# Speaking of deer management.



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

The Division has put together a new committee to develop a new 5 year plan.

If you remember right, the last 5 year plan was promptly scrapped by the whole Option 1,2,3 fiasco that took over the Wildlife Board.

It would be awesome to actually see something other than essentially telling hunters to stay home to raise buck to doe ratios for those lucky enough to draw.

What suggestions would you make to grow more deer and get more hunters back in the hills??


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Stop managing for inches. Open it up to statewide archery.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

If not buck to doe what do you recommend? 100% tag success?


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Got no problem with Buck to Doe, Random. I am not of the opinion the whole state
needs to be high B to D ratio though.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

The whole state isn't high buck to doe. Most the GS units are even less then they estimate, just gotta spend time on em. 

How high is too high? 16 bucks to 100 doe is alot? Would you rather be safe then sorry in regards to harvest and winterkill? They issue more tags than they want filled, what if everyone gets lucky and the winter is bad? One season could be detrimental to an entire herd. 

What is this whoever is lucky enough to draw? I hunt deer and elk every season. Feel blessed to do so. Give more tags and in the long run the herds will suffer. Other states havw more opportunity because.... More animals! Managing for less animals (lower buck to doe) doesn't seem like it creates more opportunity?


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Happy with 16 - 100. Not 20 or above for GS units.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

The problem with putting together a management plan, is that we do not fully understand what the limiting factors of mule deer are. And the Division, and alphabet soup groups refuse to look at anything but the last 30 years of tried and failed policy. 

As far as "management" is concerned, we are of course talking about hunter management, not actual deer management. And there in lies the problem. With the deer herd currently doing better, and in a tentative upswing or at least holding pattern, more tags would certainly be warranted. But again, this has nothing to do with growing deer. Nothing in the conversation about "management" ever has anything to do with growing deer, or addressing the last 30 years of declines. 

Mutant coyotes were not thrust on the entire mule deer population of the Western states 30 years ago. Nor did statewide archery play into the declines. And no, antler restrictions can not, and will not do anything to address the problem. The only thing that will grow more deer, and get more deer hunting opportunity, is to find out why mule deer have been declining for the last 30 years. As far as the science being conducted now, we are not going to get there. Deer transplants, coyote and lion genocide, and the 50 year old, outdated wildlife research we are currently wasting money and time on, is just not going to cut it. 

So we want to grow more deer? We want more hunting opportunity? We as hunters, and conservationists need to demand from the policy makers, and mongers, that efforts that actually go to the heart of these issues are pursued. More of the same, is only going to get us 30 more years of declines. 

At this point, I don't need to see anything else. The next 5 year plan will be more the same BS that got here in the first place. 

Myself and others are meeting with some biologists and wildlife researchers in Wyoming next week on this very issue. I don't plan on pursuing the last 30 years of failed ideas and policies.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Do you know what fecundity is Random??

I'm a big believer in the concept.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Buck to doe ratios have nothing to do with growing more deer, or solving the 30 years of mule deer declines. It is completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of wild mule deer "management". Those are game farming terms, and practices.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

RandomElk16 said:


> The whole state isn't high buck to doe. Most the GS units are even less then they estimate, just gotta spend time on em.
> 
> How high is too high? 16 bucks to 100 doe is alot? Would you rather be safe then sorry in regards to harvest and winterkill? They issue more tags than they want filled, what if everyone gets lucky and the winter is bad? One season could be detrimental to an entire herd.
> 
> What is this whoever is lucky enough to draw? I hunt deer and elk every season. Feel blessed to do so. Give more tags and in the long run the herds will suffer. Other states havw more opportunity because.... More animals! Managing for less animals (lower buck to doe) doesn't seem like it creates more opportunity?


Other states do not have more animals. If we are talking about mule deer, their numbers have ebbed and flowed across the entire West synchronously, for decades. In they are doing well in Nevada, they are doing well here, and so on.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Lonetree said:


> Other states do not have more animals. If we are talking about mule deer, their numbers have ebbed and flowed across the entire West synchronously, for decades. In they are doing well in Nevada, they are doing well here, and so on.


We have the same amount of elk and deer as idaho, wyoming, montana, colorado?

We have the same whitetails, wolves, bears as well?

Based on land available, population of humans, etc we most certainly do NOT have the same number of animals as them.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

RandomElk16 said:


> We have the same amount of elk and deer as idaho, wyoming, montana, colorado?
> 
> We have the same whitetails, wolves, bears as well?
> 
> Based on land available, population of humans, etc we most certainly do NOT have the same number of animals as them.


If we are looking at mule deer, like I said. Utah's herds, within localized parameters, rise and fall with deer in Colorado, Wyoming, Nevada, etc. Yes some states have more deer than others, but that is regardless of "management". Five Western states, with very different management plans, will see their herd numbers rise and fall at roughly the same time. This is because the last 30 years of hunter management has done nothing to address, let alone reverse, the last 30 years of mule deer declines. Myths about other states hunter management having some sort of positive affect on their mule deer herds, only clouds the real issues we face with mule deer.

Mule deer started to declined in ALL Western states in the early eighties, again in the early '90s, and again in the early 2000s. these declines have been punctuated with sub par recoveries, between crashes. This has held true across ALL Western states, regardless of hunter management, or supposed "better" wildlife "management" of other states.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Can I just ask, do any of you actually read the management plans?

They have various factors. And GBell, no GS unit is managed for more than a 20/100 ratio. Further, who are you to know a good ratio???


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Lonetree said:


> If we are looking at mule deer, like I said. Utah's herds, within localized parameters, rise and fall with deer in Colorado, Wyoming, Nevada, etc. Yes some states have more deer than others, but that is regardless of "management". Five Western states, with very different management plans, will see their herd numbers rise and fall at roughly the same time. This is because the last 30 years of hunter management has done nothing to address, let alone reverse, the last 30 years of mule deer declines. Myths about other states hunter management having some sort of positive affect on their mule deer herds, only clouds the real issues we face with mule deer.
> 
> Mule deer started to declined in ALL Western states in the early eighties, again in the early '90s, and again in the early 2000s. these declines have been punctuated with sub par recoveries, between crashes. This has held true across ALL Western states, regardless of hunter management, or supposed "better" wildlife "management" of other states.


I didn't say anything you are responding to. I simply said other states have more opportunity, and I feel that this is partly because they have larger populations. Do they or do they not? Never said their management was better.

I just think it is ignorance for everyone to think that they can hunt all of utah every year and shoot every big game animal and this will work. We can't sustain the amount of people that hunt from the state and from out of state without restriction.

Lone you are having a totally different convo then me and GBell. You aren't disproving anything I am saying.

GBell and others think its all inch managed and that ghey know so much. It isn't the state that in itself restricts us, other than a FEW le units. The amount of animals is what restricts us.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

RandomElk16 said:


> Can I just ask, do any of you actually read the management plans?
> 
> They have various factors. And GBell, no GS unit is managed for more than a 20/100 ratio. Further, who are you to know a good ratio???


I read the hunter "plans". Anything over 10/100 is unnecessary for biological growth and maintenance of a herd. So buck to doe ratios over this are for us as hunters. Problem is, more bucks do not grow more deer. When you have growing, healthy deer herds, buck to doe ratios become irrelevant, because we have plenty of deer across the board. We only have these ridiculous game farming conversations, when we are lacking deer, and don't understand what is going on, or how to fix it.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

RandomElk16 said:


> I didn't say anything you are responding to. I simply said other states have more opportunity, and I feel that this is partly because they have larger populations. Do they or do they not? Never said their management was better.
> 
> I just think it is ignorance for everyone to think that they can hunt all of utah every year and shoot every big game animal and this will work. We can't sustain the amount of people that hunt from the state and from out of state without restriction.
> 
> ...


I don't have to disprove anything you are saying, you don't know what you are talking about. We supported a whole lot more hunters when we had deer, prior to the crash. Right? Hunter management arguments, like you and others make, are about sticking your heads in the sand as to what is going on with wildlife. This is to also put your head in the sand with regard to what is happening to us hunters.

Per potential carrying capaicity, no, other states do not have more deer than Utah. You do not understand mule deer, and the West.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

You dont even get what the hell it is I am saying! Tough guy though huh...

What is your proposal since you are the smartest guy in the west?

And for the record, you dont have a da** clue my agenda or anything of the sort. I havent even made a proposal or a hunter management perspective. I have only stated facts of our current plan, and that I believe it isnt possible for every person to hunt every year. What part of that isnt true smarta**? I asked what we should do.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Fecundity, Random. Do you know what it is??
Answer that and you'll have your answer for B to D 
Ratios. 

Not what I want or you want, it's what is best balance
For our herds.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

RandomElk16 said:


> You dont even get what the hell it is I am saying! Tough guy though huh...
> 
> What is your proposal since you are the smartest guy in the west?
> 
> And for the record, you dont have a da** clue my agenda or anything of the sort. I have only stated facts of our current plan, and that I believe it isnt possible for every person to hunt every year. What part of that isnt true smarta**


Oh the, "so what is your plan" defense. Simple bring the science into the 21st century, and find out what is at the core of the 30 years of declines. Prior to these declines we supported hundreds of thousands of hunters. There is quite a bit of work that has been done to address the issue, but at every turn there is a guy like you, or some politician, or other guy that has read the "plan".

I get exactly what you are saying, that not everyone gets to hunt every year, because you don't see it as sustainable. And yet hunters are not the cause of mule deer declines, so such sentiments really do nothing to improve the situation. If the der herds are rising, or falling, hunting will have a very small affect on that overall trend. So the arguments of cutting tags for the sake of the deer, is nonsense. Especially given that we cut tags as deer numbers have increased.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

This is why we have been going backwards for 30 ****ing years.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

How is that a defense? I feel if people get on a sportsman forum and b**** about the current management plan, then in that same statement they should provide a solution.

I understand that the deer numbers have fallen. I understand that we have had weather changes. I understand that the world has changed in the last 30 years! However, GBell didnt take the same perspective as you. He came out stating that our buck to doe are to high and has made it clear he is an opportunity guy. You have come on with a scientific approach speaking not in hunting terms whatsoever. You have come on speaking on true conservation terms. What can we do to conserve the species? To help the deer species by some way other than tag management. I apologize if I am wrong in what I think your angle is. It makes sense. Problem is every biologist will disagree, and the years, research, and just all out science of it will probably never be taking into the consideration that it should. You and I have had a misunderstanding because I am responding to a hunter wanting opportunity and to a scientist personality.

Because hunting is the main angle in our state, that will most always be what it is based on. So in those terms, I have simply told GBell that giving out more tags or managing for a lower buck to doe isnt the solution. In a round about way I think you feel the same, just not from the hunting approach.

I apologize for gettin upset and for the misunderstanding.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Lonetree said:


> This is why we have been going backwards for 30 ****ing years.


I think the hard part is the variables we cant control. It would be great if we could evolve our wildlife plans with population, pollution, recreation, drought, weather... And yes, it probably could be possible. Aside from the obvious money issue, politics will probably keep this from happening.

We will always be 1+1=2 on it I think.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

GBell said:


> Fecundity, Random. Do you know what it is??
> Answer that and you'll have your answer for B to D
> Ratios.
> 
> ...


Reproductive rate. Do you know what it is in mule deer? Do you take the other factors with these animals into consideration?

So you are saying what? Lower the buck to doe because... ?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

RandomElk16 said:


> How is that a defense? I feel if people get on a sportsman forum and b**** about the current management plan, then in that same statement they should provide a solution.
> 
> I understand that the deer numbers have fallen. I understand that we have had weather changes. I understand that the world has changed in the last 30 years! However, GBell didnt take the same perspective as you. He came out stating that our buck to doe are to high and has made it clear he is an opportunity guy. You have come on with a scientific approach speaking not in hunting terms whatsoever. You have come on speaking on true conservation terms. What can we do to conserve the species? To help the deer species by some way other than tag management. I apologize if I am wrong in what I think your angle is. It makes sense. Problem is every biologist will disagree, and the years, research, and just all out science of it will probably never be taking into the consideration that it should. You and I have had a misunderstanding because I am responding to a hunter wanting opportunity and to a scientist personality.
> 
> ...


I am responding as a hunter, that wants to see deer herds restored, along with hunter opportunity. There is a way to achieve that. Big horns, more deer, and hunter opportunity, all have the same foundation, they are not separate things, nor is conservation and hunting, especially in this day and age. Neither would exist today without each other.

Consider this, we only hunt bucks, and we can drive B-D ratios down to 10/100 before see a problem. We currently have a rising deer population, and B-D ratios that are well above 10/100 across the state. We can support more deer hunters. most of these conversations about units, B-D ratios, etc. really have nothing to do with what is good for the deer herds. And ultimately it is that which benefits us the most as hunters. Chopping these things up, into little sub debates, is a real disservice to us.

As to biologists disagreeing, yes, they are people, that is going to happen. But that in no way changes what has occurred with mule deer, and its impact on hunters. Biologist are not above the fray, they are just as susceptible to corruption and bias as any other human, but again, that does not change the facts.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Lonetree you understand mule deer and the factors incolved. That said you also understand disagreements, bias, etc.. So as great as the understanding is, will it accomplish anything? That isnt calling on you personally. But all these different people go to these meetings; hunters, biologist, etc.. They all believe they understand, but all these understandings are different. So what will be accomplished?

What I am saying is what would you propose and do you believe they can come together to do this? Or do you think management will stay the course it has?

And after rereading your post, you say we can bring buck to doe down, but that the buck doe conversations are not the ones to have, that they aren't whats best for the herds. You still havent stated what we should do... In english.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

RandomElk16 said:


> I think the hard part is the variables we cant control. It would be great if we could evolve our wildlife plans with population, pollution, recreation, drought, weather... And yes, it probably could be possible. Aside from the obvious money issue, politics will probably keep this from happening.
> 
> We will always be 1+1=2 on it I think.


The problem is that we are not even looking at the variables. And we are prematurely dismissing many because of the "control" sentiment. Even though, understanding many of these so called uncontrollable variables brings us that much closer to being able to actually do something. Without exploring these "uncontrollable" options, we are left to spin in the wind, as we have doing for decades now.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

RandomElk16 said:


> Lonetree you understand mule deer and the factors incolved. That said you also understand disagreements, bias, etc.. So as great as the understanding is, will it accomplish anything? That isnt calling on you personally. But all these different people go to these meetings; hunters, biologist, etc.. They all believe they understand, but all these understandings are different. So what will be accomplished?
> 
> What I am saying is what would you propose and do you believe they can come together to do this? Or do you think management will stay the course it has?


I don't think everyone comes to those meetings thinking they understand the issue. I think many have hope in ideas that they feel will make a difference. And others come with the intent to continue their stranglehold on the process, because of the money and power that the current system provides.

So a focus must be brought to the emerging and developing science on the matter. It may challenge convention, it may make some feel uncomfortable, and it may rock the current political fiefdoms, but like those that paved the way before us, that is what needs to be done, to bring about change, and improve the current situation.

The more we actually understand about the last 30 years of wildlife declines, the more we can do about it. Everyone just "throwing darts", is not going to accomplish anything for us as hunters. And believe me, some want it that way, it benefits them to maintain the status quo.

