archery deer hunt starts Aug. 15, 2015

If you have a permit for this year's general archery buck deer hunt, plenty of bucks and lots of water are waiting for you.

Utah's general archery buck deer hunt starts Aug. 15.

Biologists with the Division of Wildlife Resources say the hunt should be a good one. Utah's herds have plenty of bucks. And the overall number of deer in the state is the highest it's been since the early 1990s.

Box Elder, Unit 1 -Bucks per 100 does: 18
2015 Population Estimate: 11,600

Cache, Unit 2 - Bucks per 100 does: 18
2015 Population Estimate: 17,000

Ogden, Unit 3 - Bucks per 100 does: 18
2015 Population Estimate: 8,500

Morgan/ South Rich, Unit 4 - Bucks per 100 does: 33
2015 Population Estimate: 15,500

East Canyon, Unit 5 - Bucks per 100 does: 31
2015 Population Estimate: 12,400

Chalk Creek, Unit 6 - Bucks per 100 does: 33
2015 Population Estimate: 12,200

Kamas, Unit 7 - Bucks per 100 does: 24
2015 Population Estimate: 7,000

North Slope, Unit 8A, Bucks per 100 does: 17
2015 Population Estimate: 6,200

Nine Mile–Unit 11

After last fall's hunts, the buck-to-doe ratio was 29 bucks per 100 does. That's nine bucks over the objective of 18 to 20 bucks per 100 does.

On public land, the overall number of deer is low. This is a difficult hunt for public land hunters.

Wasatch Mountains, Avintaquin/Currant Creek–Unit 17B/17C

After last fall's hunts, the buck-to-doe ratio was 28 bucks per 100 does. That's eight bucks over the objective of 18 to 20 bucks per 100 does.

The hunt on the unit should be great this fall. There's tons of water and lots of feed this year. Conditions will be difficult for stalking, but lots of bucks are available, including lots of two- and three-year-old bucks.

South Slope, Yellowstone–Unit 9A

After last fall's hunts, the buck-to-doe ratio was 22 bucks per 100 does. That's two bucks over the objective of 18 to 20 bucks per 100 does.

The overall number of deer, and the number of bucks, is up from last year. The hunt on the unit should be great this fall, especially for yearling and two-year-old bucks.

South Slope, Bonanza/Vernal–Unit 9B/9D

After last fall's hunts, the buck-to-doe ratio was 17 bucks per 100 does. That's right at the objective of 15 to 17 bucks per 100 does.

After struggling for years, the ratio of bucks to does is finally approaching the objective for the unit. Hunters enjoy high success on the unit, with 70 percent of those who hunted during the rifle hunt taking a buck last fall. High success, for young bucks, is expected again this fall.

North Slope–Unit 8

After last fall's hunts, the buck-to-doe ratio was 17 bucks per 100 does. That's slightly below the objective of 18 to 20 bucks per 100 does.

The hunt on the eastern half of the unit was hit and miss last year. The later hunts are somewhat dependent on migration. Early hunters, including archery hunters, are targeting a smaller population of resident deer in lower elevations or hard-to-access bucks in the high country.

On the Monroe unit (Unit 23), the goal for the unit is a minimum of 18 bucks per 100 does. The three-year buck-to-doe average is 21 bucks per 100 does.

On the Zion unit (Unit 29), the goal for the unit is a minimum of 18 bucks per 100 does. The three-year average is 24 bucks per 100 does.

"Not only are there lots of deer," Griffin says, "but a lot of those deer are bucks."

She says biologists have reported seeing more two- to three-year-old deer during their time in the field this summer. "In addition to seeing lots of yearlings," she says, "hunters should expect to see more mature bucks this fall too."


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

Good to see the herd in such good shape!


----------



## 30-06-hunter (Sep 22, 2013)

The weak winter and good rains this year surely helped with animal growth, should be a great season.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

A question for those who understand better. If our B Ratio is 160% of objective, why are they not increasing the tags much? I am not all gung ho on raising tags, but I am curious if we are ABOVE where we want to be, what are we doing to now get us at said healthy number? Wouldn't being over the number they deemed healthy be unhealthy?



In other news, pumped for the 15th to get here.


----------



## nocturnalenemy (Jun 26, 2011)

RandomElk16 said:


> If our B Ratio is 160% of objective, why are they not increasing the tags much?
> 
> what are we doing to now get us at said healthy number? Wouldn't being over the number they deemed healthy be unhealthy?


I don't think the B: D ratio is a representation of the health of the heard. I would probably look more to fawn survival and/or fawn:doe ratio for overall health.

While other factors are in play here, they have reached B: D over objective largely by limiting opportunity. In the WB meetings in April some of the justification for limiting tag increases I heard were: not wanting to increase hunting pressure on public land (large portions of units with private, non-huntable land), total population not being at or near objective, 3 year trend of B: D ratios trending lower.

I was/am pretty disturbed by it because the basis for Option 2 was to be able to increase/decrease tags on a unit by unit basis depending on unit health/B: D ratios. They cut tags when they introduced it and haven't even given back all the tags they removed, even though B: D ratios on nearly every unit are above objective.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

nocturnalenemy said:


> I was/am pretty disturbed by it because the basis for Option 2 was to be able to increase/decrease tags on a unit by unit basis depending on unit health/B: D ratios. They cut tags when they introduced it and haven't even given back all the tags they removed, even though B: D ratios on nearly every unit are above objective.


This ^^^ was the basis for my question. I don't necessarily agree with the population being considered healthy based on the ration. But since that is pretty much what they have came out and largely said it was, then why haven't they increased tags?

If we say 18 is healthy, isn't 29 too many?

I am just trying to make sense of their logic, that's all.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

It is great to see how the herd has responded to the excellent deer growing conditions of the past 4 years. Hope Mother Nature does not decide to give us a harder winter or all the gains will be for naught.

As for the other topic-- So say a herd had 10,000 animals and it increased to 15,000. Lets say there were 1,200 bucks of the 10,000 animals-- that would give us a certain buck to ratio. So to maintain that same ratio there would have to be 1,800 bucks for the 15,000 herd. Yet what has happened on many units is the buck to doe ratios increased-some units by 20%- AND the herd increased. So instead of 1,800 there are really 2,100 bucks. Or the number of bucks available is almost twice what it was. Even more interesting is the success rates have gone through the roof because there are so many bucks. 

Can't stock pile mule deer. Can't just shoot yearlings every year either. Such a balancing act. Look for some dead-head finds when we get another winter. Until then, enjoy the hunts!


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

RandomElk16 said:


> A question for those who understand better. If our B Ratio is 160% of objective, why are they not increasing the tags much? I am not all gung ho on raising tags, but I am curious if we are ABOVE where we want to be, what are we doing to now get us at said healthy number? Wouldn't being over the number they deemed healthy be unhealthy?
> 
> In other news, pumped for the 15th to get here.


I can't speak for everyone on this issue but I think there is just some caution being used here on tag numbers. We've had a couple of really mild winters that have helped mule deer numbers overall but I think many would like to see tags gradually increase instead of sudden big increases.

We've all had the mentality that mule deer are declining for so long I think we're just being cautious. If mule deer numbers can really sustain at these levels (avoid another really bad winter die off) you'll see the tags gradually rise and bring down those buck: doe ratios. At least I hope so.

Also remember there are some issues that are deceiving when you look at the numbers alone. For example some units have a lot of private land and will drive up the buck : doe ratios but many of those bucks aren't available to hunters. Those units always appear like more tags could be offered than what is actually set aside.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Most of the units are still below their desired capacity/objective levels so unless the bucks are keeping the overall head count down there isn't a big incentive yet to increase the harvest. It is much better to take a 5 year or longer average than to look at at just a one or two year count. I agree with the other poster that if the winter kill is moderate and the conditions are good again for sustaining and growing the herd we probably will see a gradual increase in some units.


----------



## nocturnalenemy (Jun 26, 2011)

Packout said:


> Can't stock pile mule deer. Can't just shoot yearlings every year either. Such a balancing act. Look for some dead-head finds when we get another winter. Until then, enjoy the hunts!


