# Apex predators



## Iron Bear

http://www.lordsofnature.org/

An interesting film.

Backing my position that apex predators like wolf and cougar are the biggest effect on the species they prey on deer and elk. Not weather and selenium levels.


----------



## LostLouisianian

Iron Bear said:


> http://www.lordsofnature.org/
> 
> An interesting film.
> 
> Backing my position that apex predators like wolf and cougar are the biggest effect on the species they prey on deer and elk. Not weather and selenium levels.


I'll have to watch this when I have time, but it's going to take a lot of data to prove that apex predators have a bigger impact than weather.....as for selenium, well I am still waiting for the baseline studies that show selenium levels by decade for the last 100 years or so to make the assessment as to whether there has been a selenium decline or not.


----------



## Lonetree

Iron Bear said:


> http://www.lordsofnature.org/
> 
> An interesting film.
> 
> Backing my position that apex predators like wolf and cougar are the biggest effect on the species they prey on deer and elk. Not weather and selenium levels.


WOW! you are really coming around.

"LORDS OF NATURE: Life in a Land of Great Predators  tells the story of science now discovering the great carnivores as revitalizing forces of nature, and a society now learning tolerance for the beasts they had once banished."

Somewhere between the 5th and 6th week after parturition, selenium in the pregnant female when dwindling, is removed from the primary storage areas (liver; and bone marrow). If the diet is sufficiently deficient in Se this reserve will run out about the 6th week after birth. If the deficit is severe enough the the mother will begin craving minerals, leaving the lambs behind as they are no longer ambulatory and often exhibit breathing difficulties. This is the phase where all of the local predators begin to focus in on the lambs and pick them off.

This is all dependent on several factors, but the predation is secondary and compensatory. That is why supplementation studies that have been shown to increase deer, unlike predator control, also decrease predation.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish

-O\\__-


----------



## Lonetree

LostLouisianian said:


> I'll have to watch this when I have time, but it's going to take a lot of data to prove that apex predators have a bigger impact than weather.....as for selenium, well I am still waiting for the baseline studies that show selenium levels by decade for the last 100 years or so to make the assessment as to whether there has been a selenium decline or not.


It has nothing to do with baseline selenium levels, but rather how selenium is depleted in the bodies of animals, and how other enviromental factors decrease the uptake of selenium by plants, that then affects the availability of selenium and other minerals to the animals. Here is more on this: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10344-007-0128-9

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

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02241967

http://deerlab.org/Publ/pdfs/61.pdf

There is no baseline for bioavailable selenium. Only elemental selenium, which of no use to wildlife. Selenium cycles through a redox process from bio available forms such as selenite and selenate, to elemental selenium. This process can take anywhere from 24 hours(marshes) to a year(high cold mountains) and is affected by many enviromental factors on this chemistry.

Here is how that plays out with 2,4-D exposure:

Selenium connection: http://thyroid.about.com/library/weekly/aa072000a.htm
"Regarding the thyroid, selenium is a component of the enzyme that helps convert T4 to T3 peripherally, so deficiencies of selenium may impair thyroid function and promote hypothyroidism."


From this: http://www.drwells.net/nutrition/topics/Hypothyroid.htm

"A high TSH and low T4 and T3 indicate thyroid gland disease. 
High T4 to T3 ratio (T7) or a high r-T3 (another rare test) are suggestive of peripheral cellular resistance as these levels indicate a decreased conversion of T4 to T3. Decreased conversion may also be due to selenium deficiency or mercury toxicity."


And from this: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/777483

"Although clinical applications still need to be defined for Hashimoto's disease, they are very interesting for pregnant women given that supplementation(selenium) significantly decreases the percentage of postpartum thyroiditis and definitive hypothyroidism."