Wether change can be brought to bear on the current system, all depends on the will that we as hunters have to see that change come to fruition.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

State Wide Archery>> To draw for an Archery Tag other than LE Units is just flat dumb.


----------



## Archin (Oct 5, 2013)

We build are houses in there wintering grounds. We the people are the problem in my opinion we reproduce to fast and spread like disease. There's the science-O,-


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Archin said:


> We build are houses in there wintering grounds. We the people are the problem in my opinion we reproduce to fast and spread like disease. There's the science-O,-


It is a part of it. But in areas where winter range was built over in the '50s, and in areas where winter range was not built over until the '90s, the deer numbers rose and fell the same. As far as we the people being the problem, yeah, but we have to be specific in that regard, or we can't come up with meaningful solutions.


----------



## Archin (Oct 5, 2013)

If I had a more meaniful solutions I would post it. I'll do my part and keep putting in for a cougar tag :grin:


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Archin said:


> If I had a more meaniful solutions I would post it. I'll do my part and keep putting in for a cougar tag :grin:


:roll: Well, I guess if predation was the problem, then that might help.


----------



## Archin (Oct 5, 2013)

I've never looked into it, is weather, drought, snow fall does that change with the deer heards numbers? Where can I get the info and I'll look into it more. I like the idea of managing the predators thou makes me feel like I'm helping somewhat


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

So now we've covered reducing hunters(Option WTF!), predators, Buck to doe ratios, I already mentioned antler restrictions, so that might have spoiled some peoples day. Are we missing anything? Or did we generally cover everything that has not worked for the last 20 years?


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Random, fecundity is a many armed beast. In a nutshell
Fecundity refers to recruiting deer from conception through
Becoming a contributor to the herd dynamic. 100 doe's can be bred by
A dozen bucks as was earlier stated, fecundity deals with the overall
Production of these conceived deer. Are the doe's stressed throughout
The winter? Are they giving birth to viable fawns and are the fawns surviving
Long enough to actually compound the herd dynamic. 

While all hunters would like to have 25 - 30 bucks
To 100 doe's you have to wonder if an excess buck, that
Serves no purpose in the herd may be having an effect
On populations through competition on winter range,
Population dynamics on winter range ( bodies in a broke farmers
Field ) and further stressors on pregnant doe's. 

This brings us to the idiocy of opt 2. Where the sales job was we need
More bucks to increase populations. Once the first buck gives birth
And raises a fawn through weaning I'll jump on board that ship. Until
Then it's all hooey. Purely a societal issue that makes hunters
Feel good about seeing more bucks. 

I don't have the answers, right now we are in the middle of chasing
Causes for mortality. Why are deer dying and the effect that hunters
Of the two legged and four legged variety have in this cycle. In my 
Opinion we need to focus a bit more on the closely related but not the
Same aspect of natality. Why are doe's not producing twins every year,
Why are doe's losing the ability to conceive during the first cycle?
Why are doe's becoming infertile? And so on. 

Buck hunters killing excess bucks are not the reason for
The issues we have in the west. Hence my point to the 
Committee, don't just say we are raising buck to doe ratios
And cutting tags. It don't work, and hasn't worked.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Archin said:


> I've never looked into it, is weather, drought, snow fall does that change with the deer heards numbers? Where can I get the info and I'll look into it more. I like the idea of managing the predators thou makes me feel like I'm helping somewhat


Everything you mentioned, and more, except predators. A place to get info on some of this is a good idea, and currently in its infancy.

Like I said, if predators were the problem, then reducing predators would certainly help, but that's not the case. I hear you, I think a lot of us would like to do something, especially if it were making a positive impact.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

GBell said:


> The Division has put together a new committee to develop a new 5 year plan.
> 
> If you remember right, the last 5 year plan was promptly scrapped by the whole Option 1,2,3 fiasco that took over the Wildlife Board.
> 
> ...


Good grief Gordy. You should change your user name to.." spinmaster" but then Lonetree might fight you over it.
So much of this statement is untrue and you know it. At least I hope you know it.
The Mule Deer plan was never scraped, it simply was amended within the hunter management section.
The statewide plan has always been to manage for at least 15/100 B/D ratios. But instead of having 5/100 bucks in one unit and 25/100 in another, all units will be closer to the same with the new 30 units to pick from.
People are staying home by their choice, we haven't even sold out all the tags in the first draw for several years.
Deer herds are starting to come back in several units. 
Ideas:
1) Keep praying for favorable weather conditions. 
2) Keep up on range improvements (listen to some of lonetree's ideas)
3) kill more predators (maybe a virus can be invented that is Coyote specific
4)Keep working on highway projects
5)Find cures to the diseases that are infecting the deer

When the deer herds start growing, so will the hunter involvement.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Ridge, it was scrapped and would have been worse if several
Sportsmen didn't get the WB to rethink the original buck to doe
Ratio they adopted.


----------



## hatch000 (Aug 4, 2011)

It seems to me, and I could be completely wrong, but it seems to me that each year, In the field, I see more and more very young fawns being born really late in the year. Maybe they're not old enough to make it through the winter months. I could be wrong but I have been very surprised how young some of fawns I see during my hunting and scouting. I don't know if any research has been done on that possibility and I wouldn't have the slightest idea of why? Again, I could be completely wrong. But I've read others make posts in the past sharing the same concern. 

I agree with Lonetree but it makes me also wonder of all the things that could be done to fix the issue, how many of those fixes are natural versus fixes we can do as people making different decisions. I'm guessing it would need to be done by both.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

1)Praying is ineffective when it comes to these sort of things.
2)Range improvements: Yes, but there are some things that the folks in charge refuse to at, with regard to this. This is where we must demand better.
3)Predators have nothing to do with it, that horse is long dead, and not even able to be beat. You reduce predator numbers, you see some very short term gains, and then regardless of predator numbers, the long term trend declines or rises, predator control or not. Seriously, we've been killing lions and coyotes for 20 years, way more in some areas than others. And regardless of those efforts, the numbers rise and fall independently from those efforts. I understand the sentiments, but its been done, it is not the problem. The coyote predation we see, is a symptom of other problems, not the cause of deer declines.
4)Highway projects are good, and for a number of reasons, migration, mortality, safety, etc. But roads or no roads, the overall crashes of the last 30 years are not geographically tied to highways.
5)The disease, range improvements, and predator issue are actually all one issue. And again, those that be are blocking efforts to address this. It is not about finding cures to disease, a Western medicine approach is not going to work for this. We have to get to the root of what leads to disease, and address that core issue/s. Going after symptoms is what we have been doing for 20 years, Option WTF? is very much just that, addressing the symptoms rather the pursuit of cures.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

hatch000 said:


> It seems to me, and I could be completely wrong, but it seems to me that each year, In the field, I see more and more very young fawns being born really late in the year. Maybe they're not old enough to make it through the winter months. I could be wrong but I have been very surprised how young some of fawns I see during my hunting and scouting. I don't know if any research has been done on that possibility and I wouldn't have the slightest idea of why? Again, I could be completely wrong. But I've read others make posts in the past sharing the same concern.
> 
> I agree with Lonetree but it makes me also wonder of all the things that could be done to fix the issue, how many of those fixes are natural versus fixes we can do as people making different decisions. I'm guessing it would need to be done by both.


Yes, probably both in the big scheme of things.

Several years ago, fawns being born late, and generally all over the place, time wise, was a big problem. This went along with the timing of the rut, estrus cycles, summer health, etc. Over the last couple of years that has come into line, and the deer numbers have rose as this has occurred. Over all deer health drives these things, and is at the heart of the mule deer issue. So we have to get at what is driving deer health. Being that these things occur across the west, not just in Utah, the problem and solution, are essentially that large also.


----------



## katorade (Sep 23, 2007)

Open the whole state up General Season Buck and Statewide General season Bull.


----------



## Elkaholic2 (Feb 24, 2013)

Deer management and hunter management is always a fun argument. Never a discussion! 

Deer in every state have up and downs. Especially localized herds! 

Space
Food
Water
Cover

Those elements makes up the arrangement that makes up the carrying capacity for any given winter range. Your deer herd on any unit is limited to what can winter in that unit. 

If you think the biologist over your unit has much say on how many tags are given out you are sadly mistaken. Their recommendations goes to their boss! The regional coordinator, Then they get passed up eventually to the board! The racs are a waste of time and are pointless. Unless you are fsw,mdf and du. or have millions or billions of dollars to donate. You will not be heard by the government that runs this pile of crap!

I'm not railing on fsw, mdf or other groups. I think they have their places. I personally harvested an antlerless elk in an area that was purchased by fsw that was previously untouchable by the average joe unless you have lots of money. They are good until you start into the politics! And that's where we, as everyday hunters lose!

We can talk all day about biology! B and d ratios. The b and d ratios are estimated anyways and are not very accurate at all. They are computer based models and math formulas. 

Predators, hwy mortality, range trends, human encroachment in the wild land/urban enter face. Winter mortality. Make up only a few topics to be talked about.

I like talking to hunters in the field. The number one thing they say is "I wish I could find a buck"! They all see does. But you can't shoot a doe! And they all want to hunt every year! If they do see a buck. About 50% of hunters will pass on a yearling buck. The other half would hammer it. Ok! Let's hand out more tags! after we sell every tag in the drawing! Then we can use the limited opportunity argument. 

The number one doe killer in the state I would bet would be vehicle mortality! I would argue that cougars and coyotes don't kill as many deer as vehicles do! But we are going to spend all that money killing coyotes for what? Because they kill fawns? Winter will take on average around 40% of the fawn crop and vehicles will take another 20%. Then a few coyotes will take what? I don't have the answer. The biologists don't have the answer. They are looking for it on the lowest deer density unit In the state! I hope they find it. So should we give everyone 50 dollars to drive slower and go shovel snow in the foothills?

I'll rank what I feel are the biggest threats to our deer herds out west!

1. Politics
2. Politics
3. Space encroachment (human population has doubled in utah in the last 20 years. I'm to blame for at least three of them). More humans= less opportunity 
4. Weather factors(drought, extreme winters) 
5. Range conditions. Energy exploration in wyoming and other areas.

I don't have all the answers if I have one. But I believe this is more of a social issue than Biological. When it comes to the bucks..

Overall population issue is definitely biological! 

I challenge all of you to go pull all of the wildlife annual reports for the last five years and look them over. The unit I hunt. they have have cut the objective back from 9,000 deer to 6500 and increased the elk objective by 100. Over the last 5 years. Why? The answer I got is because of winter range lost over the years! Never mentioned predation or any of the other b.s. That goes with it. They hand out 3200 buck tags in that unit and killed 621 bucks this last year. Given the estimates that over half the bucks that live on the unit. So I have a hard time that there isn't ample opportunity available. 3200 tags for 1159 estimated bucks! 

If we as hunters really have a say on what happens. Then let's get some plans in place and vote on them! But wait, we don't get to vote! The board does. When was the last deer survey you have taken? Or questionnaire about deer plans! Kansas does one every year!, colorado does. Wyoming? Arizona? 

We need to fix the social and biological issues both. They are both hurting us as hunters. And they are not getting the deer the help they need to grow.

We know the issues. But no one is giving any plans or ideas on what can work! We just argue about how big of bucks we want to kill or if we have a tag every year. Let's get the deer going in the right direction then we can fight about tag quotas later. More deer= more hunters in the field!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Elkoholic2, while I'm not on board with you on everything said, I agree on the sentiment, and 100% with fixing both the biological and social issues/system involved. 

The only bone I would have to pick, is that we really don't know what all the issues are. I was on the phone all morning with folks conducting mule deer studies. I think we could say that on the biology side of things, there are some that know where to look, but don't quite have a definitive answer on all the issues just yet. But do know where we need to start.


----------



## Elkaholic2 (Feb 24, 2013)

Lone tree,

I would say start throwing money at the research first then put the money where it is needed after we find what the major issue is with population dynamics! Rather than putting it all into coyote bounties off the bat. I guess it feels good to kill coyotes when They are so prolific. I feel that we are wasting money at the moment.

What are your thoughts on that? I'd rather put the funding into finding the answers first if we really have no answer! We need them. The biologist I talk with over the kamas unit says that unit suffers because of winter ground being lost to human development. I know that unit by unit the cause changes. But maybe instead of speeding millions on coyotes. We should buy winter range in the kamas area. Just a thought!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Elkaholic2 said:


> Lone tree,
> 
> I would say start throwing money at the research first then put the money where it is needed after we find what the major issue is with population dynamics! Rather than putting it all into coyote bounties off the bat. I guess it feels good to kill coyotes when They are so prolific. I feel that we are wasting money at the moment.
> 
> What are your thoughts on that? I'd rather put the funding into finding the answers first if we really have no answer! We need them. The biologist I talk with over the kamas unit says that unit suffers because of winter ground being lost to human development. I know that unit by unit the cause changes. But maybe instead of speeding millions on coyotes. We should buy winter range in the kamas area. Just a thought!


Agreed on coyotes, and the loss of winter range is absolutely an issue. So not to completely discount the Kamas winter range issue, it is a real issue. But in the big scheme of things, over a few decades, the deer herds in Kamas Utah, have, and will, rise and fall, at similar rates, over similar times, as deer, in say the Stillwater of Montana. Starting with a big crash in the early '80s, with a sub par recovery, followed by the same in the early '90s, and the early 2000s. And it is not just deer, the same goes for bighorn sheep, moose, pikas, trout, etc.

The loss of winter range will forever limit the Kamas herd, but it is not the ultimate cause of their long term declines, or the long term declines of deer across the West.

Money for research into this? Yes, but the money is not the biggest issue, the politics of getting the current wildlife regime in the West, to even begin to acknowledge this is huge. There is some research being done, along with a concerted effort to attempt to discredit the results.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

RandomElk16 said:


> The whole state isn't high buck to doe. Most the GS units are even less then they estimate, just gotta spend time on em.


I just couldn't let this quote slide&#8230;.are you f'n serious? So, even with all the time biologists spend classifying deer in the spring and fall, you have a better handle on buck to doe ratios than they do? How many deer have you classified?


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

W2U, I like to refer to this type of classification as the
Keele Johnson method. Ya know the old WB member
That used to see so many deer in a field on his way to 
Work in the morning and base numbers on that. 

Unfortunately these observations come with a vote.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

wyoming2utah said:


> I just couldn't let this quote slide&#8230;.are you f'n serious? So, even with all the time biologists spend classifying deer in the spring and fall, you have a better handle on buck to doe ratios than they do? How many deer have you classified?


Seriously? The time that biologist spend classifying deer huh... They use a computer program to estimate numbers. They don't sit on a deer and say 1, 2, 3, 4.....

When I go to certain units and count 150 doe without seeing a buck, it is hard to imagine where those 24-30 bucks are at....

Maybe you are mistaking what I am saying. I am not saying the buck to doe should be this or that. I am saying, the DWR tells us that such and such BD ratio is on a certain unit.. then go talk to the people who spend all their time on the unit and ask if they feel this is accurate. Harvest information is telling as well. I feel like my time spent on a unit should be as close as their silly computer software.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

GBell said:


> W2U, I like to refer to this type of classification as the
> Keele Johnson method. Ya know the old WB member
> That used to see so many deer in a field on his way to
> Work in the morning and base numbers on that.
> ...