This is very true! You can't stockpile the deer. You need to use them when they're available. When another winter comes though (and it will come), all these extra bucks are taking the place of would-be does. Does that will reproduce (and replenish the bucks) after the winter and help the population rebound. Excess bucks (above the number needed to breed all the does) only hinder the herd during the tough winters and provide no benefit to the herd after the winter ends.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

I think every one slept through the 1990s. *Buck to doe ratios* are the highest since the 1990s. This is counter to growing deer, and has been the precursor to every deer decline of the last 40 years, across the West. There is a reason for this, and its not the weather, it does not dictate buck to doe ratios. A lot of interrelated biological and ecological factors dictate buck to doe ratios, and we are currently in the same pattern that brought us the big declines of the early 1990s. Regardless of whether you agree with my assessment of what is causing this repeat pattern of the early 1990s. It does not change the fact that we saw the very same increases in buck to doe ratios, and malformations(cactus bucks, etc.) just prior to the early 1990s crash. There is no hoping, or wishing on this, we are heading for a crash, plain and simple.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> I think every one slept through the 1990s. *Buck to doe ratios* are the highest since the 1990s. This is counter to growing deer, and has been the precursor to every deer decline of the last 40 years, across the West. There is a reason for this, and its not the weather, it does not dictate buck to doe ratios. A lot of interrelated biological and ecological factors dictate buck to doe ratios, and we are currently in the same pattern that brought us the big declines of the early 1990s. Regardless of whether you agree with my assessment of what is causing this repeat pattern of the early 1990s. It does not change the fact that we saw the very same increases in buck to doe ratios, and malformations(cactus bucks, etc.) just prior to the early 1990s crash. There is no hoping, or wishing on this, we are heading for a crash, plain and simple.


 Talking about crashes. I can say the same thing about the stock market.
We are heading for another big crash.
And in both cases, there is very little we can do about it.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

^^^^^ 
Wrong!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Just like Iron Bear bear said "Wrong!" 

If you see the signs, and you know the pattern, you can hedge your investment. You can bring it down slow rather than having it collapse on you. But that's the problem, those that should be doing this are misreading the signs. They think that things like high buck to doe ratios are the best thing since derivative swaps. 

Like I said, you don't have to agree with what I am saying is causing these things. But you can't deny that we are seeing an increase in antler deformities, testicular deformities, hoof conditions, higher buck to doe ratios, and under bites. An increase in these things has been seen with every major crash. These things are increasing across the West, with some areas much worse than others. In some places in Wyoming it is well underway, and the declines already recorded.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

But who's going to go out and take pictures of their nutsacks?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Jedidiah said:


> But who's going to go out and take pictures of their nutsacks?


Those concerned about the future of hunting.....yeah, you have a point.


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

Randomelk16,

I went to the southern RAC. Zion is above objective in population and b/d ratio. The DWR proposed a 100 tag increase. This increase would not materially affect a thing and isn't worth discussion; nevertheless, a lot of hunters freaked out and contacted their RAC members. SFW advised against an increase. Friends of the Pausagaunt also advised against it. Scarcely a soul said an increase is fine. The RAC voted to not increase tags. 

My observation is that there are no increases in units above objective because not enough people ask the question "why aren't you increasing tags?" to balance those who scream "its to early to increase tags / its to crowded" at the RAC meetings. The squeaky wheel (sfw) got the grease. The comments from the RAC before they voted were "90% of the emails did not want the increase." They used this to justify their decision.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

"My observation is that there are no increases in units above objective because not enough people ask the question "why aren't you increasing tags?" to balance those who scream "its to early to increase tags / its to crowded" at the RAC meetings. The squeaky wheel (sfw) got the grease. The comments from the RAC before they voted were "90% of the emails did not want the increase." They used this to justify their decision."


And the Option 2 boy's told us it was all about growing deer and a bigger pie so we could all have a bite.

Just like in economics, trickle down don't work and never will..

PEACE


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Jedidiah said:


> But who's going to go out and take pictures of their nutsacks?


That one made me laugh!

Nobody knows the future and predicting it can get dicey. Let's enjoy what we have and hope for the best.

Since lonetree is the all knowing all powerful wizard of the forum can you tell us specifically what year the deer population will crash and by how much--specifics would be appreciated.

Also if you could me give a heads up about the second coming--that would be helpful, have loads of sins to repent for.

-Thanks!


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

Wiley,

We were certainly sucker punched by the opt. 2 crowd. I'm not too certain of the trickle down comparison though. I'd be curious what would happen if the guys on this site who seem to care about keeping hunting privleges in check actually voiced their opinions to the RAC. I wonder if the RAC would find a way around the issue (arguments like "crowding" or "too soon to tell") I wonder if there was an actual presence of people saying "you've been above objective for 3+ years, when are you going to free up tags?" if the RAC would start to address those concerns instead of dismissing them by saying "hardly anyone I know at my coffee shop cares about tag increases."


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Airborne said:


> That one made me laugh!
> 
> Nobody knows the future and predicting it can get dicey. Let's enjoy what we have and hope for the best.
> 
> ...


I'll go one better than the best Vegas odds that we will see a collapse in the next 3 years. We won't see a rebound, even with the best weather. We will be stuck with flat numbers for at least a decade. How many more tags will that add?

Its not about being an all knowing powerful wizard. Its about understanding what is, and what has been going on. It just looks like wizardry to those who don't know, and have bought the last 20 years of BS.

To go back a few years to truck analogies, if you see oil in your coolant, no amount of chrome of bumper stickers will fix that. Enjoy the ride? Sure, but I can tell you with confidence, it won't last long.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Provider, if you go back and look up the threads from back in the day
When this whole fiasco grew legs, you'll see everything that is happening 
Now spelled out exactly. 

The trickle down analogy works. We've got the minority doling out resources
To the masses. As in, if we take buck hunters out of the field, we'll have all these
Deer, and in a few short years we can increase tags. It was bullcrap back then 
And it's bullcrap now. These tags and hunter opportunity are gone and they aren't
Coming back. 

Hunter apathy and blatant lies drive the system we have. If SFW and the Monroe tag
Restriction crew are all that show up for RACs and WB meetings it cements the position 
In the minds of the WB. Now we have a WB that includes two past Presidents from the
Biggest anti hunter group in the State as members. 

More trickle down facts. 60% of the votes in this system represent under 20% of ALL
Licensed hunters in the state. 80% of the hunters live along the Wasstch Front and 
They are being run by a handful of guys from Glenwood, Beaver, Blanding and Vernal. 

Lonetree is correct, we will have a normal winter, snow and cold. When we do
And we are carrying all these bucks, it's gonna be a bad bad deal.


----------



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

Lonetree said:


> I'll go one better than the best Vegas odds that we will see a collapse in the next 3 years. We won't see a rebound, even with the best weather. We will be stuck with flat numbers for at least a decade. How many more tags will that add?
> 
> Its not about being an all knowing powerful wizard. Its about understanding what is, and what has been going on. It just looks like wizardry to those who don't know, and have bought the last 20 years of BS.
> 
> To go back a few years to truck analogies, if you see oil in your coolant, no amount of chrome of bumper stickers will fix that. Enjoy the ride? Sure, but I can tell you with confidence, it won't last long.


As of now El Niño has an 80% chance of lasting into the spring of 2016. I believe this is one of the strongest El Niños that has ever been recorded as it continues to build, in fact one of the strongest since 1982-83, and while it means more for the southern half of the state than the northern half of the state, if history is a good indication we might see some major winter kill if El Niño stays strong. Good for our reservoirs if it stays strong, but we might not have to wait even 3 years to see what a strong winter will do to our deer herds.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy (Nov 14, 2008)

Lonetree said:


> I'll go one better than the best Vegas odds that we will see a collapse in the next 3 years. We won't see a rebound, even with the best weather. We will be stuck with flat numbers for at least a decade. How many more tags will that add?
> 
> Its not about being an all knowing powerful wizard. Its about understanding what is, and what has been going on. It just looks like wizardry to those who don't know, and have bought the last 20 years of BS.
> 
> To go back a few years to truck analogies, if you see oil in your coolant, no amount of chrome of bumper stickers will fix that. Enjoy the ride? Sure, but I can tell you with confidence, it won't last long.


Yep the sky is falling again.


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

Ok lonetree. You got me thinking with this truck analogy post. I was one of the guys that saw the writing on the wall and deleted my egr cooler in my 6.oh no liter diesel long before coolant appeared on my dipstick and my truck has been running great for years since. Your theories and science, and studies make sense to me and probably make sense to most people on here also. What I cant wrap my mind around (and I know youve probably explained this many times on here) is how in gods great earth are you and the dwr so far off on the tactics needed to help deer?? Or is the DWR purposely poisonings our deer herd for a hidden agenda? Feel free to blast me and call me an ignorant idiot if necessary no offense taken. Im just trying to get a better grasp of all this for the simple minded hunters like myself. Maybe I need a field trip


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Lonetree said:


> I'll go one better than the best Vegas odds that we will see a collapse in the next 3 years. We won't see a rebound, even with the best weather. We will be stuck with flat numbers for at least a decade. How many more tags will that add?


Let's get a solid definition of "collapse" and "rebound". -10%? -50%? Depending on your answer I will absolutely put $1000 down at "one better than the best Vegas odds".