You honestly never know what the hell you are talking about. Many members on here own multiple pieces of property and spend every weekend, every vacation, and every hunting season on them.

But, continue to be a jack*** and fly your ignorance flag. From now on the G in GBell stands for Google. GoogleBell. Because you sure know everything.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

hmmm.......the biologists I have met in the field spend a ton of time...well....in the field.

Unless you are paid to do so I would have a hard time believing that many, if any, people spend more time out there and know it better. To those of you that spend "all of your time" out in the field.........How many man-days can you account for in a given year. Screwing around and camping with kids and fishing and the like doesn't count. What counts is actually going out there on a mission and conducting a study and making head counts for days on end.

I am interested how many of you are going to BS everybody into saying that you do this on a regular basis.


----------



## Elkaholic2 (Feb 24, 2013)

Lone tree,

I see what your saying. That's a tall order your taking on! I've tried to get things done just for the kamas unit and it's been a Joke trying to get anything done. Your taking on the entire range of the mule deer! You will need to get everyone that interested in hunting mule deer on board from Kansas to California and Mexico to Canada. Including all states and provinces.

I believe there are issues like your saying across the board that are affecting mule deer. But I also believe their are localized issues as well. So, while trying to find the answer for the entire species across the board. states need to be doing research within localized herds to see what specialized needs they need. For example a herd that lives on the strip may need different things than a herd that lives in Alberta or central Kansas! But as a whole, those same herds needs the basics as well. I'm I following you right? 

You said your working with other biologist and groups about this issue? I would like more information on what your doing. As a conservationist and sportsman. I would like to know what I can do to help! Because honestly! I fear that my grand children may not have the opportunity to hunt mule deer if the trends stay the way they are.

Pm me. So we can let these guys argue buck to doe ratios!


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Random, ya may not like my sarcasm but
It is a fact. Go back and check the meeting minutes
And tell me I'm wrong. 

Johnson and Brady put more faith in anecdotal
BS and hearsay than their own biologists and they
Voted based on this anecdotal data.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> hmmm.......the biologists I have met in the field spend a ton of time...well....in the field.
> 
> Unless you are paid to do so I would have a hard time believing that many, if any, people spend more time out there and know it better. To those of you that spend "all of your time" out in the field.........How many man-days can you account for in a given year. Screwing around and camping with kids and fishing and the like doesn't count. What counts is actually going out there on a mission and conducting a study and making head counts for days on end.
> 
> I am interested how many of you are going to BS everybody into saying that you do this on a regular basis.


I don't deny the biologists spend tons of time in the field. I just agree with what some people have said in regards to the unit biologist/dwr officers not having as much input as they should. They are always my first call when I look for new hunting grounds, as I did just this past season.

What I have said got twisted. I never said I spend more time in the field then a biologist. I am saying that the stated buck to doe ratio's don't seem accurate. They can never be 100% accurate, I know that would be a difficult task. They also don't count these units often. If you call up your regional office and speak with the biologist they know the areas and where the deer are like no other. I have also had them say they disagree with the stated BD ratios.

Are these computer generated numbers or not? I will admit, I could be 100% wrong. Maybe the BD ratio's are Dead-on, they may have the science perfect.

Edit: Another question, they do these classifications in the winter correct? I believe the last Utah information I read said mid-november to mid-december. Where these deer winter and where they summer is different. Could an actual biologist on this site tell me how much this could skew an area or how they determine where these deer are going in the summer?


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

One unit I think of in particular that I have grown up on is the Cache unit. They say it has a buck to doe ratio of 16-100. That should be fantastic according to the management plan. The success rates in this area? Archery- 9%; Any Weapon- 23%; Muzzle- 21%.

That is one of the smaller any weapon success rates that I ever see. This is not a perfect way to determine the buck to doe. However, with one of the lowest success rates in the state, but 16-100 being a desired BD ratio, is that possible? Smartest deer in the state maybe.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Computer generated or calculated. Either way they based on actual head counts accurate or not. I agree that getting head counts on deer is difficult at best. Head counts for the sole purpose of b:d ratios are pretty much a waste of time though IMO with regards to what I am after and what I would like to see done. I would rather see deer managed solely for sustained and improved population. A healthy herd will produce plenty enough big bucks for those that are just concerned with antler size.

Those that spend the time in the field scouting and tracking don't complain near as much about the antler quality. They also seem to fill their tag more often than those that don't put in the extra effort. Strange as it sounds.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Computer generated or calculated. Either way they based on actual head counts accurate or not. I agree that getting head counts on deer is difficult at best. Head counts for the sole purpose of b:d ratios are pretty much a waste of time though IMO with regards to what I am after and what I would like to see done. I would rather see deer managed solely for sustained and improved population. A healthy herd will produce plenty enough big bucks for those that are just concerned with antler size.
> 
> Those that spend the time in the field scouting and tracking don't complain near as much about the antler quality. They also seem to fill their tag more often than those that don't put in the extra effort. Strange as it sounds.


I agree! I am not concerned about antler quality, but I am pro-LE and am fine with them being managed for quality. On a GS unit, especially when you aren't using a rifle, I think it is an awesome feat to take any animal. I also agree with your preferred management tactic. I don't think the BD ratio's are accurate, and they don't suggest positive herd health.

At my old workplace I always heard "better be 3[4] points or better"... Usually from tag soup holders.


----------



## 5pointbull (Mar 4, 2014)

I've often asked myself, what if we did something similar to elk, and make the general units 2, 3 point, or spike areas. And then limited entry areas for 4 point or bigger. Although I realize there are a lot of hunters who would not like that as they put enough work in each year to get a big deer. But the plus side is more big deer, people can still hunt, and the weaker genetics could be filtered. Now don't go all keyboard warrior on me, I don't feel religious about it, I'm just helping to brainstorm ideas. Another plus with more limited entry tags would be the limiting factor of point creep. The more areas and tags, the quicker we draw. As far as actually getting numbers up of does and fawns, for the area I hunted I seen a difference from the coyote bounty, but that doesn't mean it helped others. I believe when your trying to help a pray species recover, predator numbers must be brought down to a number that corilates with the damaged pray population. Natural selection is all good, until you factor in the fact that with, livestock, garbage, household pets, etc... Natural selection can be almost impossible to obtain. Meaning if coyotes, bears, and mountain lions don't have enough wild prey to sustain them, than they simply turn to other means associated with mankind, thus slowing the natural factor of natural selection dramatically. Simply put you can't have a coyote, bear, and mountain lion population that is good for a deer population of 400,000 if you only have 200,000 deer. Unless predator populations are brought down to point that correlates with existing prey populations, the deer herd cannot grow. I think we have done a decent job of doing that with mountain lions, coyotes however will take longer than one or two bounty years. Just my thoughts, I realize northern Utah probably has a bigger problem with habitat loss than predation.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I think about every state that tried the point restriction discontinued it and found it to be a complete waste of effort. It accomplishes little to nothing and for the most part what it accomplishes is negative. For example: illegal shooting of 3 points increased by an average of 40%.

As far as predator control. Read up on it's "benefits" and you be the judge. I was all for it at one point and believe now that has very little if any merit. For the record, I think that the mountain lion has been as mismanaged as anything. Not due to a lack of effort, mind you, but a misunderstanding.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> hmmm.......the biologists I have met in the field spend a ton of time...well....in the field.
> 
> Unless you are paid to do so I would have a hard time believing that many, if any, people spend more time out there and know it better. To those of you that spend "all of your time" out in the field.........How many man-days can you account for in a given year. Screwing around and camping with kids and fishing and the like doesn't count. What counts is actually going out there on a mission and conducting a study and making head counts for days on end.
> 
> I am interested how many of you are going to BS everybody into saying that you do this on a regular basis.


 That's a good point.

I spend a lot of time at work, and some at play, in the northeastern UT and southwestern WY deer and antelope winter feed grounds. That exposure is probably pale in comparison to what the Game and Fish gleans from the numerous aerial surveys they perform in the same area (WY part), and in a shorter amount of time.

.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/pdf/mdwg/mdwg-6_point_restrictions.pdf

CONCLUSIONS
After decades of use and many evaluations reporting disappointing results, most western states and provinces 
have discontinued statewide antler point restrictions. The two main reasons for abandoning widespread antler 
point restrictions are (1) unacceptable accidental-illegal kill, and (2) harvest mortality was increased (focused) on 
the very age classes they intended to promote. Available data and experience suggest antler point restrictions result 
in no long-term increase in either the proportion or number of mature bucks, or the total deer population. A few 
jurisdictions still have limited areas with antler point restrictions, due to hunter preference. The use of antler point 
restrictions in a combined strategy with general seasons is used in at least one case to maximize hunting opportunity. 
There are additional reasons why the widespread use of antler point restrictions has not been successful. Research 
has shown buck fawns born to does in poor body condition have difficulty outgrowing the effects of poor body 
condition at birth, and may never reach their genetic potential for antler growth. Regulations protecting these 
bucks from harvest are counterproductive to the intended benefit.
Most western states and provinces have concluded that sustainable improvements in buck:doe ratios and the number 
of mature bucks can only be realized by reducing harvest through 1) a limited-quota license system that decreases 
overall total buck harvest while allowing some level of doe harvest, or 2) setting a very short hunting season in early 
fall when more mature bucks are less vulnerable.
It has been suggested while antler point restrictions may increase the proportion of bucks in certain populations with 
low buck:doe ratios, there is no evidence they substantially increase the total number of adult (mature) bucks.


----------



## 5pointbull (Mar 4, 2014)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> I think about every state that tried the point restriction discontinued it and found it to be a complete waste of effort. It accomplishes little to nothing and for the most part what it accomplishes is negative. For example: illegal shooting of 3 points increased by an average of 40%.
> 
> As far as predator control. Read up on it's "benefits" and you be the judge. I was all for it at one point and believe now that has very little if any merit. For the record, I think that the mountain lion has been as mismanaged as anything. Not due to a lack of effort, mind you, but a misunderstanding.


I agree with you on the mountain lions, and so would the houndsman who have the most contact with the cats. But I'm simply saying that without the ability for predators to be controlled by a now very limited natural selection process because of human involvement in literally every Eco system of the state. They must be managed other ways. To have predator populations that correlate to much larger non existent prey populations may not be the biggest reason for the reason deer populations are not surging up, but it definitely contributes. One thing is for sure though, unlike deer, if mistakes are made in predator management, they are the easiest to repair. Predators take little effort to start and build populations.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Elkaholic2 said:


> Lone tree,
> 
> I see what your saying. That's a tall order your taking on! I've tried to get things done just for the kamas unit and it's been a Joke trying to get anything done. Your taking on the entire range of the mule deer! You will need to get everyone that interested in hunting mule deer on board from Kansas to California and Mexico to Canada. Including all states and provinces.
> 
> ...


Some information is forth coming, but it is going to be awhile. There are about 3 years of my posts here on the subject. Man power, money, political will? All offers appreciated. Thanks!

There are localized issues, no doubt. But when bighorn sheep declined by 90%, deer by 50%, and moose by similar numbers, across the West, and upper Midwest, in the early 1980s, that was not local. And when the same thing happened in the early '90s, and early 2000s, again, that was not a local problem. This happened everywhere.

I hear you about the future of deer hunting. I grew up on some prime mule deer winter range, deer have just always been a way of life. I watched the crash of 1984, we had deer dying in our yard. My father bought truck loads of feed, but to no avail. Over the next decade I would still watch multiple groups of 300 plus deer, string on to the winter range. But after the '92 crash, that was never seen again, and just when things looked up, we had another decline in the early 2000s. Today there are a few herds just shy of 100, and they string out onto the winter range 20 at a time. This has been growing for a few years now, and there are some nice bucks showing up too. But it feels like deja vu, what is coming next? Not to mention I feel like some old guy(I'm 36), telling these 20 somethings what the good old days were like.

This debate always devolves to B/D ratios, hunter restrictions, LE, micro management, antler restrictions, predator control, etc. None of which have any bearing on actually growing more deer, or getting hunters more hunting.

There are the few that bring out their WAFWA publications, and try to elevate the conversation. It is by far a better attempt, but in all honesty, we need to burn those pamphlets, stay warm, and put them to good use. The last 30 years of mule deer, needs a rewrite.


----------



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

My thoughts I know you'd all love to hear:

-Leave unit by unit management
-Leave current LE units as is
-Manage for 16-19 bucks :100 does on all general season units
-Keep tag numbers at appropriate levels to reach and stay within the 16-19 ratio
-No statewide hunting
-Less harvesting of does
-Continue to gain, improve, create, and achieve better habitat on every unit in the state
-More guzzlers where needed
-Predator control if the results of their current study come out to be that predators do have an effect on populations.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

5pointbull said:


> I agree with you on the mountain lions, and so would the houndsman who have the most contact with the cats. But I'm simply saying that without the ability for predators to be controlled by a now very limited natural selection process because of human involvement in literally every Eco system of the state. They must be managed other ways. To have predator populations that correlate to much larger non existent prey populations may not be the biggest reason for the reason deer populations are not surging up, but it definitely contributes. One thing is for sure though, unlike deer, if mistakes are made in predator management, they are the easiest to repair. Predators take little effort to start and build populations.


Even if predation were a part of the limiting factor of mule deer, which it has been shown not to be. There are simply just not that many lions. Talk to the old timers that ran lions, they will tell you, we don't have that many lions. On the unit I am most familiar with, you can't run lions with a dog, it is just not physically possible. I was shown how to walk them out on foot when I was a teenager. In the late '80s you could easily cut a track 365 days a year. It takes a little effort now. You go just to the South of here where the lions can and do get run with dogs, and you will see no difference in deer numbers from here. The deer numbers, of those two areas, rise and fall together regardless of the predator situation.

We can only get how may bobcat tags? why?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> My thoughts I know you'd all love to hear:
> 
> -Leave unit by unit management
> -Leave current LE units as is
> ...


Predator control does have an effect on the population, that has already been shown. And the final results will show the same thing. But this is a false positive, where in the predation being "prevented" is compensatory in nature. A few years from now, predator control or not, there will be no measurable difference between the predator removal group, and the control group. These studies have already been done. If you have high fawn mortality, due to predation, you have another problem, not a predator problem. The current numbers, of positive fawn recruitment in the coyote removal area, does yield important information. It shows that absent predators, fawns will make it past that stage in life. But this still does not grow more deer, or in anyway address the last 30 years of declines.

Did we suddenly get bombarded with predators in 1984? I think not.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Lonetree, if you could post links to the current biological deer studies that you agree with I would like to read them. I would assume that your beliefs and opinions come at least in part from readable studies that people other than yourself have performed. Everything attempted in the past 30 years is not garbage even if many were failed attempts.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Lonetree, if you could post links to the current biological deer studies that you agree with I would like to read them. I would assume that your beliefs and opinions come at least in part from readable studies that people other than yourself have performed. Everything attempted in the past 30 years is not garbage even if many were failed attempts.


Good point, there is something to be learned in everything. It is the repeating of the failed attempts that is frustrating. sometimes you have to repeat a study, because after the fact there was some glaring inconsistency that was not being accounted for, that skewed all the data. But when it comes to predator control, that is not the case. Large study after large study keep coming to the same conclusion. And like I said, predation did not suddenly become a problem out of the blue. I have posted the two most important studies here before, I'll dig them out, and post them again. Might be later today, I'm jumping between three computers, consolidating information right now.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

RandomElk16 said:


> Seriously? The time that biologist spend classifying deer huh... They use a computer program to estimate numbers. They don't sit on a deer and say 1, 2, 3, 4.....


You are wrong, my friend, biologists spend quite a bit of time classifying animals&#8230;they use computer models to estimate overall numbers, but they classify animals by counting them. Look at the big game reports and you will see the number of animals they actually classified. What they do is called statistics&#8230;I suggest you take a course on it and learn something. But, to help you out, look at it this way&#8230;.if you classify enough deer to come up with a ratio or percentage, you can extrapolate that number over the rest of the population to get a reasonable number that is accurate with a low plus/minus rate.

Take the Monroe unit, for example, since 2006, the DWR has averaged classifying 1232 deer--when they classify deer, they list them as buck, doe, or fawn. The post-hunt classification counts also look at whether the bucks are 3-point or better. By classifying that many deer annually, the DWR can get a pretty good estimate of what the units overall buck/doe ratios are. Are they exact? No&#8230;they could actually err on both the plus or minus side of things. But, they are a whole hell of a lot more accurate than what your local shed hunter says&#8230;!

Also, for what its worth, your arguments are akin to the arguments many deer hunters in Colorado were making back before 2001 when this happened:
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17173055


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

wyoming2utah said:


> You are wrong, my friend, biologists spend quite a bit of time classifying animals&#8230;they use computer models to estimate overall numbers, but they classify animals by counting them. Look at the big game reports and you will see the number of animals they actually classified.


And regardless of individual animal count, they counted in the same places, using the same methods, every year. Consistency is what is important here. And funny how a few thousand bios, across several Western states, see the same numbers play out over the decades.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

wyoming2utah said:


> You are wrong, my friend, biologists spend quite a bit of time classifying animals&#8230;they use computer models to estimate overall numbers, but they classify animals by counting them. Look at the big game reports and you will see the number of animals they actually classified. What they do is called statistics&#8230;I suggest you take a course on it and learn something. But, to help you out, look at it this way&#8230;.if you classify enough deer to come up with a ratio or percentage, you can extrapolate that number over the rest of the population to get a reasonable number that is accurate with a low plus/minus rate.
> 
> Take the Monroe unit, for example, since 2006, the DWR has averaged classifying 1232 deer--when they classify deer, they list them as buck, doe, or fawn. The post-hunt classification counts also look at whether the bucks are 3-point or better. By classifying that many deer annually, the DWR can get a pretty good estimate of what the units overall buck/doe ratios are. Are they exact? No&#8230;they could actually err on both the plus or minus side of things. But, they are a whole hell of a lot more accurate than what your local shed hunter says&#8230;!
> 
> ...


Buzzinga


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> And regardless of individual animal count, they counted in the same places, using the same methods, every year. Consistency is what is important here.


Exactly, that is why the trends that they see are pretty accurate and should be relied upon. Another false assumption that many hunters make is that they just count one little area and extrapolate that for the entire unit&#8230;that also is untrue. They count in the same places--plural--over an entire unit. They aren't dumb enough to believe that counting 100 deer on the north end of the monroe will give them accurate numbers for the deer on the south end.

Also, biologists generally don't really like population estimates&#8230;they like trend numbers like buck/doe ratios, fawn/doe ratios, harvest stats etc. to help predict trends. These numbers give them an idea of whether the population is growing or declining&#8230;population estimates are more for the politicians and public than the biologists.

Also, the ratios that they list--like 16/100 for the cache (or whatever it is)--are all post-hunt classification counts. They are done after the hunts are over and usually start during the rut. So, the actual buck/doe ratios when we are out chasing them are higher. The spring counts are done more for survival numbers than they are for buck/doe ratios--which makes a lot of sense since most bucks still don't have much for antlers.

Probably a better explanation:
http://wildlife.utah.gov/blog/2011/biologists-classify-deer-on-winter-ranges/

I would also strongly suggest reading this information for more detailed explanations of how deer are "counted".
http://www.muledeerworkinggroup.com/Docs/Methods_for_Monitoring_Mule_Deer_Populations.pdf


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

wyoming2utah said:


> You are wrong, my friend, biologists spend quite a bit of time classifying animals&#8230;they use computer models to estimate overall numbers, but they classify animals by counting them. Look at the big game reports and you will see the number of animals they actually classified. What they do is called statistics&#8230;I suggest you take a course on it and learn something. But, to help you out, look at it this way&#8230;.if you classify enough deer to come up with a ratio or percentage, you can extrapolate that number over the rest of the population to get a reasonable number that is accurate with a low plus/minus rate.
> 
> Take the Monroe unit, for example, since 2006, the DWR has averaged classifying 1232 deer--when they classify deer, they list them as buck, doe, or fawn. The post-hunt classification counts also look at whether the bucks are 3-point or better. By classifying that many deer annually, the DWR can get a pretty good estimate of what the units overall buck/doe ratios are. Are they exact? No&#8230;they could actually err on both the plus or minus side of things. But, they are a whole hell of a lot more accurate than what your local shed hunter says&#8230;!
> 
> ...


Funny. I have a degree and have taken numerous classes on statistics. There is far more to them then the surface you are pointing out.

Respond to my comment on wintering. They count these deer during the winter months, on their winter range. So how do they know what unit these deer are going to? A unit that they slap a label on as a certain BD ratio?

"Herd composition and population size will be monitored through post season and spring classification, hunter check stations, harvest surveys and computer modeling..."

In 2006, 8 years ago, they counted 1232 out of their estimated 7500 deer. 16%. A lot of variable can occur in that other 84%. Do you have any of the more recent counts? How do they chose these clusters? Are they the same every year, as lonetree suggests? Do you see a problem with this?

There are drawbacks to every type of statistical sampling. So unless you fully understand their method, and even at that, you have no idea how large of an error is made.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

"This handbook is designed to provide all mule deer investigators with useful reference 
information. The intent is to foster more informed and potentially consistent approaches to mule 
deer monitoring among investigators across the range of mule deer and lead to enhanced data 
sharing within and among states and provinces. "

Notice the word "assumptions" throughout the text.

Also, that every method has more disadvantages than advantages.

Look, I know how it works, I know the effort put in by an underfunded agency.. I get all of it. I know these methods aren't perfect, and combined we get an OK picture. You yourself said there is error, either direction. So when I say a unit that is claimed to be 16:100 ratio, one of the lowest success rates in the state, as well as observation.... If I say I believe that ratio is to high, that fits into YOUR OWN STATEMENT in regards to error. They could have err'd on the high side.

I have read that article on Utah DWR 3 years ago when it came out. It is one of the only articles on their site talking about counts. Its a very surface summary, so I don't see how it is relevant? I pointed out the count dates in an earlier post so I am aware of the time.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

everybody understands that there is error. How much would you think there is? Would the numbers change much if the counts were based upon 35% versus the 16%?

The method being used isn't perfect but it is a lot better than relying on farmers that are counting deer in there 50 acre field or Joe Hunter that goes on a 3 day scouting trip and "didn't see what I have seen in years past" or the guy that says "it the most deer I have seen in 5 years".


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> everybody understands that there is error. How much would you think there is? Would the numbers change much if the counts were based upon 35% versus the 16%?
> 
> The method being used isn't perfect but it is a lot better than relying on farmers that are counting deer in there 50 acre field or Joe Hunter that goes on a 3 day scouting trip and "didn't see what I have seen in years past" or the guy that says "it the most deer I have seen in 5 years".


I agree it is better. Never did I recommend the substitution. I said that I felt, on a unit, the numbers are wrong. I was then attacked like my statement was total bull****. I am simply showing that no, my statement could very well be true. I don't expect more from the DWR. They work hard. I am just saying, I personally believe there is error IN BOTH DIRECTIONS.

My new hunt this year, that supposedly has the same BD as cache, had more bucks throughout the entire area then I have seen in years on other units. I feel it is a lot higher then Cache. I have only owned land on the unit for 3 years now, but have been very impressed with the wildlife all around so I am not positive. Just know on the hunt I was seeing 30:100, but that is also very limited. As is any field count on any given day.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

understood. If I came off as attacking I apologize. I know a lot of people that have worked for the State and National Parks, Retired Game Wardens, etc....I defend many of them to a fault. Thankless jobs in many aspects and they surely don't do it for the money.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

And we can't forget the all important fall back of the deer counting conspiracies. I knew I forgot one of the red herrings. I always forget something. These move us even further away from any meaningful solutions, and really, truly, have no bearing on growing more deer. 

So lets assume the UDWR, and every other states division, is counting wrong and inaccurately. How does fixing this glaring problem, while at the same time, bringing amazingly new and accurate statistics to wildlife management, address mule deer declines? How does it provide more deer, and more deer hunting opportunity? It does not. It is an irrelevant sideline argument by those that refuse to address the real problems of mule deer, that have been affecting our hunting for the last 30 years.

So are all the counts and statistics for the last 30 years inaccurate? Did we not see a complete Western collapse of mule deer. Did they just count wrong?


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/board_minutes/10-12-02.pdf

Random start on page 22 and read the words of 
MR Johnson and MR Brady.

I have no problem with you thinking counts are off
And appreciate you sticking with that.

However you or I don't have a vote that's actually going
To establish any type of rule. When the Wildlife Board doesn't
Trust their own biologists, won't take their advice or
Listen to the public, we have an issue. Somebody needs
To go. Either the incompetent biologists, their flawed
Methodology or a corruptable Wildlife Board.

I was at that meeting, I was highly offended that according to MR Brady,
Since I didn't support option 2 I was a selfish deer hating *******. 
These guys were puppets on a string, from Jake reading
A prewritten proposal, after a couple hours of public input
To the Brady and Johnson show.

It was a farce regardless of which side of the fence
You were on.

It continues to be a farce as long as we continue tilting at the same 
Windmills and social issues nothing will change.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

RandomElk16 said:


> Respond to my comment on wintering. They count these deer during the winter months, on their winter range. So how do they know what unit these deer are going to? A unit that they slap a label on as a certain BD ratio?


Respond to what? That deer don't adhere to boundaries that we place on maps? They absolutely don't care what unit we assign them&#8230;but generally speaking, deer that are counted post-hunt on one unit were on that same unit during the hunt. Do deer move? Yes, absolutely.Again, though, these estimates are much better than your shed hunter talk down at the local sporting goods store...



RandomElk16 said:


> "Herd composition and population size will be monitored through post season and spring classification, hunter check stations, harvest surveys and computer modeling..."


Not sure what you are trying to say here&#8230;they use all of these methods in determining herd composition and population size. But, in determining buck/doe ratios, they use classification counts.



RandomElk16 said:


> In 2006, 8 years ago, they counted 1232 out of their estimated 7500 deer. 16%. A lot of variable can occur in that other 84%. Do you have any of the more recent counts? How do they chose these clusters? Are they the same every year, as lonetree suggests? Do you see a problem with this?
> 
> There are drawbacks to every type of statistical sampling. So unless you fully understand their method, and even at that, you have no idea how large of an error is made.


NO. SINCE 2006, they have AVERAGED counting or classifying 1232 deer. Some years they counted more, and some years they counted less. Again, it is statistics&#8230;the idea is that they have counted enough animals to get a statistically valid sample. Read the links I posted&#8230;especially the second one. It goes into much more detail of the validity of these counts and suggests that these numbers hold true even if they were to count 84% of the population versus 16%. But, I wouldn't expect you to believe it any more than those hunters in Colorado did not&#8230;even when their numbers were solidified through aerial counts.

True, I don't know what the error of the sample is&#8230;but, again, the accuracy of their estimates are much better than that guy you talked about who "just spends time" on the unit!

Also, it doesn't really matter that much whether these numbers are off or if they are not off&#8230;.what matters is that they can identify the trends. By following the same methods, in the same areas, year in and year out, they can identify any remarkable changes. These changes are what are important. And, like Lonetree has pointed out, buck/doe ratios above about 5/100 are really all that is needed biologically to maintain a herd and impregnate does. So, all this talk about buck/doe ratios becomes irrelevant when it comes to herd viability and growth&#8230;.unless, of course, the excess bucks end up outcompeting fawns and does during critical times (which some biologists are hypothesizing as a problem).


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> understood. If I came off as attacking I apologize. I know a lot of people that have worked for the State and National Parks, Retired Game Wardens, etc....I defend many of them to a fault. Thankless jobs in many aspects and they surely don't do it for the money.


No you weren't at all. You have a good way of pushing discussions through questions and feedback.

I really appreciate the work they do. I have run into officers in places where I didn't plan on seeing ANYTHING.. When we talk about management plans though, I just try and show as many factors as possible. It seems when I respond to someone with the other side of the fence, some think thats my whole position.

Like I said in an earlier post, I wish the men/women in the field had more say then they actually do.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

wyoming2utah said:


> Respond to what? That deer don't adhere to boundaries that we place on maps? They absolutely don't care what unit we assign them&#8230;but generally speaking, deer that are counted post-hunt on one unit were on that same unit during the hunt. Do deer move? Yes, absolutely.Again, though, these estimates are much better than your shed hunter talk down at the local sporting goods store...
> 
> Not sure what you are trying to say here&#8230;they use all of these methods in determining herd composition and population size. But, in determining buck/doe ratios, they use classification counts.
> 
> ...


You sure do make a lot of assumptions about me. Shed hunting, sporting good stores, guy who spends some time... You don't know anything about me bud. You are sticking with one statement I make and not the whole picture so I feel our time is done. Thanks!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Get your panties out of a wad…You said "most the GS units" had buck/doe ratios less than what the DWR estimated and that all a guy needed to do to see that the buck/doe ratios put out by the DWR are wrong was "spend time" on the units. Those were YOUR comments…I just called you out on the stupidity of those comments! Now, you are backtracking because you see how out of touch they were.

I am sorry you feel attacked or that I have made false assumptions. It is true that my comments about shed hunting and sporting good stores were a result of that comment. But, you made them! IN the future, may I suggest that you do a bit more research on how things are done before condemning the results...


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

wyoming2utah said:


> Get your panties out of a wad&#8230;You said "most the GS units" had buck/doe ratios less than what the DWR estimated and that all a guy needed to do to see that the buck/doe ratios put out by the DWR are wrong was "spend time" on the units. Those were YOUR comments&#8230;I just called you out on the stupidity of those comments!


How are they stupid? You can't prove that the BD ratio's are accurate, so you can't prove that statement wrong.

I didn't back track. They count in the winter, where deer winter, not where they summer. It is impossible to know which summer ground these deer are going to. We have the same issue with elk counts in the state. How is that inaccurate? Do you have trackers on all these deer?

Maybe my statements are biased.. They are based off of opinion and observation. I guess I can make a spreadsheet and the validity will go up. My point is that if you go on these units, its pretty hard to believe that some of the stated numbers are correct. It will be impossible for you to prove that wrong without counting every dear in the state of Utah, on one day, not during the winter months.

Research on how things are done? I know how they are done, they still aren't accurate. I know it is a decent guess. It is hard to think that a variation of 3 bucks changes the ratio from 15:100 to 12:100. Would be easy to do. I also never said what a good ratio was, as you inferred in an earlier post. Just because the US has a census doesn't mean we know how many people, especially illegal, are here. I know how it is done, doesn't make it accurate.