We'll have a third party attorney witness and you are free and encouraged to seek your own independent council to review the deal as well, have the deal notarized, and we can put the funds into an escrow account.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

3arabians said:


> Ok lonetree. You got me thinking with this truck analogy post. I was one of the guys that saw the writing on the wall and deleted my egr cooler in my 6.oh no liter diesel long before coolant appeared on my dipstick and my truck has been running great for years since. Your theories and science, and studies make sense to me and probably make sense to most people on here also. What I cant wrap my mind around (and I know youve probably explained this many times on here) is how in gods great earth are you and the dwr so far off on the tactics needed to help deer?? Or is the DWR purposely poisonings our deer herd for a hidden agenda? Feel free to blast me and call me an ignorant idiot if necessary no offense taken. Im just trying to get a better grasp of all this for the simple minded hunters like myself. Maybe I need a field trip


To be fair the DWR is not the only culprit, but the spraying they do is more targeted to wildlife.

The reason I am looking at this so differently than everyone at the DWR, is because they all went to the same schools, and were taught the same things, by all of the same people. I started from scratch, and held to some wide spread realities(mineral deficiencies, and later malformations) that never get accounted for in the WAFWA pamphlet. These two things show up over and over in declines across the West. Yet when many managers look at the big picture, all they account for is weather, winter range, fire, competition, and predators. While these have a role, and can account for parts of declines, they don't address the mineral deficiencies and malformations seen in declines, nor do they account for the ensuing population stagnation.

This is all very complex, but if we look at just one aspect of it, it starts to come into focus. You see mineral deficiencies and antler abnormalities durring declines, as they go hand in hand. And you also see under bites and testicular abnormalities at the same time. This is because this is all related.

The under bites are definitive symptoms of severe congenital hypothyroidism. You see selenium deficiencies with thyroid disorders, because thyroid function is iodine and selenium dependent. Congenital hypothyroidism and the resulting under bites have been reproduced chemically in other animals, specifically horses. 60% of pesticides disrupt the thyroid, and are known to induce thyroid disorders such as hypothyroidism. And we see higher incidence of under bite, antler abnormalities, and testicular deformities in areas with high pesticide use. And the offspring of mothers born with hypothyroidism have a 3 times greater chance of having testicular deformities. We saw all of these things play out 20 years ago as well.

So why is the DWR not looking at thyroids disorders? It is outside of their scope of understanding. We are still nailing down details of how this plays out on a epigenetic and molecular level. It is complicated in humans where it has been studied heavily, and little understood in most animals where it has not been studied as extensively. But we do know it is there in deer, and other game. The combination of symptoms can not be explained by any other means.

So here is how it plays out in the field. Pesticide use gets ramped up, and deer eat it. The first generation ends up with conditions like metabolic acidosis, which can induce laminitis(hoof rot), mineral deficiencies( a draw for magnesium), and can lead to endocrine disruption and diabetes. It can also lead to thyroid disruption as mentioned before. When thyroid disruption occurs in the mother, fawns born to this mother have a very high chance of being born with congenital hypothyroidism, as do their offspring. The under bites seen are the most severe manifestation of this. Males are born 3 times more likely to have testicular deformities, and if metabolic acidosis is experienced by does, implantation of male sperm is favored over female sperm at conception, which leads to at birth sex ratios skewed from 50/50 like they should be, to being as high as 66/33 male to female.

Now take into account that thyroid disorders affect females at a rate of 2:1 over males,and you will see greater female mortality. All of this combines to reduce growth, and increase buck to ratios which has the same affect of slowing and stagnating growth. This is why you see declines in fawn to doe ratios when buck to doe ratios are increased. There is underlying biochemical factors that drive those numbers.

Now look at Option 2, all it did was look at things happening on the ground
(increasing deer, and buck to doe ratios), and find a way to exploit that reality, with regard to hunter management. That's how it works. When the wheels came off of wildlife science decades ago, and we could no longer manage wildlife based on good feed back and understanding. We started to just manage hunters in response to what was happening with animals, even though we do not understand what drives those realities playing out before us.

I am open to field trips, the guys I took out the other night could smell the herbicides before I did.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

johnnycake said:


> Let's get a solid definition of "collapse" and "rebound". -10%? -50%? Depending on your answer I will absolutely put $1000 down at "one better than the best Vegas odds".
> 
> We'll have a third party attorney witness and you are free and encouraged to seek your own independent council to review the deal as well, have the deal notarized, and we can put the funds into an escrow account.


State wide? All of the West? or a specific herd? This will change the odds some. The declines of the early 1990s, that we are in the process of repeating, saw 30%-70% declines across the West, with subpar recoveries(10%-30% rebounds), stagnations(flat numbers), and in many cases additional declines. I don't gamble, which is why I will put money on this.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> As of now El Niño has an 80% chance of lasting into the spring of 2016. I believe this is one of the strongest El Niños that has ever been recorded as it continues to build, in fact one of the strongest since 1982-83, and while it means more for the southern half of the state than the northern half of the state, if history is a good indication we might see some major winter kill if El Niño stays strong. Good for our reservoirs if it stays strong, but we might not have to wait even 3 years to see what a strong winter will do to our deer herds.


That's where that I-70 split comes into play. The North end of the state could see just as much as the South, with another localized I-80 split defining lake affect snow patterns as well. In the case of thyroid disruption, bitter cold could be more of an issue than deep snows. Reduced capacity to regulate body temperature can drive very high rates of spring mortality, which is when winter mortality actually plays out. If they are dieing on the winter range, that is because they entered winter in bad shape in the first place. That is not really a representation of winter, but the preceding growing season. The deer I am looking at in Northern Utah that had nice layers of fat on them 4 years ago, are starting to look pretty thin and sad. All of the harvested deer I looked at last October were pretty lean.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Since context in the thread is Utah's deer herd, let's call it a statewide collapse. Your lower bound is 30%, so we'll call it that. You also stated that there would be stagnation for at least a decade. So, I'll collect a payout (I still haven't found the best odds in Vegas, but we can agree to look that up the day of you potentially paying me) if the statewide deer herd does not decline by at least 30% within three years of today. If the herd does decline by at least 30% on or before August 5, 2018, then we start the count for a decade of stagnation. If there has been essentially zero growth, with no growth occurring at any time in between, from August 5, 2018 until August 5, 2028 then I'll pay you $1,000.

Deal? Because that is what your words state. I recognize you were likely being melodramatic and hyperbolic, but if you really want to put your money where your mouth is, I feel extremely confident that your mouth was bigger than your wallet.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

If Johnny loses, I think he should have to photograph deer nuts for Lonetree until the herd rebounds. If Lonetree loses, I think he should volunteer on the DOT roadside spraying crew. I mean come on......what's a thousand bucks really worth these days?-----SS


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

A thousand from my, but at the best Vegas odds plus one... Shoot, Lonetree might end up owing me millions!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

johnnycake said:


> Since context in the thread is Utah's deer herd, let's call it a statewide collapse. Your lower bound is 30%, so we'll call it that. You also stated that there would be stagnation for at least a decade. So, I'll collect a payout (I still haven't found the best odds in Vegas, but we can agree to look that up the day of you potentially paying me) if the statewide deer herd does not decline by at least 30% within three years of today. If the herd does decline by at least 30% on or before August 5, 2018, then we start the count for a decade of stagnation. If there has been essentially zero growth, with no growth occurring at any time in between, from August 5, 2018 until August 5, 2028 then I'll pay you $1,000.
> 
> Deal? Because that is what your words state. I recognize you were likely being melodramatic and hyperbolic, but if you really want to put your money where your mouth is, I feel extremely confident that your mouth was bigger than your wallet.


Only partly melodramatic. Utah's state wide deer herd dropped 30% from 1993 to 1994. Over the next 10 years the net increase in deer was 20%. This is averaged over the entire state, so there were areas hit way harder than 30%.

That's ~340,000 deer in '93, down to ~240000 deer in '94. With some ups and downs over the next 10 years you end up with a herd that is ~270000 in 2003.

If we repeat the 1990s like we are looking to do, I take you on the decline, and come very close on the rebound under your bet parameters.

My mouth is way bigger than my wallet, but my understanding of what is going on with deer is way bigger than both.

Come up with odds for the decline, and the rebound portion of the bet, and lets get some money in an account.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

That was the 1990s in a nut shell, and that's what the DWR is pointing at, while telling us how good things are. Like I said, I think a lot of people slept through the 1990s. I watched deer the decade before and after, and its like everyone forgot what happened.

For example, a section of the Ogden extended use to winter about 700 deer every year, prior to 1993/94. A few years ago that section maybe wintered 150 deer at the very most, and all the 20 something year old kids got excited because they had never seen it so good. Its just baffling to me, but they had no idea. They never saw what it was like before '93, which was declined from 20 years before then. The kids at least have an excuse, what about you guys that were there for it?


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Under the original offer you stated stagnation for a decade, which by your admission did not happen in the 90s. I think my money is very safe based on the original parameters of your offer, but I might need to start looking at your assets! You know, to be sure your good for it...


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

johnnycake said:


> Under the original offer you stated stagnation for a decade, which by your admission did not happen in the 90s. I think my money is very safe based on the original parameters of your offer, but I might need to start looking at your assets! You know, to be sure your good for it...


A declined population of 240000 only having a net gain to 270000, over a decade, after having declined from 340000, is not stagnation? Wow! I hope you don't work in the financial sector.

What part of my "subpar recoveries and stagnation" is inaccurate here?

Keep in mind those pre '93 numbers are declined from 20 years before that.

What baseline do you want work from? Do you even know what a deer is?


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Lonetree said:


> A declined population of 240000 only having a net gain to 270000, over a decade, after having declined from 340000, is not stagnation? Wow! I hope you don't work in the financial sector.
> 
> What part of my "subpar recoveries and stagnation" is inaccurate here?
> 
> ...


Ooh now we're getting feisty! While a 12.5% increase over 10 years is hardly stellar, it is also not stagnant. Do you even know what a flat line is? But I doubt we'll need to get to that stage of the issue as I don't believe a catastrophic collapse statewide is imminent.
And as a budding attorney, let's not try to stick words into each other's mouths. In no place did I use the phrase "subpar recoveries and stagnation". You made the claim backed by the promise of one better than the best Vegas odds, that there would be stagnation for a decade following a collapse in the next 3 years. The literal meaning of that is that for 10 years, no one year can have an increase. That is a tough sell, hence my calling you out for melodrama and hyperbole.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Hence my calling you out for not knowing anything about deer. 

Ever notice my detractors don't like to talk about deer?, or deer science?, or realities about deer? Its always a peripheral argument. I guess that's what passes in a court room.........


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Lonetree, I've never claimed to be an expert in deer biology, but when someone makes a nearly impossible claim I have no qualms speaking up. You are the one that turned to incivility, I just merely responded to your challenge. If that threatens your intellectual manhood, then by all means, continue in your insecurity. However, when you talk numbers and trends, I have a degree in economics and statistics that is happy to engage in a discussion.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

johnnycake said:


> Lonetree, I've never claimed to be an expert in deer biology, but when someone makes a nearly impossible claim I have no qualms speaking up. You are the one that turned to incivility, I just merely responded to your challenge. If that threatens your intellectual manhood, then by all means, continue in your insecurity. However, when you talk numbers and trends, I have a degree in economics and statistics that is happy to engage in a discussion.


In that case, back to the 12.5% increase not being stagnation. In the case of deer, we are talking about an animals that can double its population in 4 years, given the right conditions. When we are talking about animal reproduction, 12.5% growth is stagnate. If you only grew a cattle herd by net 12.5% over 10 years, you'd be broke before you ever got to the 10 year mark, degrees or not.

So now its a _nearly_ impossible claim? No, its more than possible, it is very probable and imminent.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

Lonetree said:


> Hence my calling you out for not knowing anything about deer.
> 
> Ever notice my detractors don't like to talk about deer?, or deer science?, or realities about deer? Its always a peripheral argument. I guess that's what passes in a court room.........


It's no contest that you know more about deer than I do, you seem to know a good deal more than most people, certainly their reproductive capacity and growth potential are impacted by abnormal testicles, and when they eat the chemicals we spray it can cause the problems pictured.

It wouldn't matter if I was an astrophysicist and those testicles had the solution for the unification of physics and all of theoretical calculus printed on them, a picture of deer balls is still funny.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Some advice for johnnycake,
When you find a zealot leave them be, don't give them an audience and don't argue with the person screaming on the hill looking for a fight in every turn. Don't push play for the broken record again and again. It would be one thing if they were funny or clever or brought other forms of knowledge and advice, but nope--all they will do is throw insults and yell louder. Take away the platform and you win. If the zealot makes future claims, then notate this and move along. The funny thing is when you come back in the future and present the zealot with the evidence it won't matter. They will wiggle about and yell just as loud. They are fully committed to their pathos and will not change, they are too far down the rabbit hole. If you think that being right is going to muzzle them you are incorrect so in essence you are beating your head against a wall and expecting a different result each time.

Remember that we come here to talk about our hobbies and to be entertained. I find no entertainment in beating my head against a wall. Some people do though. -O,-


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Jedidiah said:


> It's no contest that you know more about deer than I do, you seem to know a good deal more than most people, certainly their reproductive capacity and growth potential are impacted by abnormal testicles, and when they eat the chemicals we spray it can cause the problems pictured.
> 
> It wouldn't matter if I was an astrophysicist and those testicles had the solution for the unification of physics and all of theoretical calculus printed on them, a picture of deer balls is still funny.


I get that its funny, I'm good with that, and I appreciate jokes. The part that gets me is some people on this forum think they can BS their way through the subject matter, because they have credentials that are completely unrelated to the subject matter. That's almost as funny as testicle pictures. Except this is exactly how our wildlife management is conducted, by people with credentials, that feel a particular way something.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Airborne said:


> Some advice for johnnycake,
> When you find a zealot leave them be, don't give them an audience and don't argue with the person screaming on the hill looking for a fight in every turn. Don't push play for the broken record again and again. It would be one thing if they were funny or clever or brought other forms of knowledge and advice, but nope--all they will do is throw insults and yell louder. Take away the platform and you win. If the zealot makes future claims, then notate this and move along. The funny thing is when you come back in the future and present the zealot with the evidence it won't matter. They will wiggle about and yell just as loud. They are fully committed to their pathos and will not change, they are too far down the rabbit hole. If you think that being right is going to muzzle them you are incorrect so in essence you are beating your head against a wall and expecting a different result each time.
> 
> Remember that we come here to talk about our hobbies and to be entertained. I find no entertainment in beating my head against a wall. Some people do though. -O,-


What was the original topic? Oh yeah, there is no thread drift on this one. Have anything on 1990s deer?

Beating heads against the wall: That's what some of us are talking about. We keep making the same mistakes with the way we manage deer, but some want to keep doing it, or just coast along hoping and praying. Sorry if I am a zealot that wants more deer. I know, that's not what you usually find on hunting forums.

Your whole premise seems to be that we can't predict the future. Which is simply not true. If one actually grasps the subject matter, they can tell you with high probability what certain outcomes are going to be. If your mechanic tells you there is oil in your coolant, and your engine is going to fail. By all means, hammer down and drive off, and tell them they are a zealot.

This whole conversation is really that simple. I'm saying we are finding oil in the coolant, and high hydrocarbon levels. I am then saying the last time we saw these things the engine blew up. While you are telling me I can't know that the engine is going to fail. Really?


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Airborne said:


> Some advice for johnnycake,
> When you find a zealot leave them be, don't give them an audience and don't argue with the person screaming on the hill looking for a fight in every turn. Don't push play for the broken record again and again. It would be one thing if they were funny or clever or brought other forms of knowledge and advice, but nope--all they will do is throw insults and yell louder. Take away the platform and you win. If the zealot makes future claims, then notate this and move along. The funny thing is when you come back in the future and present the zealot with the evidence it won't matter. They will wiggle about and yell just as loud. They are fully committed to their pathos and will not change, they are too far down the rabbit hole. If you think that being right is going to muzzle them you are incorrect so in essence you are beating your head against a wall and expecting a different result each time.
> 
> Remember that we come here to talk about our hobbies and to be entertained. I find no entertainment in beating my head against a wall. Some people do though. -O,-


Most of the time I follow this sound advice, but when an offer for a ridiculously skewed bet in my favor is offered, I'll happy take the chance to have some random guy on the internet "owe" me everything he owns for my risk of $1 K....


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Odds for the decline and rebound portion? If you think this is skewed in your favor, it only demonstrates how little you understand the subject matter. You are betting on a car to win a race, that has a blown head gasket. Even a technicality is not going to save you on that.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Do you know how you can tell someone is bluffing? They are the ones that think everyone else is. You can't hide projection with this


----------



## Slayer (Feb 3, 2013)

Cant wait to go hunt all these deer!! Hunting season is right around the corner!! In fact, I like non-typicals better any way. The more jacked up thier horns are the better the trophy!!!  Everyone please post pics of your jacked up bucks this fall- we would love to see them!!!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Slayer said:


> Cant wait to go hunt all these deer!! Hunting season is right around the corner!! In fact, I like non-typicals better any way. The more jacked up thier horns are the better the trophy!!!  Everyone please post pics of your jacked up bucks this fall- we would love to see them!!!


I love non-typicals too. If you shoot any cactus bucks with retained velvet, post them here, and submit them here for a chance to win some camping gear: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/service/photo-contest/

Enjoy it while you can, it won't be like this a few years from now when the population collapses. Should still be some weird bucks around, you just won't be able to get a tag to hunt one.