And edit, panties aren't in a wad. Don't wear panties. Another assumption of yours


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

RandomElk16 said:


> How are they stupid? You can't prove that the BD ratio's are accurate, so you can't prove that statement wrong.
> 
> I didn't back track. They count in the winter, where deer winter, not where they summer. It is impossible to know which summer ground these deer are going to. We have the same issue with elk counts in the state. How is that inaccurate? Do you have trackers on all these deer?
> 
> ...


It does not matter if buck to doe ratios are accurate, it has no bearing on growing deer numbers, or deer declines. "management" that does not focus on these two things, is of no benefit to the deer, or deer hunters, only the policy mongers.

So we've covered the side show arguments. I believe the next step is The WAFWA booklet, and then we can cover the politics, and current status quo, and how they relate to, and perpetuate the previous debates.

Rinse, and repeat.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Lonetree said:


> It does not matter if buck to doe ratios are accurate, it has no bearing on growing deer numbers, or deer declines. "management" that does not focus on these two things, is of no benefit to the deer, or deer hunters, only the policy mongers.
> 
> So we've covered the side show arguments. I believe the next step is The WAFWA booklet, and then we can cover the politics, and current status quo, and how they relate to, and perpetuate the previous debates.
> 
> Rinse, and repeat.


Lonetree, we know what you are saying! You have said it many times. BD does not equal healthy herd. I get it, they get. However, while it is currently being used in Utah management, it is ok for us to discuss it is it not? It can only raise awareness....


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Awareness.......of how it does not actually have anything to do with wild mule deer management, but is in fact nomenclature, and methodology lifted from the game farming industry? Sure!


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

I believe the dwr should focus way more energy monitoring fawns into the future. 

I used to think habitat was the key, more burns, new growth, habitat manipulation. I also used to blame too many hunters. I also blamed muzz rut hunts. I also thought we needed to go to choose your hunt. For others, we needed more units, shorter dates, fewer hunters, more fees, and to stop killing does on the archery hunt. 

These were all intuitive ideas, but we missed something. I think if we can figure out the fawns, we'll have it made in the shade.


----------



## Elkaholic2 (Feb 24, 2013)

The biologist I know uses b&d's to manage the social aspect of how many hunting permits he can issue for a particular unit. It only measures a small aspect of what he needs as far as data biologically. 

Most biologists hands are tied on what they want to achieve for their areas. And I believe they are doing a good job and have great ideas. But get shut down by their bosses! And the wildlife board! 

As far as biologist being corrupted? I'd say no. As far as the wildlife board? I'd say yes. But tell me what form of government isn't corrupt? That's why it's going to take a lot more than what's being done. If you guys want better deer hunting. We need to come together as a group and maybe raise enough money to change something. Because I wouldn't rely on government to do anything right. It going to take a united front from the sportsman that use the resource than anything else. 

Worrying about predators and all that other stuff won't matter if we don't have mule deer. Maybe we can turn to the pro wildlife groups! Oh wait, they spend more money fighting hunting than on conservation....

I want to see the data lone tree has. And what it means to us as mule deer hunters. And what role do we need to play to make it better. Because what lone tree is talking about is more important than b&d's at the moment. If something doesn't change we won't have any b&d's to worry about!


----------



## Elkaholic2 (Feb 24, 2013)

provider said:


> I believe the dwr should focus way more energy monitoring fawns into the future.
> 
> I used to think habitat was the key, more burns, new growth, habitat manipulation. I also used to blame too many hunters. I also blamed muzz rut hunts. I also thought we needed to go to choose your hunt. For others, we needed more units, shorter dates, fewer hunters, more fees, and to stop killing does on the archery hunt.
> 
> These were all intuitive ideas, but we missed something. I think if we can figure out the fawns, we'll have it made in the shade.


Fawn recruitment is important and that's a part of what needs to happen! We almost need two threads on this. Because half of us are talking about herd population dynamics and the other half are arguing about buck hunting. Really they both are important in their own right. both are used in managing both buck populations and hunters. They are two different tools and one is social and the other biological.

I believe you can hold rut hunts and not affect the bucks as long you keep very conservative. That's a whole different conversation though.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

provider said:


> I believe the dwr should focus way more energy monitoring fawns into the future.
> 
> I used to think habitat was the key, more burns, new growth, habitat manipulation. I also used to blame too many hunters. I also blamed muzz rut hunts. I also thought we needed to go to choose your hunt. For others, we needed more units, shorter dates, fewer hunters, more fees, and to stop killing does on the archery hunt.
> 
> These were all intuitive ideas, but we missed something. I think if we can figure out the fawns, we'll have it made in the shade.


I would agree that fawns are very, very important. But there a hundred things that affect good fawn recruitment, so before you know it, you are not focused anymore. This seems to happen a lot, I am very guilty of it. We do need a focus, that is absolutely the truth.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Elkoholic2, the data I have, is currently reams of unorganized paper, two, was three, computers full of downloads, and a whole lot of uncollated, information in my mind. There is currently an effort underway to organize this information, and coordinate people working on these things. This will take the next several months I'm sure. 

But more importantly, none of that matters if we don't do something with it. Everyone wants to DO something, I feel it, I get it, I'm there. But we have been doing a lot for a long time, some of it over and over again. I can't emphasize enough, how much we need to look at the mule deer issue, as more than just a mule deer issue. It is a Bighorn sheep issue, it is a moose issue, it is a trout issue, it is uniquely a "post 1984" Western issue. 

It all comes together somewhere. Its huge, it is not easy, and there are NO solutions in sight. But like every expedition, you start with a plan, the information you do understand, and you go after the parts and pieces that you do not understand. One thing leads to another, and ultimately you make the summit. That success starts with the first steps, not random attempts, and certainly not via routes that have already been shown not to lead anywhere.


----------



## Elkaholic2 (Feb 24, 2013)

I'm interested. Let me know how I can help!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

RandomElk16 said:


> How are they stupid? You can't prove that the BD ratio's are accurate, so you can't prove that statement wrong.


It is not only stupid but completely ignorant&#8230;.what it implies is that all a guy needs to do to know that buck/doe ratios are wrong is wander around on the hills a bit. Basically, you are saying that some mullet-haired hilljack has more of a clue than someone who spends a lot of time classifying animals. So, yes, it is stupid! Again, those ratios are far superior to what some guy can see by just getting out in the hills! And, yes, you have spent a lot of time backtracking&#8230;!

Also, FWIW, it doesn't matter where deer winter or summer&#8230;just that they are! And, as I have said before, these ratios are used to detect trends and help biologists notice changes in them&#8230;because they count the same areas year after year after year, they are accurate for what they need them for&#8230;.trends!


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

;-)


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

:?......:shock:.......:?


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

-DallanC


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

I agree with LT's philosophy. 

I do however feel there is hope. Waterfowl being
A prime example, turkey's another. It can happen. 
I also agree with W2U, as long as we mire ourselves
In managing the social issues using anecdotal data
And going down the same path with who is going to kill
The last buck in the state not much will change. 

I'd suggest dropping a line to any sportsman's
Group you happen to belong to and provide input. 
Hit these people up at the ISE show this weekend 
And ask the tough questions.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

katorade said:


> Open the whole state up General Season Buck and Statewide General season Bull.


Good one Kade


----------



## utahhunter678 (Nov 3, 2012)

The BD ratios may be mostly accurate however, I don't like how much land the CWMU's control in the state. The deer may be counted in the winter but then they can just go to a CWMU and be safe from the general season hunter. 

They should open most of the tags to CWMU's to the public and then let the CWMU's sell less for top dollar. I feel that Utah is an amazing place to hunt if you deep pockets. For the rest of the population you are stuck battling the GS with a million hunters and crap BD ratios that exist mostly on CWMU's.

I hike my tail off and for the amount of ground I cover I should see a lot more animals with headgear. I go to Wyoming and do the same type of hiking and I find literally hundreds of deer.

I may be ignorant and new to the hunting game but I can make an noticeable difference in the wildlife in our state VS other states. How is it that we can have such a huge state with double the land of some other states and half less animals. I think we should adopt some of the symptoms that are being incorporated in some eastern states Nebraska, South Dakota etc.. They have game almost everywhere I look. 

If it works for them why won't it work for us?


----------



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

utahhunter678 said:


> The BD ratios may be mostly accurate however, I don't like how much land the CWMU's control in the state. The deer may be counted in the winter but then they can just go to a CWMU and be safe from the general season hunter.
> 
> They should open most of the tags to CWMU's to the public and then let the CWMU's sell less for top dollar. I feel that Utah is an amazing place to hunt if you deep pockets. For the rest of the population you are stuck battling the GS with a million hunters and crap BD ratios that exist mostly on CWMU's.
> 
> ...


Because you need to understand UTAH, not other states. Utah's a great state with room for more wildlife big and small, but you have to understand Utah's winter habitats have been changed a lot into what you see clear from Pason to past Ogden now. About 1/3 or more of our habitat in the northern half of the state is either city or salt flats, so our state isn't as big as you might think. Second problem is landowners. Utah ranchers and farmers have a real gripe with deer and especially elk, you can refer to the Piute elk poachings for more information. Ranchers and landowners, some of them don't work with the DWR and have a gripe with the DWR, forest service, whoever it may be and they are difficult to work with in our state. In other states its a basic have to be a good working relationship between landowner and the DWR in the state, or they would have no wildlife. Utah has the most public land of any state though, so it would be nice to see more partnership with landowners to come to some agreements, for deer, elk, pheasants, whatever it may be. They don't do a bad job, and really the ranchers need to work with them instead of resist them as a federal agent, but some people are just hard headed...wink


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

*"Adopt some of the symptoms that are being incorporated in some eastern states Nebraska, South Dakota.........They have game almost everywhere I look"

"In other states its a basic have to be a good working relationship between landowner and the DWR in the state, or they would have no wildlife."*

Sometimes this forum provides the absolute best comedy relief around. It's about like watching monkeys play football. :grin:


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

I confused! Are we discussing deer management or hunter management?


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Dahlmer said:


> I confused! Are we discussing deer management or hunter management?


Its pretty apparent in an post-Option2 world its all about hunter management.

-DallanC


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

DallanC said:


> Its pretty apparent in an post-Option2 world its all about hunter management.
> 
> -DallanC


What about deer transplants, and coyote bounties? :grin:


----------



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

Lonetree said:


> What about deer transplants, and coyote bounties? :grin:


To me that's more money making management agenda.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> To me that's more money making management agenda.


Who is it that makes money on deer transplants and coyote bounties again?????


----------



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

SFW gains power, advertising, members , membership support, and good PR to the public. With hundreds of thousands of dollars rolling into the main folks pocket because of those things it makes them look really good. Welcome to Utah where our game are manged by the Utah Division of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> What about deer transplants, and coyote bounties? :grin:


Those are great ideas. I think we should also consider antler restrictions, higher buck:doe ratios, dividing the current units into 60-90 micro units and a redistribution of tag allotments among various weapons.

My hypothesis is this. There is a long standing war between mule deer and bigfoot. I believe that the bigfoot community has turned the war in their favor by recruiting the yeti populations from the frigid north. I propose a bigfoot/yeti bounty. $100 per set of big toes.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

On a more serious note. LT could you give me your opinion on a couple of thoughts.

1. gbell has brought up the issue of fecundity on several occasions. I agree with him in that this is the area which should attract our attention when determining the health of the overall herd. I also believe the data in this area is largely symptomatic of the underlying issue which is the health of the does. The drought in the early 2000's I think bears this out. Many of the issues that gbell brought up were present, but with drought in the past, it appears that those issues have largely improved.

2. Our deer herd seems to limit out on the upside around 300,000. What do you believe is happening as deer approach this level that seems to limit growth? 

3. You have stated in the past that the dust bowl period of the 1930's may have had an impact in the large increase in deer numbers during the 40's, 50's and 60's. Is it possible that the residual effects from that have greatly diminished over the past three decades and what we are experiencing now represents the norm going forward? 

4. I have been told studies indicate that transitional range (7,000-9,000 feet) may be at least as important if not more important than winter range in the overall health of deer herds. Have you read those studies and do you agree/disagree with that theory? It would seem to me that having the ability to add to winter stores well into October would greatly benefit deer as they move into the winter months. It also seems that dry late summers and falls, particularly in consecutive years could be extremely dangerous for deer.

5. As we cannot control the weather, what if anything can we do to keep nutritional levels high for deer herds through late summer and fall?

6. You have also discussed selenium levels as possibly critical to improving health among deer herds. Are you willing to elaborate on that here? I get the impression you are testing that hypothesis. Are your results encouraging?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Dahlmer said:


> On a more serious note. LT could you give me your opinion on a couple of thoughts.
> 
> 1. gbell has brought up the issue of fecundity on several occasions. I agree with him in that this is the area which should attract our attention when determining the health of the overall herd. I also believe the data in this area is largely symptomatic of the underlying issue which is the health of the does. The drought in the early 2000's I think bears this out. Many of the issues that gbell brought up were present, but with drought in the past, it appears that those issues have largely improved. Yes, makes way more sense than buck to doe ratios, if it is actual deer health we are looking to improve, or even measure for that matter.
> 
> ...


...


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I have been reading a ton on the very things brought up in the last post. Some stuff that Stillhunterman sent to me and other that I have found on the internet. Kudos to you Lonetree. It is mostly difficult and time consuming reading and even more difficult to compile and sort what may be relevant and what is not.....especially for a person that is not a biologist. While I have a better understanding of many of the individual aspects, the overall puzzle becomes more and more clouded. Have learned a lot along the way none the less.

I fully expect to forget many things that I found important before.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> I have been reading a ton on the very things brought up in the last post. Some stuff that Stillhunterman sent to me and other that I have found on the internet. Kudos to you Lonetree. It is mostly difficult and time consuming reading and even more difficult to compile and sort what may be relevant and what is not.....especially for a person that is not a biologist. While I have a better understanding of many of the individual aspects, the overall puzzle becomes more and more clouded. Have learned a lot along the way none the less.
> 
> I fully expect to forget many things that I found important before.


Can you send the links to some of the info you've been reviewing.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

http://books.google.com/books?id=qN...ge&q=blood tests on deer for selenium&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=-A...ge&q=blood tests on deer for selenium&f=false

Some of them are pdf's. If you want to pm me your email I will forward them to you.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

this one is a long read that I thought I only had in pdf

http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1107&context=etd


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> I have been reading a ton on the very things brought up in the last post. Some stuff that Stillhunterman sent to me and other that I have found on the internet. Kudos to you Lonetree. It is mostly difficult and time consuming reading and even more difficult to compile and sort what may be relevant and what is not.....especially for a person that is not a biologist. While I have a better understanding of many of the individual aspects, the overall puzzle becomes more and more clouded. Have learned a lot along the way none the less.
> 
> I fully expect to forget many things that I found important before.


Yep, it can be a bit overwhelming at times. We hope to have a comprehensive but easy to read and understand report ready in the next couple of weeks that will help folks understand the basics enough to look farther. Good on ya for doing what you have to try and grasp the enormity of the information out there.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

Thanks guys!