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

Wiley,

I agree with your analysis of how it got shoved through and what's going on. I'm just not convinced there is nothing to be done. Trickle down is a good analogy right now because there is apathy, but I wonder what would happen if say 10 different guys went to the southern rac meeting and said we are holding you to tag increases when the herd is above objective. Maybe it wouldn't work. I suspect they would come up with an excuse as they have done before, but maybe they would start to think how do we balance the interests of general hunters? I just wish more guys on this site would set aside one evening every spring to go to the RAC and counter all of the special interests.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Lonetree said:


> Do you know how you can tell someone is bluffing? They are the ones that think everyone else is. You can't hide projection with this


says the guy who started slinging the bluffing accusation in the first place. Interesting. For the record, I don't think you're bluffing---I think you are wrong, there is a difference.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

johnnycake said:


> says the guy who started slinging the bluffing accusation in the first place. Interesting. For the record, I don't think you're bluffing---I think you are wrong, there is a difference.


Lets be specific. Wrong about what, the impending declines? What stagnation is? Mule deer reproduction? What is leading us to the declines?

What do you have to support your claim that I am wrong?


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

I think you are wrong in your prediction of a 30% or worse decline in deer population within 3 years with stagnation in the population for the following decade. To support my opinion would be the fact that your prophesy is detrimentally specific. I don't deny that there could be something to your theories re health, etc. in the herd. But to guarantee not just 1 event, but a sequence of events is a very tall order. That is why I think you're wrong.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

johnnycake said:


> I think you are wrong in your prediction of a 30% or worse decline in deer population within 3 years with stagnation in the population for the following decade. To support my opinion would be the fact that your prophesy is detrimentally specific. I don't deny that there could be something to your theories re health, etc. in the herd. But to guarantee not just 1 event, but a sequence of events is a very tall order. That is why I think you're wrong.


_Think_, or should we say_ feel_, all you want. The past is prologue, and it is the biggest part of how we understand the present and potential future, by providing reference, and comparative information.

Everything we are seeing WRT deer, ie. high buck to doe ratios, testicular deformities, under bites, abnormal antler development, etc. we saw prior to the big crashes that swept the West 20 years ago. Even the DWR is pointing to the similarities of the early 1990s. They just did not think through what followed the increases in buck to doe ratios that they currently think are so wonderful.

Without data and reference, observations, feelings, and thoughts, are just singular anomalies. It does make them invalid, but on their own, they hold no weight.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> _Think_, or should we say_ feel_, all you want. The past is prologue, and it is the biggest part of how we understand the present and potential future, by providing reference, and comparative information.
> 
> Everything we are seeing WRT deer, ie. high buck to doe ratios, testicular deformities, under bites, abnormal antler development, etc. we saw prior to the big crashes that swept the West 20 years ago. Even the DWR is pointing to the similarities of the early 1990s. They just did not think through what followed the increases in buck to doe ratios that they currently think are so wonderful.
> 
> Without data and reference, observations, feelings, and thoughts, are just singular anomalies. It does make them invalid, but on their own, they hold no weight.


High buck t doe ratios?
Many of the sub-units were below 10/100 in the late 80s/early 90s.
But those units were hit just as hard.
and continued with low B/D ratios unit they finally got relief by lowering tag numbers in those units three years ago.
Now many of those units are as good as some of the LE hunts but only take two years on average to draw.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Seems like to me that a slow steady rise in population is a much healthier way to go that a sudden spike in numbers.(like doubling in 4 or 5 years)
If we had twice the number of deer now than what we currently have, then I could see a major crash and slower recovery because the habitat can't support those numbers.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Since the basis for the belief in another decline is that history repeats itself.. does anyone know when "Part the Red Sea, Again" is happening? I would love tickets.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

RandomElk16 said:


> Since the basis for the belief in another decline is that history repeats itself.. does anyone know when "Part the Red Sea, Again" is happening? I would love tickets.


And to add to that, if the basis is that history repeats itself then we have to look forward to the "good ol days" again too, right? :grin:


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

ridgetop said:


> Seems like to me that a slow steady rise in population is a much healthier way to go that a sudden spike in numbers.(like doubling in 4 or 5 years)
> If we had twice the number of deer now than what we currently have, then I could see a major crash and slower recovery because the habitat can't support those numbers.


Habitat is not a limiting factor. We can support a lot of deer right now.

If we have a hard winter, we will have some declines, that's a given, that's how it works. This is the part we have limited control over.

The problem is that the deer in many places, across the West, are currently showing signs of metabolic disorders, just like they did in the early 1990s. In many places this is very severe. This is the key issue. So when we see a hard winter or other decline event, we won't just see a normal decline, with the expectant rebound like we saw in the early 1980s. We are going to see a massive collapse, with subpar recoveries and a stagnating population like we saw in the 1990s.

Its not just that history is bound to repeat itself, its that *we* are repeating history by not understanding the past, where we came from, how we got here, and where we are going. This effectively takes away our ability to govern the present or influence the future.

Even if what you were saying about growing deer slow had some biological basis, and was the right thing to do. You would still need to know how to grow deer. And the key to that is knowing what the limiting factors are, and how to mitigate them, which the DWR and many of you here seem incapable of learning.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

LostLouisianian said:


> And to add to that, if the basis is that history repeats itself then we have to look forward to the "good ol days" again too, right? :grin:


We could be enjoying the "good ol days". That's what we were headed for, we were well on the way. But people with your mindset, and lack of understanding about what makes that possible, have made that all but impossible at this point. Why do even chime in, you don't know anything about deer. At least guys like Ridgetop have a serious interest and stake in this a serious deer hunter.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

RandomElk16 said:


> Since the basis for the belief in another decline is that history repeats itself.. does anyone know when "Part the Red Sea, Again" is happening? I would love tickets.


Do you have pre and post Red Sea numbers for reference? Can you explain the mechanism by which it was parted? This is classic, and basically sums up the current understanding of wildlife management, its nothing but faith and unreferenced belief.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> Habitat is not a limiting factor. We can support a lot of deer right now.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Lonetree said:


> Do you have pre and post Red Sea numbers for reference? Can you explain the mechanism by which it was parted? This is classic, and basically sums up the current understanding of wildlife management, its nothing but faith and unreferenced belief.


Honestly Lonetree, Pre and Post deer decline numbers from the past may be a reference, yes, but you seem to believe they are more than that. You are using them as a basis of proof of multiple things.

Utah's people population since 1993 is 133%. Even with that growth and destruction of winter ranges, our deer numbers are also HIGHER than they were in 1993, pre crash. What I gather is that the recovery time isn't fast enough for you? I believe you that a big winter will hit Utah. I don't believe that any historical data will impact that either way. We can't stop nature. We could have an earthquake here, yellowstone can erupt, etc.. Doesn't mean we can do much about it. Should we abandon all wildlife management? No. But should we grab our raincoats because the sky is coming down?

You are a broken record with this stuff. You constantly state problems and the flaws or lack of solutions, but never any solution. How are you going to prevent a major winter kill? You going to build a bunch of covered winter ranges? You going to snowplow food? Or drop feed from helicopters to the ranges? What is your recommendation? It just gets old knowing we could have numbers over 400,000 and you would still be on here telling everyone they don't know anything.

Usually, your recommendation involves stating problems and telling everyone how they don't know crap about them and how any current dwr policy sucks. No one cares about the guy that rages about his understanding of the problem, they care about the guy that has ideas about a solution, not continuous sidestepping. Do you have wildlife knowledge? I think you do... I don't know many guys out there checking out deer nuts. However, this understanding seems to make you believe you have some sort of wildlife superiority, but you don't. Sadly, you just use said understand for wildlife forum banter.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Random

I'm not side stepping anything, you are not paying attention.

YOU tell us what is, and has been limiting deer growth, and what the solution to that is. As you mentioned, I have been a broken record on the subject, to the point that even a guy like Lost can recite it verbatim. If you have not figured it out yet, the problem is on your side. 

Deer numbers have been declining for 40 years. The current increase is no where near pre 1993 numbers in many places, but was on a nice trajectory, no doubt. The problem is, I will repeat this again, is that we are going to see the same major crash we saw in the early 1990s along with years of subpar growth. So enjoy it while you can.

Wildlife superiority: Lets just say there is a spectrum, and you are no where near me on it. Seriously, what have you added to any of this WRT to the actual subject of deer, and an understanding of what is going on with DEER. Do you have a "solution".


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Lonetree said:


> Random
> 
> I'm not side stepping anything, you are not paying attention.
> 
> YOU tell us.......I have been a broken record on the subject................. Do you have a "solution".


And there it is... Again.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

ridgetop said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > Habitat is not a limiting factor. We can support a lot of deer right now.
> ...


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

RandomElk16 said:


> And there it is... Again.


Yep, another post from Random demonstrating a complete ignorance on the subject matter at hand. This is all he has to offer on the subject. Right on par with the WB.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

You guys don't know anything about deer, but because I rub you and your beliefs about deer the wrong way, I must be wrong? Prove it, you guys come up with some research and field work, and prove it! 

You would not last a day with professionals on this. I've been doing it for years.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Lonetree said:


> You guys don't know anything about deer, but because I rub you and your beliefs about deer the wrong way, I must be wrong? Prove it, you guys come up with some research and field work, and prove it!
> 
> You would not last a day with professionals on this. I've been doing it for years.


Lonetree, please provide your resume or curricula vitae as well as a list of no fewer than 5 references--3 professional, 2 academic--to support your claims to authority. I will also need your full name, current address, and birthdate to run the background check properly to be able to verify your academic claims.

Random simply asked what your SOLUTION is, and you did exactly what he predicted: insulted him and sidestepped by asking what his solution was. You make a lot of claims to knowledge of biology, zoology, chemistry, and biochemistry, and from my perspective appear to be a well-versed google warrior. I am trained to take no one at their word, and require proof of credentials. I know you've been asked to support your claims of authority in the past, and have never provided why we should take your word as scripture. Do I think you might have a valid theory? Perhaps, even a blind squirrel can find the occasional nut. However, for people to take you seriously (as you clearly so desperately wish for) you have the burden of proof to establish WHY we should.

You are claiming causation, but point to historical correlation to back up your prophecy of doom, and as a statistician I chuckle. Show me hard data with valid p-values and rigorous testing for homogeneity, skewness, kurtosis, and heteroskedasticity and I will gladly take back my criticism of your correlation/causation faux pas.

I don't think anyone denies you are passionate on the subject (good gawd you likely have more pictures of deer nuts than random has pics of bikini models). But any tin-foil hat clad hobo with an obama phone can walk around giving deer carcasses a reach around.

I just want some back up of why I should trust your reading of the tea leaves, err malformed testes. Hardly too much to ask.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Lonetree said:


> You guys don't know anything about deer, but because I rub you and your beliefs about deer the wrong way, I must be wrong? Prove it, you guys come up with some research and field work, and prove it!
> 
> You would not last a day with professionals on this. I've been doing it for years.


What am I suppose to add or call you wrong about? I said, I believe we will have another heavy winter and that will result in population loss. Because I am not blaming someone that isn't a valid response? Am I suppose to say it's the WB's fault that our population numbers for deer are the highest in 3 decades but they have nothing to do with that, they are managing wrong, and all those numbers are a false truth because we are just going to have a substantial loss followed by slow growth. That what you want? I am not showing ignorance. What I am saying is you come on here and say a whole bunch of stuff without saying much at all. You just like banter.

You say the sky is falling, but don't say what we should do about it. Then you respond, like you will with this, "I have stated many solutions.. I have ____ education... I have backyard studies.. If you haven't picked up on what I have said you are an idiot".

You also say "You have a lack of understanding" "You are naive" "The DWR is managing wrong" "The WB are idiots" "Deer nuts are crooked" "Poisons are bad for animals" "Cactus bucks are the devil" (I love waterboy)... etc... I just simply asked, which I have in the past, that you stop calling everyone out and have some backing to what you say, as well as a proposed solution.

A whole lot of finger pointing and banter...


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

The research: Identify the factors that have driven declines, subpar recoveries, and suppressed herds for the last 40 years, marked by a major decline and suppression 20 years ago. This has been looked into by a lot of people. What has come out of all of this research is that these declines are marked by mineral deficiencies. These mineral deficiencies are Hallmarks of endocrine disruptions, and are correlated to pesticide use.

Solution: Document, and research these conditions, and the associated pesticide use in order to better inform policy, and ecologically sound wildlife management, for the benefit of hunters. As biologically sound wildlife management is at the heart of true conservation and sustainable hunting.

Professional References:
Judy Hoy, Wildlife researcher, MT
Joe Hutto, Wildlife biologist, WY
John Mionczynski, Wildlife biologist, WY

I have worked with, and work directly with these individuals, and others.

Academic references:
Dr. Don Huber, Professor Emeritus of Plant Pathology at Purdue University. Bio
Dr. Huber, Judy Hoy, and deer: http://www.northamericanwhitetail.c...ssroads-crops-contributing-whitetail-decline/
Dr. Stefanie Seneff, Biophysicist/senior computer scientist, MIT Bio
Seneff has reviewed a good deal of my work.

My name is Josh Leavitt. PM me for the rest.

Nice try at the court room doubt casting Jonny, but you guys are simply out of your league when it comes to the science on this issue. You are pissing in the wind, like most of the folks driving our management, and declining hunting.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

RandomElk16 said:


> What am I suppose to add or call you wrong about? I said, I believe we will have another heavy winter and that will result in population loss. Because I am not blaming someone that isn't a valid response? Am I suppose to say it's the WB's fault that our population numbers for deer are the highest in 3 decades but they have nothing to do with that, they are managing wrong, and all those numbers are a false truth because we are just going to have a substantial loss followed by slow growth. That what you want? I am not showing ignorance. What I am saying is you come on here and say a whole bunch of stuff without saying much at all. You just like banter.
> 
> You say the sky is falling, but don't say what we should do about it. Then you respond, like you will with this, "I have stated many solutions.. I have ____ education... I have backyard studies.. If you haven't picked up on what I have said you are an idiot".
> 
> ...


I've dropped more peer reviewed science, and reference material on this subject, and on this forum, than most people could read in three life times. The fact that you have not read it, is your failing not mine.

Banter? You crack me up. You should know about banter.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Any publications that I can readily review? I will happily look into your references. But it makes it simpler when I call up to chat with a prof if I know a bit of what they have worked with you on.

What are your academic credentials on the subject? You left that part out.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

johnnycake said:


> Any publications that I can readily review? I will happily look into your references. But it makes it simpler when I call up to chat with a prof if I know a bit of what they have worked with you on.
> 
> What are your academic credentials on the subject? You left that part out.


Go do the work on my references, you have everything you need. Have fun looking up John, that's a long hike. I've posted work from many of these people on this forum, use the search function. This is not Burger King.

Get some odds for the decline and rebound portion of the bet while you are at it.

My credentials? I can demonstrate and support a working understanding of the subject matter, and work with professionals in this field. How about you? I have street cred, in this field. Like I said, most of you would not last half a day.

How is it that you can't show basic proficiency in the subject matter, but you think challenging my credentials, will support your case on this? That's the height of hypocrisy right there. You need to go check out the thread on "credibility", because you have lost any you might have had, with regard to this.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

John Mionczynski, the sasquatch dude? really? I don't deny he has some excellent research in several areas, but some of his focus has definitely led to raised eyebrows. 
http://www.wyofile.com/john-mionczynski/

I've reached out to the other references and am happy to report what they say re, Josh Leavitt when I hear back.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

johnnycake said:


> John Mionczynski, the sasquatch dude? really? I don't deny he has some excellent research in several areas, but some of his focus has definitely led to raised eyebrows.
> http://www.wyofile.com/john-mionczynski/
> 
> I've reached out to the other references and am happy to report what they say re, Josh Leavitt when I hear back.


That's pretty fast to have "reached out" to some of these people, considering the way some of them would need to be contacted. my BS detector just pegged red.

You can beat up on John all you want for bigfoot, he is a recognized authority on bighorn sheep, one of the best of the last century since the Muries.

How about you PM me everyone's contact info in the next 10 minutes, to verify your claims. Clocks ticking.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

So, I just read GLYPHOSATE AND RUMINANT DECLINES that you wrote.

So, you believe these chemicals caused the declines in a number of species, both directly and indirectly? You also believe they were the primary factor in the major decline 20 years ago right?

So, since these chemicals are still a threat, and we still use them and have since the drop, why are there drastic declines followed by slow growth, then massive growth (to the point that we have higher numbers now than before the drop, even given the winter range destruction I mentioned.), then another large crash? Why isn't there a steady decline in the Mule deer population?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

No PM, he must have had an important conference call, or some other _really important_ thing to pull him away from his formerly lightening fast responses. :mrgreen:

"Liar, lawyer, mirror, show me what's the difference?" Keenan


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Here is the link to what I read, in case you wonder where I read it and if anyone else wants to see: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/service/ecosystem-effects/


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

I've commuted back and forth to SLC from Evanston about 40 times in the last 10 weeks. I seen a good number of dead deer this summer in Echo Canyon, more than I've seen in a long time. Twice I seen the folks with the trailer that pick up the road kills on I80; kinda interesting.

Every year we walk from the Utah/WY border, milepost 55, on the Mirror Lake Highway 27 miles down to mile post 28, our Adopt-a-Highway section. The last few years there's been 60-something dead deer each year. This year there's only 52 road kills with more up in the National Forest milepost 49 thru 28. Seen more deer up on the north slope this year than the last number of years and fewer elk close to the Mirror Lake Highway.