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Interesting info


----------



## goonsquad (Sep 15, 2010)

What is the end goal of the DWR in regards to Deer management? I don't think they really know. Until that is decided, no program will work. 

I myself would make deer hunts a one hunt/any legal weapon every two years tag. So basically if I by a tag this year, I can hunt the archer, muzz, and general seasons off one tag until I get a deer but that hunter can't hunt the next two seasons. You'll get a better balance of hunters in the field. 
Yeah you wouldn't be able to hunt every year, but the years you hunt you wouldn't run into five million other jackasses, either. Deer wouldn't be as stressed by the numbers of hunters blasting away on opening morning as the longer hunting season would mean hunters don't need to be in a spot on opening morning shooting at anything that moves as soon as the sun rises.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

goonsquad said:


> What is the end goal of the DWR in regards to Deer management? I don't think they really know. Until that is decided, no program will work.
> 
> I myself would make deer hunts a one hunt/any legal weapon every two years tag. So basically if I by a tag this year, I can hunt the archer, muzz, and general seasons off one tag until I get a deer but that hunter can't hunt the next two seasons. You'll get a better balance of hunters in the field.
> Yeah you wouldn't be able to hunt every year, but the years you hunt you wouldn't run into five million other jackasses, either. Deer wouldn't be as stressed by the numbers of hunters blasting away on opening morning as the longer hunting season would mean hunters don't need to be in a spot on opening morning shooting at anything that moves as soon as the sun rises.


Hunter management does NOTHING to help the herds. This type of thinking only perpetuates NON-management management!


----------



## goonsquad (Sep 15, 2010)

Yeah, removing hunters from the field will never decrease the kill ratio, nor will it remove late season stress from the herd which is fleeing from the hunters, nor will it allow more healthy bucks to mature...


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Because EXCESS buck contribute mightily to the herd!!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

goonsquad said:


> Yeah, removing hunters from the field will never decrease the kill ratio, nor will it remove late season stress from the herd which is fleeing from the hunters, nor will it allow more healthy bucks to mature...


We've been removing hunters from the field, for over 20 years, where are the deer? If hunter management was the answer, the last 20 years of tried and failed BS would have brought us results, yet we are worse off than before we started cutting tags. And lets not forget how we ended up down this primrose path.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

http://www.amazon.com/Touching-Wild-Living-Deadman-Gulch/dp/1626362130/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1395363577&sr=8-3&keywords=joe+hutto

This just barely started shipping, the release date was the 1st of April. For those that want another perspective on mule deer, this is a good read. Chapter 16 is of particular interest, but a little short. Since this book went to press two years ago, things have become much worse, with the herd that was being studied, along with deer 100 hundred miles away. They are exhibiting what is probably the precursor to the next big West wide crash, like we saw in the early '90s. 

Strange thing, they have done predator bounties, increased other predator control efforts, cut tags, put lots of radio collars on things, put up highway signs, made bumper stickers, increased the monetary value of Mule deer. And yet none of these things have even begun to reverse the downward trend, of Mule deer there, or anywhere across the West. Hhhhmmmm?


----------



## goonsquad (Sep 15, 2010)

GBell said:


> Because EXCESS buck contribute mightily to the herd!!


GBell, 
Excess bucks will not, healthy bucks will. Year after year hunters target the strongest and the most suited bucks for reproduction. The exact opposite of what nature and predators do. Weak gened bucks have a better chance of passing on bad genes every time a trophy buck or even good buck is taken by a hunter.

Lonetree, my main concern is with hunting pressure on the herds which moves them around and stresses them more. Fewer hunters a season but able to have a longer season to hunt seems to me to take out much of the stress to the herds. 
So if you have two months to hunt instead of 14 days, and you don't have a million hunters out pushing them into areas that they normally wouldn't be in, would the general health of the herd improve or decrease? Is a pregnant doe more likely to have a healthy full term, well developed fawn with more or less pressure? If they don't get pushed into areas where they wouldn't go otherwise, will they be gaining weight going into the winter or will they be burning fats running up and down the mountains? 
Its not hunter management for the sake of simply removing men in the field days, its making the hunting season less stressful for animals going into the hardest season of the year.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

goonsquad said:


> GBell,
> Excess bucks will not, healthy bucks will. Year after year hunters target the strongest and the most suited bucks for reproduction. The exact opposite of what nature and predators do. Weak gened bucks have a better chance of passing on bad genes every time a trophy buck or even good buck is taken by a hunter.
> 
> Lonetree, my main concern is with hunting pressure on the herds which moves them around and stresses them more. Fewer hunters a season but able to have a longer season to hunt seems to me to take out much of the stress to the herds.
> ...


Shhhhh... Don't tell him some dear are greater than others..... Genetics are something out of a disney movie.... They are not real.....


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Actually, goonsquad, hunters very rarely--if ever--target the most suited bucks for reproduction....these bucks are the ones with the biggest strongest bodies! How many hunters do you know that go into the field and examine the muscle mass of the bucks they are watching without paying any attention to antlers?

Also, genetics don't change in a deer's life over time...in other words, even if a little two point is breeding a doe, it may very well have the most desirable genetics. So, how do you know that hunters are targeting the bucks with the best genetics...because genetics in little bucks are not manifested until later in life. Chances are, too, that those same bucks that are targeted by hunters have already passed their genetics on in previous years....sorry, but your genetics point just doesn't hold much water! And, FWIW, the does in a herd carry those desirable genetics too....that is why any attempt at weeding-out or passing on those most desirable genetics are worthless in large expanses of public land.

One other point....predators do often target bucks (and elk for that matter) with large antlers--those same animals that hunters target. They will do this following the rut when these animals are at their weakest.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

wyoming2utah said:


> Actually, goonsquad, hunters very rarely--if ever--target the most suited bucks for reproduction....these bucks are the ones with the biggest strongest bodies! How many hunters do you know that go into the field and examine the muscle mass of the bucks they are watching without paying any attention to antlers?
> 
> Also, genetics don't change in a deer's life over time...in other words, even if a little two point is breeding a doe, it may very well have the most desirable genetics. So, how do you know that hunters are targeting the bucks with the best genetics...because genetics in little bucks are not manifested until later in life. Chances are, too, that those same bucks that are targeted by hunters have already passed their genetics on in previous years....sorry, but your genetics point just doesn't hold much water! And, FWIW, the does in a herd carry those desirable genetics too....that is why any attempt at weeding-out or passing on those most desirable genetics are worthless in large expanses of public land.
> 
> One other point....predators do often target bucks (and elk for that matter) with large antlers--those same animals that hunters target. They will do this following the rut when these animals are at their weakest.


As much as I love archery, I question the extended sometimes. I know people who get skunked on the general season year after year, but get a big bodied ruttin buck every year. I also know some who wait till the extended because they do so well. That time of year, some of these healthy big bodied bucks are getting targeted.

Does this have an impact? Couldn't tell ya... but I have always wondered.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

goonsquad said:


> GBell,
> Excess bucks will not, healthy bucks will. Year after year hunters target the strongest and the most suited bucks for reproduction. The exact opposite of what nature and predators do. Weak gened bucks have a better chance of passing on bad genes every time a trophy buck or even good buck is taken by a hunter.
> 
> Lonetree, my main concern is with hunting pressure on the herds which moves them around and stresses them more. Fewer hunters a season but able to have a longer season to hunt seems to me to take out much of the stress to the herds.
> ...


You have the healthy part correct. Again, we have been removing "pressure" from the herds, for 20 years, where are the results? Hunters are a small part of the equation.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

RandomElk16 said:


> Shhhhh... Don't tell him some dear are greater than others..... Genetics are something out of a disney movie.... They are not real.....


Genetics play a very minor roll, in creating large antlered bucks. Nutrition has been shown, over and over again, to be the single biggest factor in creating large antlers, and healthy deer. The genetics from one mule deer to the next, are 99.9% the same.

The genetic role in antlers, would be much better explained, by the epigenetic expression of antler growth, based on nutritional and environmental input. Antler growth is manifested in response to external factors, and their affects on the epigenetics of the deer. Not via an internal, simple expression of a big antler/superior buck gene. Even if such a gene existed, it could only manifest, if environmental and nutritional conditions, were favorable to its expression. Otherwise, such a genetic mandate could quite literally kill a deer, as it put all of its energy into growing a large rack, that its environment and nutrition could not support.

"Epi" means above, or over. Epigenetics deal with the switching on and off, of genes. Many subpar runts, and spikes, grow to become huge bodied, and antlered deer.


----------



## goonsquad (Sep 15, 2010)

wyoming2utah said:


> Actually, goonsquad, hunters very rarely--if ever--target the most suited bucks for reproduction....these bucks are the ones with the biggest strongest bodies! How many hunters do you know that go into the field and examine the muscle mass of the bucks they are watching without paying any attention to antlers?
> 
> Also, genetics don't change in a deer's life over time...in other words, even if a little two point is breeding a doe, it may very well have the most desirable genetics. So, how do you know that hunters are targeting the bucks with the best genetics...because genetics in little bucks are not manifested until later in life. Chances are, too, that those same bucks that are targeted by hunters have already passed their genetics on in previous years....sorry, but your genetics point just doesn't hold much water! And, FWIW, the does in a herd carry those desirable genetics too....that is why any attempt at weeding-out or passing on those most desirable genetics are worthless in large expanses of public land.
> 
> One other point....predators do often target bucks (and elk for that matter) with large antlers--those same animals that hunters target. They will do this following the rut when these animals are at their weakest.


Wyoming- I agree that genetics wont change, but when you kill a buck that has become the biggest and the best, you remove his genetics from the pool and allow the weaker of the specie a better chance of passing on their genes. Now a little two point breeding _may _have fantastic genes, it _may _also be retarded and just lucky... The nice thing about nature and the fight to become the best and strongest, it primarily weeds out the weak. 
With Predators targeting large bucks and bulls after the rut, wouldn't smaller amounts of hunters, and essentially a shorter hunt season, make it less stressful and therefore easier for these animals to not be quite as weak?


----------



## goonsquad (Sep 15, 2010)

Lonetree said:


> Genetics play a very minor roll, in creating large antlered bucks. Nutrition has been shown, over and over again, to be the single biggest factor in creating large antlers, and healthy deer. The genetics from one mule deer to the next, are 99.9% the same.
> 
> The genetic role in antlers, would be much better explained, by the epigenetic expression of antler growth, based on nutritional and environmental input. Antler growth is manifested in response to external factors, and their affects on the epigenetics of the deer. Not via an internal, simple expression of a big antler/superior buck gene. Even if such a gene existed, it could only manifest, if environmental and nutritional conditions, were favorable to its expression. Otherwise, such a genetic mandate could quite literally kill a deer, as it put all of its energy into growing a large rack, that its environment and nutrition could not support.
> 
> "Epi" means above, or over. Epigenetics deal with the switching on and off, of genes. Many subpar runts, and spikes, grow to become huge bodied, and antlered deer.


Nutrition is important, very important, I agree, and stressed deer herds being chased around the mountains by a million hunters for close to a quarter of the year going into the hardest months, makes it hard for them to get proper nutrition. 
Genes though, do play a part in the health of any animal and more importantly the herd as a group.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

goonsquad said:


> Nutrition is important, very important, I agree, and stressed deer herds being chased around the mountains by a million hunters for close to a quarter of the year going into the hardest months, makes it hard for them to get proper nutrition.
> Genes though, do play a part in the health of any animal and more importantly the herd as a group.


Nutrition is not only very important it is the most important influence on health. Nothing else comes close. If you are thinking that deer don't get enough free time to eat properly.........sorry. There are not a million hunters chasing the deer for three straight months. There are not that many hunters for one that hunt. There are very few tags that allow for hunts that long, that very few people utilize and the amount of land that the deer roam on is massive with relationship to the pressure.

Deer have a ton of time for resting, eating, drinking and doing what deer do.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

What says that the biggest, "most desirable" bucks are doing the breeding? I just saw a herd in Wyoming where neither the small bucks, nor the largest bucks are doing the breeding. Many of these bucks are not rutting at all. The breeding and rutting are being done by average bucks. I have seen similar things in Utah, where some of the largest bucks, are not the ones doing the breeding. 

One of the biggest deer I have seen in the last few years, was a very nice 4x4, 30" wide and heavy. I watched him go through two ruts where he remained isolated, did not show signs of rutting, and did not breed any does that myself or others observed. He hung out for a whole year with a doe and her fawn/yearling. He was ultimately taken by an extended area archer. So was this a loss to the health of the herd? 

The problems that mule deer face, go beyond the average "deer management" conversation. Until we admit that, and begin to actually address the larger ecological decline of the West, that is stealing our wildlife, and our hunting opportunity, and heritage. We will be lost in this downward spiral of the current conversation about "management" and its current implementation.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

goonsquad said:


> Wyoming- I agree that genetics wont change, but when you kill a buck that has become the biggest and the best, you remove his genetics from the pool and allow the weaker of the specie a better chance of passing on their genes. Now a little two point breeding _may _have fantastic genes, it _may _also be retarded and just lucky... The nice thing about nature and the fight to become the best and strongest, it primarily weeds out the weak.
> With Predators targeting large bucks and bulls after the rut, wouldn't smaller amounts of hunters, and essentially a shorter hunt season, make it less stressful and therefore easier for these animals to not be quite as weak?


When the biggest baddest buck is killed or harvested by a hunter, his genes are NOT removed from the herd! That is simply not true&#8230;the biggest baddest buck has more than likely bred with does in past years; also, again, the does carry the genes as well. So, the mother of that big bad buck passed the genes on to that big bad buck&#8230;and, likely, she passed it on to other fawns as well. You are making the assumption that the genetics are carried by only that one deer&#8230;and that he has never bred another doe.

&#8230;.also, deer are hunted 365 days a year. How do you shorten that?


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

If hunter's culling the biggest bucks were the key, we'd be overrun with deer in the national parks where no hunting is allowed. Do they have alot of deer? sure, over populations of deer? no.

What do national parks have the rest of the state has? Drought, predators etc etc


-DallanC


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> What says that the biggest, "most desirable" bucks are doing the breeding? I just saw a herd in Wyoming where neither the small bucks, nor the largest bucks are doing the breeding. Many of these bucks are not rutting at all. The breeding and rutting are being done by average bucks. I have seen similar things in Utah, where some of the largest bucks, are not the ones doing the breeding.
> 
> One of the biggest deer I have seen in the last few years, was a very nice 4x4, 30" wide and heavy. I watched him go through two ruts where he remained isolated, did not show signs of rutting, and did not breed any does that myself or others observed. He hung out for a whole year with a doe and her fawn/yearling. He was ultimately taken by an extended area archer. So was this a loss to the health of the herd?
> 
> The problems that mule deer face, go beyond the average "deer management" conversation. Until we admit that, and begin to actually address the larger ecological decline of the West, that is stealing our wildlife, and our hunting opportunity, and heritage. We will be lost in this downward spiral of the current conversation about "management" and its current implementation.


Dr. Valerius Geist says that the biggest bucks are often "shirkers" and that instead of putting their energy into breeding, they put it into growing antlers...


----------



## goonsquad (Sep 15, 2010)

They aren't hunted by men on machines, horses, and on foot all year round. They aren't pushed out of grazing areas and into the deepest parts of the forest by other than man predators. 
Are you really saying that the stress the general hunt presents is not a factor in herd health? Good lord I remember being up in the bookcliffs as a kid and seeing more movement of men than in small towns. We had hunting parties of over twenty people in our group, that was no different than almost any other group. You think the deer simply just saw all this activity and shrugged it off? 

As for the harvest of trophy or large bucks, yes his genes will continue on, his and the deer who replaces him, a lesser deer promoted because the buck was taken out by unnatural selection.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I have deer come into my yard almost daily. They walk right down through a canal area and jump several fences to get into our neighborhood. They see and hear people, cars, planes, fire trucks, police, dogs...........you name it. They have not been pushed into the deepest parts of the forest but they receive human pressure all day long. Every day. I guess they must go to the Dr. Phil of the deer world because they live in stress.

Yet............... They are healthy. They somehow have time to eat nutritious foods even in the middle of South Jordan.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

goonsquad said:


> Nutrition is important, very important, I agree, and stressed deer herds being chased around the mountains by a million hunters for close to a quarter of the year going into the hardest months, makes it hard for them to get proper nutrition.
> Genes though, do play a part in the health of any animal and more importantly the herd as a group.


Genes play a role in herd health, but not the way you are presenting it, it is not that simple. And it is still environment and nutrition that hold dominance over the expression, and mutation for that matter, of genetics.

We are currently selecting for a lot of negative genetic expression, that predisposes the current herd, to additional negative genetic expression, as poor nutrition, and environmental factors play out.

Optimal genetic expression for mule deer, would be very average, but healthy deer, With minimal outliers. Standard 4 points with normal bifurcation. All deer carry genes capable of expression outside of this, and it is again epigenetic expression, driven by environment and nutrition that dictate this. There is no such thing as "superior" genetics.

So as this has played out over the last 30 years, we see environmental and nutritional factors, epigenetically driving herd health, and normal genetic expression. This is then expressed in the last 30 years of mule deer declines. This is not because of mule deer genetics, but rather the external forces currently driving epigenetic expression. And because epigenetic drivers like environment and nutrition, can drive predisposition of genetic expression, we can see one expression manifest, and exacerbate into multiple negative expressions. And just as it takes multiple generations to drive these negative expressions, it will take many more to drive positive expression.

"Superior" mule deer genetics, are simply just normal, pre 1984 genetics. Things have been so bad for so long, we have come to except the current state as the new norm, while elevating the prior norm of tens of thousands of years, as greater than normal.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

goonsquad said:


> They aren't hunted by men on machines, horses, and on foot all year round. They aren't pushed out of grazing areas and into the deepest parts of the forest by other than man predators.
> Are you really saying that the stress the general hunt presents is not a factor in herd health? Good lord I remember being up in the bookcliffs as a kid and seeing more movement of men than in small towns. We had hunting parties of over twenty people in our group, that was no different than almost any other group. You think the deer simply just saw all this activity and shrugged it off?
> 
> As for the harvest of trophy or large bucks, yes his genes will continue on, his and the deer who replaces him, a lesser deer promoted because the buck was taken out by unnatural selection.


Deer are pushed all year round by all kinds of things&#8230;including horn hunters, spotting scope hill-jacks, atv'ers, and photographers among others.

YES, I am really saying that the stress of general hunts do not factor into herd health! IF they did, why are the herds (as someone else pointed out) no better on national park lands compared to general season units?

So, if the genetics of your trophy back carry on, why are you so worried about him being harvested? Also, are you condoning the idea that the biggest baddest bucks should NOT be harvested? Are you saying that we should only hunt the smaller genetically inferior animals so that their genetics are NOT passed on and that only the genetics of the best are passed on?

And, again, even if a buck is harvested, the does carry the genetics too...


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

wyoming2utah said:


> Dr. Valerius Geist says that the biggest bucks are often "shirkers" and that instead of putting their energy into breeding, they put it into growing antlers...


I've read that, and in the past, not knowing what we know now, it could be said. But that is based purely on observation. Note: In the last 30 years, we keep seeing it. There is actual science that shows that many of these deer have physical anomaly's and malformations, that do not allow them to rut. There is no evolutionary forces to drive a deer towards large antlers, that he will then not use for dominance in the rut. If there were ever an anthropomorphic, Freudian statement about mule deer, "skirker" is it. Normally antler growth is an expression of health, and large antlers may give a healthy buck dominance in the rut. This then ensures it is healthy bucks, breeding healthy does, as it is healthy does that come into estrus, that then drive rutting behavior.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

wyoming2utah said:


> Deer are pushed all year round by all kinds of things&#8230;including horn hunters, spotting scope hill-jacks, atv'ers, and photographers among others.
> 
> YES, I am really saying that the stress of general hunts do not factor into herd health! IF they did, why are the herds (as someone else pointed out) no better on national park lands compared to general season units?
> 
> ...


It is not about the genes that deer poses. It is how they are expressed, what predisposes that expression, and whether that expression is a positive or negative for overall herd health. Antler size has nothing to do with genes.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Lonetree said:


> It is not about the genes that deer poses. It is how they are expressed, what predisposes that expression, and whether that expression is a positive or negative for overall herd health. Antler size has nothing to do with genes.


So Lonetree...........given two deer, that have lived on a high fenced farm eating the same feed and are the same age........why can one deer have a bigger body and bigger antlers than another?

To totally discount genetics in any part of a living being, whether it be the height of a man, the body of a deer, the confirmation of a dog within a particular breed (that was basically kennel raised from the same litter) or the size of a deers antlers makes no sense to me at all. Antlers are bone and they grow in large part because the genetics are present in the first place to allow it. Science has proven that all things are genetically different. What am I missing?


----------



## goonsquad (Sep 15, 2010)

wyoming2utah said:


> Deer are pushed all year round by all kinds of things&#8230;including horn hunters, spotting scope hill-jacks, atv'ers, and photographers among others.
> 
> YES, I am really saying that the stress of general hunts do not factor into herd health! IF they did, why are the herds (as someone else pointed out) no better on national park lands compared to general season units?
> 
> ...


Yeah, actually I am saying that if you want long term healthy herds, you don't kill the biggest and the best. 
You would have to prove that deer herds on national park land are no better off, health wise, not numerically, than standard public land deer. How many of these deer stay on the national park land over 80% of the time? 
I'm not a biologist, I am merely relating this to my opinion, which is what the OP asked. Lets say we kill off the reigning top bucks in a herd. A genetically inferior animal which is prone to certain diseases becomes the mating male for just a couple of years, how many fawns now have this gene or predisposition to an illness that otherwise would remain out of the herd?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

You show me somebody that can pick a "genetically superior" buck from a group of five deer and I will buy you a new gun. The smallest can be the most "genetically superior" as can the biggest or one in between.

Take rack deformities for example. A buck that has a deformed antler on one side could have better health genetics but simply injured a hind quarter that in turn stunted the growth or changed the growth pattern on the deformed side of the rack.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

For those that don't think that genetics play a part in antler growth.........

Somebody want to take a shot at the real genetic abnormality about this buck?


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

And half the genes for a "superior" buck come from the doe anyway. 


-DallanC


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> So Lonetree...........given two deer, that have lived on a high fenced farm eating the same feed and are the same age........why can one deer have a bigger body and bigger antlers than another?
> 
> To totally discount genetics in any part of a living being, whether it be the height of a man, the body of a deer, the confirmation of a dog within a particular breed (that was basically kennel raised from the same litter) or the size of a deers antlers makes no sense to me at all. Antlers are bone and they grow in large part because the genetics are present in the first place to allow it. Science has proven that all things are genetically different. What am I missing?


It is high fence studies that show us that two deer, the same age, fed the same diet, will have "similarly sized" antlers. This is about size, not shape or pattern. These same studies also demonstrate, across all deer species, that it is nutrition that drives antler size. With higher nutritional input, creating larger antlers. This happens in the single life time of that buck. And if the nutritional input is kept up, there can be epigenetic predisposal established for this over multiple generations. With expressions of antler shape and pattern recurring, independent of size.

Simple mule deer genes default for a typical bifurcated structure, a standard four point. Those genes say nothing about size. Though variations of traits, such as pattern, and bifurcation expression, do pass genetically and locally. But even these, appear to be epigenetically driven to some degree.

If you take a mediocre, average mule deer, and increase his nutritional intake, he will grow larger antlers, over his life time. If you continue this in the herd, over three generations, epigenetic switching will tend to predispose the growth of large antlers, as long as the nutrition supports it. This then becomes the norm, at least conditionally. Remove the nutrition, and those deer with the predisposition to large antlers, will become average deer again, over a life time, but more so over a few generations. The genes themselves have remained the same, through all of this. But the things that influence genetic switching and expression, ie. epigenetics, has changed.

Looking at the other side of the coin, with respect to disease, and malnutrition, you can see the same things play out. If you have healthy deer in 1990, and they suffer malnutrition, epigenetic switching is going to begin to predispose for smaller antlers. If we then add environmental factors, such as chemicals or nutrient imbalances into the mix, they will drive additional epigenetic expression. Over generations, mule deer predispose, to specific responses to these external forces. So if you have nutritional deficiencies over multiple generations, epigenetic switching make the genetic expression of these deficiencies, the new conditional norm. This is complicated and exacerbated when you have two, or more, of these conditions working together, or affecting the other. If you have repeated, episodic nitrate deposition, driving a selenium deficiency, that in turn leads to disease. You will epigenetically predispose a population to negative genetic expression, such as disease, and subclinical mineral deficiencies, driven by these factors. It is not the one incident that causes the genetic expression, but the repeated exposure to the conditions, that over time epigenetically predispose genetic expression in response to these things. If it occurs long enough, the DNA could be rewritten, and the actual genes changed, and then it does become genetics, verses epigenetics. That is evolution.

When you expose a deer that is not predisposed to increased nutrition, reduced nutrition, disease, etc. the deer's response will be "normal". Expose a deer to any of these things over and over again, and the response will intensify as the animal becomes predisposed to the condition. This is how deer rebound, and even explode in numbers, with favorable conditions. Conversely, this is also how deer decline, and become sensitive and predisposed to negative conditions, such as disease and malnutrition. Because of the lagging, generational affect of epigenetic predisposition, things can appear to be good, yet the right trigger can set a crash in motion, that would not happen otherwise, if the animals were not already predisposed for a loaded response.

Genetics is DNA, RNA, and genes. Epigenetics are what affect these things, turning combinations of them on and off, and establishing patterns of response, over time.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> For those that don't think that genetics play a part in antler growth.........
> 
> Somebody want to take a shot at the real genetic abnormality about this buck?


Its not a "buck".


----------



## goonsquad (Sep 15, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> For those that don't think that genetics play a part in antler growth.........
> 
> Somebody want to take a shot at the real genetic abnormality about this buck?


Its a doe, and it more than likely didn't pass on its gene's.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Ha Ha, I sincerely apologize to all for not just agreeing with Random
When he brought up this genetic idiocy. 

How many 30" 18 month old deer have you seen squad??
The bulk of deer killed in the state are under 30 months of age. 


Skinner, under your pen scenario genetics will come in to play. 
In Utah's deer harvest plan, not so much. Unless you want to turn 
Every square inch of the state in to the Henry's genetics don't mean squat. 
Say it with me. OLD DEER ARE BIG DEER. 

Squad, hunters in Utah kill excess bucks. If a unit can't provide
Excess bucks ( bucks over buck to doe ratio for that unit ) then I 
Agree we got issues. As long as there are enough bucks to breed
Every doe any additional buck serves no purpose other than dinner
For one critter or another. 

I think you are on the exact right path with your philosophy, de-stress
Deer every chance we can. I just favor looking towards
The doe side of things.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

GBell said:


> Ha Ha, I sincerely apologize to all for not just agreeing with Random
> When he brought up this genetic idiocy.
> 
> How many 30" 18 month old deer have you seen squad??
> ...


Many old deer are big deer, but that is actually not the norm. Some of the biggest are not that old. And again nutrition drives size, it is simple science.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> So Lonetree...........given two deer, that have lived on a high fenced farm eating the same feed and are the same age........why can one deer have a bigger body and bigger antlers than another?
> 
> To totally discount genetics in any part of a living being, whether it be the height of a man, the body of a deer, the confirmation of a dog within a particular breed (that was basically kennel raised from the same litter) or the size of a deers antlers makes no sense to me at all. Antlers are bone and they grow in large part because the genetics are present in the first place to allow it. Science has proven that all things are genetically different. What am I missing?


Yes, assuming nutrition is optimal, then an individual bucks genetic code will be the limiting factor in determing what the size and structure of his antlers will be. However, that bucks individual genetic makeup will have little impact on the overall health of the herd. Furthermore, assuming large antlers is the culmination of superior genetics illustrates an alarmingly myopic view of genetics.

You bring up dog breeding as an example. I would argue that any type of controlled breeding program would disprove your theory rather than prove it. Breeding programs generally require very selective and controlled pairings. It is not unusual to see the same stud stacked multiple times within a dog's lineage. These programs breed purely for certain visual characteristics that may or may not be "superior." As a byproduct, unintended genetic deficiencies are often bred into different breed types ie hip displaysia, cherry eye, hearing issues, etc.



goonsquad said:


> Yeah, actually I am saying that if you want long term healthy herds, you don't kill the biggest and the best.
> You would have to prove that deer herds on national park land are no better off, health wise, not numerically, than standard public land deer. How many of these deer stay on the national park land over 80% of the time?
> I'm not a biologist, I am merely relating this to my opinion, which is what the OP asked. Lets say we kill off the reigning top bucks in a herd. A genetically inferior animal which is prone to certain diseases becomes the mating male for just a couple of years, how many fawns now have this gene or predisposition to an illness that otherwise would remain out of the herd?


Again, why do we assume that the genetic pinnacle of health is expressed in terms of antler size?

The reality is that if a deer herd had access to superior nutrition, you would find most of the current diseases would likely disappear as they would be physically healthy enough to fight them off. Antler size would likely be larger across the board as bucks would be able to devote a maximum level their nutrients to growing them.

However, we would still see that most buck's antlers would fall in line with a normal bell curve. Producing high numbers of big bucks will be 100% correlated with producing more and healthier deer. More or less hunters won't impact that at all.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

http://www.petersenshunting.com/2011/12/09/illinois-hunter-shoots-30-point-antlered-doe/

Correct it is a doe. Did genetics play a part or what it all just diet?

Lonetree. I reading through your response I get where you are coming. Quite honestly I don't have a clue where as to start with a response. While I am not a biologist, I have read quite a few studies on antler growth. I have yet to read one that does not include genetics as one of three factors that lead to the potential size and shape of antlers. Large or small.

Take two deer from birth. One from the Sonoran area of Mexico and the other from the North Slope of Flaming Gorge. Raise them together with the same diet. Do these two deer grow up and look the same?


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Tree you are correct, but our attempts at producing
Big deer have failed by concentrating on habitat and 
Predators. 

The one thing we have been successful at managing is
Age / opportunity / harvest. 

If we reduce the above and let all deer reach 5 years
Of age, then we'll have an increase in big deer by
Nothing more than default. You'd have bigger deer in EVERY unit
In the state not because of habitat improvement or
Predator reduction, because of maturity. 
It's called age class and it works. 