.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

RandomElk16 said:


> So, I just read GLYPHOSATE AND RUMINANT DECLINES that you wrote.
> 
> So, you believe these chemicals caused the declines in a number of species, both directly and indirectly? You also believe they were the primary factor in the major decline 20 years ago right?
> 
> So, since these chemicals are still a threat, and we still use them and have since the drop, why are there drastic declines followed by slow growth, then massive growth (to the point that we have higher numbers now than before the drop, even given the winter range destruction I mentioned.), then another large crash? Why isn't there a steady decline in the Mule deer population?


Its simple economics. We saw the first of this in the late '60s early '70s as herbicide use was ramped up at the end of the Vietnam war.

We then saw a decline in use through the late '70s and early '80s.

There was then a massive build up in use in the late '80s/early '90s by private industry, wildlife managers, and federal agencies.

We then saw ups and downs in use with a planned expansion in '06, but with the economic collapse of '07/'08, we then saw a decline in use. Which is what brought us our current gains in deer.

About 2011, we see a major resurgence in use, under the 2006 plan of expansion, along with other use because the money is there. It is this use that has caused the under bites, abnormal antlers, funny nut sacks, etc. that we see now, and saw prior and during the early '90s crash.

It is the frequency and quantity of use that must be looked at as well. Which fits wildlife numbers across the west perfectly.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

wyogoob said:


> I've commuted back and forth to SLC from Evanston about 40 times in the last 10 weeks. I seen a good number of dead deer this summer in Echo Canyon, more than I've seen in a long time. Twice I seen the folks with the trailer that pick up the road kills on I80; kinda interesting.
> 
> Every year we walk from the Utah/WY border, milepost 55, on the Mirror Lake Highway 27 miles down to mile post 28, our Adopt-a-Highway section. The last few years there's been 60-something dead deer each year. This year there's only 52 road kills with more up in the National Forest milepost 49 thru 28. Seen more deer up on the north slope this year than the last number of years and fewer elk close to the Mirror Lake Highway.
> 
> .


Trailer: They use to use a pickup truck, now they need a tandem axle trailer, yeah "interesting". I have watched this myself, the deer are in on the sprayed areas. All of the interstates are being sprayed very heavily right now. That's the economics portion of this. I-15 is a complete dead zone for miles and miles.

Edit: On many of these roads your road kill will also be concentrated at bends, and embankments. This is where the salt and mag-chloride collect, and create licks that draw the deer in as well. Goob, I'm watching a mag treated road right now, no deer, but they are still hitting the road side licks and my mag licks. There is something with the stuff they use to keep down road dust, that does not appear to attract deer.

If they pick up deer on 150, which I don't know if they do, you are seeing what they missed or left because they could not pick it up. In which case there are more than that hit. This gets hard to sort out if you don't have the cooperation and numbers from the people that pick up the deer. Some of this is contracted out.

One of the studies on skewed sex ratios used some data from road kill, but that was partly because one of the biologists that worked on the study, was tasked with picking up road kill when he was not writing fishing tickets.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

RandomElk16 said:


> Here is the link to what I read, in case you wonder where I read it and if anyone else wants to see: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/service/ecosystem-effects/


For context that paper was edited and reviewed by several people. It was written as reference information for several authors writing articles(hunting magazines) that were specifically interested in GMOs and glyphosate. This was all white tail stuff back East.

What we are looking at here in the west, while similar, is unique and has its own specifics with regard to big game exposure. We see some minimal glyphosate use WRT to deer. I have seen them eat areas treated with glyphosate, but it is about 8 other pesticides that are being used on a mass scale that are of far greater concern around here, at least when we are talking about deer.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Still no PM from Jonny. Maybe my PM function is broken, Goob are we having trouble with PMs?


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Lonetree said:


> Still no PM from Jonny. Maybe my PM function is broken, Goob are we having trouble with PMs?


Wow, heaven forbid an individual actually has to go back to do some real work for a couple hours...an ambulance went past my window and instinct took over.

Here's where I have reached out to Dr. Seneff. 
[email protected]

I sent a LinkedIn message to Judy Hoy at
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/judy-hoy/18/b26/a

I sent an email to Huber at Purdue:
[email protected]

Joe Hutto, the naturalist and writer living with the deer in WY I haven't reached out to nor have I cared to reach out to Mr. Sasquatch. If the two academics and the wildlife rehabilitator fail to respond to my inquiries I'll reach out.

lol, Lonetree, last I checked, street cred isn't a sufficient resource to be taken at your word in the scientific community.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Lonetree said:


> Get some odds for the decline and rebound portion of the bet while you are at it.


Odd, the way you originally issued the challenge/waiver, the odds are "one better than the best Vegas odds" and the bet is one contiguous bet. I can win at the 3 year stage, and any time during the ten years following if the deer herd deviates upward from stagnation (I'll be kind, the way you worded it, I would win if it experienced a second decline as that too would not be stagnation, we'll go with your intended meaning). You can win ONLY IF in the next three years if a 30% or greater crash occurs AND there is stagnation for the following ten. There is no need for separate odds/payouts as it is a single wager. So far, I've only looked briefly but the Vegas odds on the Jacksonville Panthers winning the Superbowl are 200-1. At that rate, if I'm right you owe me $201,000.00. But I'm sure I can find more favorable odds for you.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Lonetree said:


> Its simple economics. We saw the first of this in the late '60s early '70s as herbicide use was ramped up at the end of the Vietnam war.
> 
> We then saw a decline in use through the late '70s and early '80s.
> 
> ...


Which economic model is this? The Leavitt-Tuedatrolls Langragian? or the Fursi-Rios-Lee Piguouvian Model?

Or are you just using a pedestrian economic market crash--> decrease in gov't spending-->decrease in pesticides-->decrease in funky balls? Because, correct me if I'm wrong, the deficit would argue that despite the market crash, government spending continued at record pace.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

It took you an hour and a half to dig that up. Huber will probably refer you, that's what he does. Seneff will probably send me or Judy a nasty email. But you'll get a response from Judy.

"I've reached out to *the other references* and am happy to report what they say re, Josh Leavitt when I hear back."--Johnnycake

You claimed you reached out to everyone but John, and then had to dig for an hour and a half to come up with 3 out of the 4 you claimed to have already contacted . Says volumes about you. Very predictable. Decent lawyer bluff, but you still don't know anything about the subject at hand.

When you can disprove, or even understand the scientific basis of any of this, then you will have something. Until then you are only casting very weak doubt on me, nothing else.

The original bet is an imminent decline, followed by stagnation. And I stand by that. You have yet to explain with even rudimentary knowledge of the subject, how that is not going to happen. Everyone on this thread but you seems to be able to cover the subject matter of deer. You on the other hand seem to have some sort of preoccupation, stalker thing going on with me.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

johnnycake said:


> Which economic model is this? The Leavitt-Tuedatrolls Langragian? or the Fursi-Rios-Lee Piguouvian Model?
> 
> Or are you just using a pedestrian economic market crash--> decrease in gov't spending-->decrease in pesticides-->decrease in funky balls?* Because, correct me if I'm wrong, the deficit would argue that despite the market crash, government spending continued at record pace.*


Not on pesticide spraying. This is well documented, with regard to power line spraying associated with energy company buy outs, and pipeline construction, both of which have a 2011 onset. This also corresponds with increases in road side spraying because of increases in federal budget. And then we have the greatest increase in "habitat projects" that also occur during the same time frame.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

"Joe Hutto, the naturalist and writer living with the deer in WY I haven't reached out to" "and the wildlife rehabilitator" --Johnnycake

Just to clarify, Hutto and Hoy are published wildlife biologists, Just like Mioncynski. I work with professional, career wildlife biologists.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Johnny needs to post up his cred, pictures to support it would be preferred.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Lonetree, if it makes you feel better to think that everyone is like you without a real job to take you away from the interwebs...fine. It took literally 3 mins of google and linkedIn searches to get their respective contact information. You linked the bio's of two of them which included their e-mails. 

I have never made a claim to understand the intricate workings of herd dynamics. I simply see the odds of the chain of events happening just as you laid it out, to be laughable and worth $1k in 13 years if I'm wrong. If I have to pay you out, I'll not even be mad/disappointed, I'll be genuinely impressed. I've never stated at any time a claim to authority on the subject, rather a healthy dose of skepticism for anyone who promises that X then Y then Z for 10 years will happen...plus, if you're wrong, I highly doubt you'll send me the 6-7 figure payout that I'm confident the "best Vegas odds" plus one would result from my $1k wager. but it might just shut you up in three years, and that is worth the risk to me.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6GtheV0RQoWSUpiWXFXZ0NndnM/view?usp=sharing
I sent that at 11:15 am here in Anchorage, so that would correlate to before I said I had reached out, now wouldn't it.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

:mrgreen: You missed Joe.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Lonetree said:


> Its simple economics. We saw the first of this in the late '60s early '70s as herbicide use was ramped up at the end of the Vietnam war.
> 
> We then saw a decline in use through the late '70s and early '80s.
> 
> ...