It is the end of hunters and would be a detriment
To our herds, but man look at those antlers.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Dahlmer said:


> Yes, assuming nutrition is optimal, then an individual bucks genetic code will be the limiting factor in determing what the size and structure of his antlers will be. However, that bucks individual genetic makeup will have little impact on the overall health of the herd. Furthermore, assuming large antlers is the culmination of superior genetics illustrates an alarmingly myopic view of genetics.
> 
> *You bring up dog breeding as an example. I would argue that any type of controlled breeding program would disprove your theory rather than prove it. Breeding programs generally require very selective and controlled pairings. It is not unusual to see the same stud stacked multiple times within a dog's lineage. These programs breed purely for certain visual characteristics that may or may not be "superior." As a byproduct, unintended genetic deficiencies are often bred into different breed types ie hip displaysia, cherry eye, hearing issues, etc.
> *
> ...


What exactly do you think my theory is? I simply have stated that genetics play a role. Not even say that they are the critical element and you will NEVER hear me say ANYTHING along the lines that bigger is better.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> http://www.petersenshunting.com/2011/12/09/illinois-hunter-shoots-30-point-antlered-doe/
> 
> Correct it is a doe. Did genetics play a part or what it all just diet?
> 
> ...


No, they won't "look" the same, but their size will be dictated by nutrition, not their genes. Even though you can influence a propensity for larger antlers, through genetic expression, especially over time.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Lonetree said:


> No, they won't "look" the same, but their size will be dictated by nutrition, not their genes. Even though you can influence a propensity for larger antlers, through genetic expression, especially over time.


Okay. I understand your point but genetics do play a role in the potential growth of a bone. Ask a midget.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

GBell said:


> Tree you are correct, but our attempts at producing
> Big deer have failed by concentrating on habitat and
> Predators.
> 
> ...


It works for creating older bucks, only where hunting reduces bucks. And only bigger deer where nutrition supports age class. That is part of why limited entry areas have big bucks, but that's all it does. Health is still the biggest factor, and areas with higher age class, are still suffering long term declines like everywhere else. Bigger deer come with healthy herds. If we don't address the deeper ecological health problem, age class means nothing.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> What exactly do you think my theory is? I simply have stated that genetics play a role. Not even say that they are the critical element and you will NEVER hear me say ANYTHING along the lines that bigger is better.


Any time you reference a "breeding program" you you infer, whether intentional or otherwise, that you can "breed up." I mispoke in calling it your theory, my apologies. It is the theory of those who breed for type that I am speaking of. There is a real danger in assuming that we can breed for specific physical characteristics we like and assume "superior" without really understanding what other unknown characteristics we are locking in as well.

I don't think anyone is saying genetics don't play a role, only that in the big picture, that role isn't all that meaningful in the overall rise or decline of deer herds.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Dahlmer said:


> Any time you reference a "breeding program" you you infer, whether intentional or otherwise, that you can "breed up." I mispoke in calling it your theory, my apologies. It is the theory of those who breed for type that I am speaking of. There is a real danger in assuming that we can breed for specific physical characteristics we like and assume "superior" without really understanding what other unknown characteristics we are locking in as well.
> 
> I don't think anyone is saying genetics don't play a role, only that in the big picture, that role isn't all that meaningful in the overall rise or decline of deer herds.


Agreed. I don't think genetics have had anything to do with the rise or decline at all.

As far as breeding goes my only point was that two dogs coming from the same stock may have the same genetic pool to draw from but it is in fact the different genetic code that they took on that allows for the different traits in conformation to exist. The same goes for antler growth which was what I was referring to. It does not necessarily have anything to do with overall health.

The whole "breeding up" thing, regardless of the species, has never sat well with me. Bigger is not necessarily better any more than a high tail on bird dog makes it better. It is simply a trait that some may prefer.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I don't see anywhere that I referenced a breeding program.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Dahlmer said:


> I don't think anyone is saying genetics don't play a role


Gbell says genetics mean nothing.

Even called it "genetic idiocy". He keeps forgetting that I know and have stated plenty that other factors are involved yet he fails to hear that part. Genetics are real. If people don't know that then they are flat out idiots.

The role that they play in herd health, let Lone fight that battle.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Antler Growth: 25% genetics, 25% nutrition, 25% age, 25% alien abductions.


-DallanC


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

RandomElk16 said:


> Gbell says genetics mean nothing.
> 
> Even called it "genetic idiocy". He keeps forgetting that I know and have stated plenty that other factors are involved yet he fails to hear that part. Genetics are real. If people don't know that then they are flat out idiots.
> 
> The role that they play in herd health, let Lone fight that battle.


Yes genes are real, but it is not a matter of one deer having "better" genetics than another deer. It is all about genetic expression, and those factors that drive that expression. Currently there are a number of factors that have been driving 30 years of negative expression. Mule deer genes have been mule deer genes for a millennia. If we are talking about deer health, or antler growth, and those things that differentiate one deer, or deer herd, from another, then we are talking about external factors, such as nutrition and environment, that drive epigenetic, gene expression, over time.

This may seem nuanced for some, but the way this works is important. If you take two deer, with the same mule deer genes, that all mule deer have, and expose one to an iodine deficiency in the womb, it will develop congenital fetal hypothyroidism. Not because that deer had inferior genes, but because that is the way the genes respond to an iodine deficiency.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Sorry Lonetree. You may think that all deer have identical DNA but science has proven otherwise. No different than sheep, horses, cows, cats, dogs, humans and every other living thing on the planet.

Twins do not even share identical DNA they are similar but still different. Same goes for deer.

Genetics predetermine the maximum size antlers can potentially obtain. Nutrition and age allow it to happen.

Here is something that some may find interesting. In the grand scheme of things genetic science is just a baby.

http://www.boone-crockett.org/community/pdf/FC_Full2005_MuleDeerSubspecies.pdf


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Sorry Lonetree. You may think that all deer have identical DNA but science has proven otherwise. No different than sheep, horses, cows, cats, dogs, humans and every other living thing on the planet.
> 
> Twins do not even share identical DNA they are similar but still different. Same goes for deer.
> 
> ...


Yes there is plenty of genetic variation in any species, this is gene expression. This is a matter of what is switched on and off. The DNA of mule deer and white tailed deer is very similar. Yet outward appearance or phenotype between the two, is very, very different, just as it is within an individual species.

Nutrition and health determine the potential of antler size. I just spoke to a researcher last week that was involved in studies with multiple deer species that demonstrated this. There was a study in Texas with free ranging deer, that had for decades been considered less than average. It was shown that with supplementation, they could grow these deer to above average. In captive nutritional studies of mule deer at Washington state university, the same was shown. In terms of antler size, Below average deer, can father above deer, and vice versa.

This can become a trend, where larger deer, are producing larger deer. But this can also be reversed and altered, so there is not a genetic mandate or predetermination.

The referenced study is about determining genetic subspecies differentia, and obtaining baseline information. True subspecies do differ genetically, that's what make them different. But we are talking about very small DNA differences, and very large phenotype differences.

And with regard to the size of animals, as shown in the study. The difference is better explained by "Bergman's rule" which says that the further you get from the equator, the larger an animal will be. This is true around the globe, and another example of environment driving genetic expression.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

what you just said disproves nothing. Nutrition and age allow antlers to grow but the proper genetics must be present to allow to that to happen. I have read the study that was performed in Texas. The fact that supplemental feeding would make the antlers grow more does not mean that all deer would grow to the same size with the same diet. They don't because they have an individual genetic code. It not mere coincidence that people can spot the same deer year after year and distinguish it from others. This is possible because they look different than others. They are different than others and they are different because their genes require them to be.

I am not sure why you bring up Bergman's rule. It does nothing to explain the different characteristics between the deer of Sonoran desert and the deer on the North Slope of Unitas. Bergman's rule has been tested by many people that have found it to be false. Valerius Geist is one of them.

http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi...blication_detail&journalCode=cjz#.Uy2WNV4XTvI


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Its funny that Giest, the "shirker", would go after Bergman. Given that it is observational, and theoretic. At least you did not put Dr. in front of his name. Bergman's was picked apart long ago, with regard to temperature. The observation of Bergman's rule is still valid, just not _his_ explanation of why it occurs. That's why it is so funny that Geist went after it. Geist's observation of "skirkers" is valid, but his explanation of why it occurs is not. I think this holds true for much of Geist's, and others, observational cataloging in the last 30 years. And for Geist to go after valid observation, without something solid to replace the explanation, is a sad expression of where biology is today. If the observation is valid there is an underlying reason why. The correlation of distance from the equator, Bergman's rule, and skin melanin evolution in humans correlates quite well.

Skin color in humans is a result of genetic selection, with skin color becoming lighter over time, in response to UV radiation, and vitamin D requirements. Over a very long period of time, what began as short term epigenetic gene expression of Caucasians, in response to environment and nutrition, became the genetic norm as the DNA was completely rewritten.

Deer that grow large antlers year after, are only conditionally predisposed to do this, in the short term, based on environment and nutrition. There has not been thousands of years of genetic selection to rewrite mule deer DNA favoring large antlers. It is not programed in the DNA like the skin color of humans. Nutrition and environment can, epigenetically favor large antler growth, and even predispose for this, which is why you see it show up in the same area, year after year. But this predisposition, is reversible, and there for not programed, or hardwired into the deer's DNA. A propensity to grow large antlers is not permanently written into some deer's DNA.

Antler structure, shapes, patterns, and traits that show up year after in an area, are a longer lived example of short term genetic expression. As even these distinct traits and feature preferences in a herd, change over time, sometimes very quickly.

Note: All mule deer observation, over the last 20 years, is probably incorrect to at least some degree, given the extreme changes the species has endured over that time.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

This took longer than I thought it would to find again. But it needed to be dug up again anyway. Sorry, the copy and paste ended up really bad.


*Intraspecific phenotypic variation in deer: the role of genetic and epigenetic processes Werner T. FlueckA,B,C and Jo Anne M. Smith-FlueckB *
*Non-coding genes and environmental factors, the realm of epigenetics*​
*Abstract. *
*Intraspecific phenotypic variation (PV) in deer is common, at times impressively diverse, and involves morphology, development, physiology, and behaviour. Until recently considered a nuisance in evolutionary and taxonomic studies, PV has become the primary target to study fossil and extant species. Phenotypes are traditionallyinterpreted to express primarily interactions of inherited genetic variants. PV certainly originates from different genotypes, but additional PV, referred to as phenotypic plasticity (PP), results from gene expression responsive to environmental conditions and other epigenetic factors. Usage of 'epigenetics' for PP has increased exponentially with 20 316 published papers (Web-of-Science 1990 - May 2010), yet it does not include a single paper on cervids (1900 to the present). During the 'genomic era', the focus was on the primaryDNAsequences and variability therein. Recently however, several higher order architectural genomic features were detected which all affect PV.*
*(1)Genes: poli-genic traits; pleiotropic genes; poli-allelic genes; gene dosage (copy number variants, CNV); singlenucleotide variance in coding and gene regulatory regions; mtDNA recombinations and paternal mtDNA inheritance.*
*(2)Gene products: pleiotropic gene products; multiple protein structures through alternative splicing; variable gene*
*product reactions due to gene dosage.*
*(3)Gene expression: (i) epigenetic regulation at the DNA, nucleosomal and chromosomal levels; (ii) large-scale*
*genomic structural variation (i.e. CNV imbalance); (iii) transcription factor proteins (TF), each regulating up to 500 target*
*genes, with TF activity varying 7.5-25% among individual humans (exceeding variation in coding DNA by 300-1000·);*
*(iv) non-protein-coding RNA (98.5% of genome) constituting maybe hundreds of thousands RNA signals; (v) gene*
*expression responsive to external and internal environmental variation; (vi) transgenerational epigenetic inheritance (e.g.*
*from ubiquitous non-gametic interactions, genomic imprinting, epistasis, transgenerational gene*
*-diet interactions);*
*(vii) epigenetic stochasticity resulting in random PP. A unique example of labile traits in mammals is the yearly regrowth of a complete appendage, the antler in cervids.*

*Epigenetics refers to changes in gene expression which result in different phenotypes, and are caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying genetics.,15,20,41 It occurs at DNA, nucleosomal and chromosomal levels, and through modification of histone tails that underlie developmental plasticity and canalisation and that bring about persistent developmental effects. Recognised mechanisms include DNA methylation, chromatin remodelling, and non-coding RNA.Epigenetic alterations in gene expression result from 'environmental' effects, both via external surroundings of an organism and via internal conditions. The latter is significant prenatally 42 and also acts through developmental interactions*
*between mother and offspring, as the mother's behaviour canaffect the chemistry of DNA in her offspring, making quality of early maternal care an epigenetic factor.41,43 For instance, licking and grooming behaviour of maternal rats towards their pups within the first week of life presents a clear case of epigenetic maternal transmission. 44 Epigenetics also results from other important cultural interactions like social learning, symbolic communication, and imitation, 42,45-47, and through diet. Thus, epigenetic heredity of feeding and drinking behaviour during pregnancy can in fluence the appetite for certain foods, like alcohol, in offspring of rats. 44 Diet can also determine morphology like hair colour or body proportions, or disease susceptibility in adulthood.20,48 Anaemia during only a few days of near-term fetal sheep results in increased heart size and cardiac output, a doubling of coronary artery conductance, all of which persist into adulthood. 49 Lastly, epigenetic stochasticity results in random PP.10,11*​


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

That's a pretty interesting study LT, tough reading but enlightening. You shoulda asked, I might have saved you some search time...

For those who wish to read further:

http://www.deerlab.org/Publ/pdfs/48.pdf


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

stillhunterman said:


> That's a pretty interesting study LT, tough reading but enlightening. You shoulda asked, I might have saved you some search time...
> 
> For those who wish to read further:
> 
> http://www.deerlab.org/Publ/pdfs/48.pdf


I thought I was saving some time, 20 posts ago, when I said something simple like "Genetics don't drive big antlers"

Is it possible, that the last 20 years of failed mule deer management, is because of an RNA down regulation of pituitary function, coupled with underdeveloped hemiscrota, brought on by congenital fetal hypothyroidism, driven by environment and nutrition? Maybe its an epigenetic problem.

And I'm not talking about the deer anymore.............


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

guilty as charged....


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Lonetree said:


> I thought I was saving some time, 20 posts ago, when I said something simple like "Genetics don't drive big antlers"
> 
> Is it possible, that the last 20 years of failed mule deer management, is because of an RNA down regulation of pituitary function, coupled with underdeveloped hemiscrota, brought on by congenital fetal hypothyroidism, driven by environment and nutrition? Maybe its an epigenetic problem.
> 
> And I'm not talking about the deer anymore.............


I'm sure there are those who could answer that...

http://missoulian.com/mobile/article_2b89e1d8-800b-11e0-82eb-001cc4c002e0.html


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

stillhunterman said:


> I'm sure there are those who could answer that...
> 
> http://missoulian.com/mobile/article_2b89e1d8-800b-11e0-82eb-001cc4c002e0.html


Lets just say, that I did not come up with that scenario, about people being afflicted. ;-)


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Have to link this thread just in case anyone stumbles across this:

http://utahwildlife.net/forum/12-big-game/86953-big-buck-hypothetical.html

Page 3 photo timeline.


----------