So, less chemicals caused the increase in deer, and the recent uptick in use will cause another crash. What I don't get is the long term damage disappearing. If these chemicals had the drastic effect you mention, 1 year worth of crash, then why would they stabilize? Even if spraying decrease correlates with rises in population, the effect on the environment should still be there. If they caused deficiencies before, they should have continued. The environment wouldn't have recovered that fast. Even with the decrease in use, it was still being used, never allowing the environment to recover. So why the major uptick in population?

Then your solution is to stop the use of these chemicals?


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Until, and if, I hear back from anyone, I'm done with this troll. There are salmon to catch, babies to play with, and even a bit of work to do.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

RandomElk16 said:


> So, less chemicals caused the increase in deer, and the recent uptick in use will cause another crash. What I don't get is the long term damage disappearing. If these chemicals had the drastic effect you mention, 1 year worth of crash, then why would they stabilize? Even if spraying decrease correlates with rises in population, the effect on the environment should still be there. If they caused deficiencies before, they should have continued. The environment wouldn't have recovered that fast. Even with the decrease in use, it was still being used, never allowing the environment to recover. So why the major uptick in population?
> 
> Then your solution is to stop the use of these chemicals?


It is active use, and persistence, that is the biggest problem. When they spray certain pesticides it draws the deer into them(this phenomenon is well documented, check the Merck vet manual). Because many of the pesticides themselves are palatable, and because of what they do to the plants. Many pesticides are auxin mimics, meaning they are synthetic plant hormones. Many of these accelerate the aging and growth of plants. Specifically leader growth, which deer, moose, and sheep target specifically.

Many of these are persistent in the environment, and have a lasting affect for years, and the more they used the more the deer are exposed to them.

Its not so much that the environment would have completely recovered, but acute exposure(eating treated vegetation) would go down exponentially every year pesticides were not used. This is why things stagnated through the '90s after the crash, there was continued use, with an uptick in the late '90s, early 2000s, which corresponds with another dip in the populations. It seems to take about 3 generations to shake the acute affects of exposure. There also appears to be the problem of predisposition to the affects of spraying. We don't know what the long term affects are.

And while a lot of people like to ring that correlation is not causation bell. If you find declines coupled with mineral deficiencies, you can usually find pesticide use, many times targeted at the very species in decline. And if you have high pesticide use, you can find malformed animals and resulting declines.

As for stopping the use of these chemicals. We can't continue to use them on the scale they are being used on. And we cannot continue to use them in a targeted fashion on wildlife habitat. It is the mass use, and targeted nature that are the biggest problem. And its not just wildlife, this stuff does the same things to us. Human thyroid disorders, Diabetes, Autisms, and cryptorchidism have climbed over the last 20-30 years, as human fertility has dropped, correlative to wildlife declines.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy (Nov 14, 2008)

johnnycake said:


> Until, and if, I hear back from anyone, I'm done with this troll. There are salmon to catch, babies to play with, and even a bit of work to do.


Good call. I've gotten sucked into the idiot vortex myself. What most people don't know is he's the ******* son of The Donald. Reality unto themselves.

.....................


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Good call. I've gotten sucked into the idiot vortex myself. What most people don't know is he's the ******* son of The Donald. Reality unto themselves.
> 
> p.s Note to super moderator "if a word is in the bible it's ok to use". If not I could use illegitimate but I can't spell it.


No worry,our bad word thingy takes care of it for us.

Who is Donald?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Good call. I've gotten sucked into the idiot vortex myself. What most people don't know is he's the ******* son of The Donald. Reality unto themselves.
> 
> .....................


Reality: Can you verify yours?


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> Trailer: They use to use a pickup truck, now they need a tandem axle trailer, yeah "interesting". I have watched this myself, the deer are in on the sprayed areas. All of the interstates are being sprayed very heavily right now. That's the economics portion of this. I-15 is a complete dead zone for miles and miles. One of the loads I seen had an adult moose on it, plus some deer.
> 
> Edit: On many of these roads your road kill will also be concentrated at bends, and embankments. This is where the salt and mag-chloride collect, and create licks that draw the deer in as well. Goob, I'm watching a mag treated road right now, no deer, but they are still hitting the road side licks and my mag licks. There is something with the stuff they use to keep down road dust, that does not appear to attract deer. Yeah, We have lots of magged roads over here. Cattle will lick them, moose did, back when we had moose.
> 
> ...


see red


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

johnnycake said:


> Until, and if, I hear back from anyone, I'm done with this troll. There are salmon to catch, babies to play with, and even a bit of work to do.


If you need more references let me know, I did not get you any of them out of the PNW. Here is a start: http://www.cascwild.org/rachel-rachel-where-art-thou-the-need-for-a-noisy-spring/

And as long as they don't have to be deer specific, I can get you my references out of Yellowstone, Grand Teton, and Glacier for the contracted wildlife work I've done there, going back almost a decade. Look Up Kerry Gunther(bear biologist) out of YNP, Reference me and my former company Wilderness Solutions. Kerry still sends people my way.

More out of the PNW:
http://jongosch.com/local-farriers-research-connects-herbicides-to-hoof-disease-in-elk-horses/
http://jongosch.com/guest-column-in-the-longview-daily-news/
http://jongosch.com/save-our-elk-from-toxic-herbicides/
http://jongosch.com/wdfws-treponema...oup-hoof-rot-continues-to-decimate-elk-herds/
http://jongosch.com/of-roosevelt-elk-bacteria-hooves-and-herbicides/


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Goob, that's why I'm watching magged roads. I know there is draw for mag, and other people have seen deer on them, but I've yet to see it. This intrigues me, because there is something going on there, I just don't know what yet. 

You guys know as well as any about the deer that make it a ways off the road. At high traffic areas I watch for the birds to find the ones that are down off the road 50+ yards. I'm sure you have walked more highway than me over the years. It has certainly been an eye opener for me over the last year or so.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Lonetree said:


> Only partly melodramatic. Utah's state wide deer herd dropped 30% from 1993 to 1994. Over the next 10 years the net increase in deer was 20%. This is averaged over the entire state, so there were areas hit way harder than 30%.
> 
> That's ~340,000 deer in '93, down to ~240000 deer in '94. With some ups and downs over the next 10 years you end up with a herd that is ~270000 in 2003.
> 
> ...


We're in the home stretch now folks! As long as Utah's deer herd doesn't experience a +30% crash between now and August 5, 2018 I'mma be rollin' in that funky nut money! But if it does, I've got $1,000.00 with Lonetree's name on it---provided that the population remains stagnant and doesn't grow for the next 10 years, per the terms of the bet.

(I blame all of you for making me do this because the board is all but dead lately)


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I'm pretty much 100% sure Utahs deer numbers will increase statewide on the next estimate. 


Resulting in more deer permits available for 2018.....


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

goofy elk said:


> I'm pretty much 100% sure Utahs deer numbers will increase statewide on the next estimate.
> 
> Resulting in more deer permits available for 2018.....


Thank goodness for mild win... errr, it's all those awesome conservation efforts from expo funds!


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

https://wildlife.utah.gov/wildlife-news/2079-2017-archery.html

For reference here is last years article with a "guesstimate" of 375,000. Weird, because talking to biologists in a lot of areas, the winter kill was brutal and I personally saw that through the seasons.

If anyone sees it, post this years estimates when they come!


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

RandomElk16 said:


> Thank goodness for mild win... errr, it's all those awesome conservation efforts from expo funds!


All Option 2.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Vanilla said:


> All Option 2.


Oh yeah I forgot, that saved the deer!

I mean, this year only had the lowest snowpack since sometime in the 80s lol


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

Where did the self-proclaimed genius known as Lonetree scurry off to? I haven't seen him on these boards in a ***** age.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

RandomElk16 said:


> Oh yeah I forgot, that saved the deer!
> 
> I mean, this year only had the lowest snowpack since sometime in the 80s lol


60-70 Degree temps through most of Dec and Jan didnt hurt either.

-DallanC


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Winter shminter! 

Option 2.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

colorcountrygunner said:


> Where did the self-proclaimed genius known as Lonetree scurry off to? I haven't seen him on these boards in a ***** age.


I suspect he is out there making all the arrangements to send me my winnings. My only question is which tag should I buy first?


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

johnnycake said:


> I suspect he is out there making all the arrangements to send me my winnings. My only question is which tag should I buy first?


Lol do you think his arrogance will allow him to concede defeat?


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

colorcountrygunner said:


> Lol do you think his arrogance will allow him to concede defeat?


:hurt:

Of course not. He'd try to claim that wasn't what he was saying at all, but I don't think he'll even come on here and address this.


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

johnnycake said:


> :hurt:
> 
> Of course not. He'd try to claim that wasn't what he was saying at all, but I don't think he'll even come on here and address this.


It would sure be fun to watch if he did though....

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------