2,4-D and thyroid: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17651757

"Environmental contaminants interfere with thyroid function including 60% of all herbicides, in particular 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D)"

From this: http://www.researchgate.net/publica..._Applicators_in_the_Agricultural_Health_Study
"There was increased odds of hypothyroidism with every use of the herbicides 2,4-D"

From this: http://www.ehjournal.net/content/7/1/50

"It has also been reported that 2,4-D induced neurotoxicity may be partly due to generation of free radicals. When incubating rat cerebellar granule cells with 2,4-D _in vitro_, glutathione (GSH) levels and catalase activity were significantly reduced, whereas generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and activity of selenium-glutathione peroxidase (Se-GPx) were augmented" Citation for this:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17449452?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn

So you introduce 2,4-D(and other herbicides) into big game habitat, they eat it. Se-GPx is activated to protect against the affects of 2,4-D, which depletes Se, along with glutathione. You then couple environmental conditions(nitrates) that deplete selenium feed levels, and everything falls apart. The resulting selenium deficiency is most likely responsible for the thyroid conditions, as selenium supplementation has been shown to decrease post partum thyroiditis, and other thyroid conditions. Metabolic disorders such as hypothyroidism and diabetes, that have both been shown to be correlated to herbicide exposure, also create internal, primary mineral deficiencies, most notably copper and selenium.

Post partum thyroiditis would come between weeks 5 and 6 after parturition.

You keep asking for science, and saying I don't understand science, yet you don't demonstrate a basic understanding of the science.


----------



## Lonetree

MuscleWhitefish said:


> -O\\__-


Have anything of substance to offer?


----------



## Iron Bear

The film showed very few lambs were being killed by predators. And it also showed canyon lands of utah have better biodiversity when the deer aren't over browsing. It showed that Zions park because of all the people is left void of cougar. So they have too many deer as a result. In other areas where cougar where abundant deer are scarce. Plants get to grow up and everyone is happy. 

The scientist in this film say nothing of selenium pesticides or weather as being a factor in the health of the canyonland ecosystems of Utah.


----------



## LostLouisianian

It has nothing to do with baseline selenium levels, but rather how selenium is depleted in the bodies of animals, and how other enviromental factors decrease the uptake of selenium by plants, that then affects the availability of selenium and other minerals to the animals……..There is no baseline for bioavailable selenium. Only elemental selenium, which of no use to wildlife.

So there you have it folks, and pardon the pun, straight from the horses mouth. There are NO BASELINE STUDIES for selenium THEREFORE we cannot PROVE that selenium HAS DECLINED causing the issues. We can conclude however that selenium is low but we cannot conclude that this is a NEW phenomenon and not something that has existed for 100 or more years. Thanks for helping to make my point young man.

Now would you so kindly provide a map of 2,4-D usage rates by state that would be most helpful, or maybe you could provide us with usage rates per sq mi in Utah of 2,4-D and the areas it is commonly used in. It is one thing to point out a potential problem but it's another thing altogether to provide evidence that the issue supposedly causing the problem actually exists.


----------



## Lonetree

Iron Bear said:


> The film showed very few lambs were being killed by predators. And it also showed canyon lands of utah have better biodiversity when the deer aren't over browsing. It showed that Zions park because of all the people is left void of cougar. So they have too many deer as a result. In other areas where cougar where abundant deer are scarce. Plants get to grow up and everyone is happy.
> 
> The scientist in this film say nothing of selenium pesticides or weather as being a factor in the health of the canyonland ecosystems of Utah.


:mrgreen: Iron bear is now pro predator, in an effort to promote predator control? Its a step in the right direction.

The scientist is not going to mention selenium or pesticides, its a film about predators.


----------



## Iron Bear

Pro predator? 

Are you slow?


----------



## Lonetree

LostLouisianian said:


> It has nothing to do with baseline selenium levels, but rather how selenium is depleted in the bodies of animals, and how other enviromental factors decrease the uptake of selenium by plants, that then affects the availability of selenium and other minerals to the animals&#8230;&#8230;..There is no baseline for bioavailable selenium. Only elemental selenium, which of no use to wildlife.
> 
> So there you have it folks, and pardon the pun, straight from the horses mouth. There are NO BASELINE STUDIES for selenium THEREFORE we cannot PROVE that selenium HAS DECLINED causing the issues. We can conclude however that selenium is low but we cannot conclude that this is a NEW phenomenon and not something that has existed for 100 or more years. Thanks for helping to make my point young man.
> 
> Now would you so kindly provide a map of 2,4-D usage rates by state that would be most helpful, or maybe you could provide us with usage rates per sq mi in Utah of 2,4-D and the areas it is commonly used in. It is one thing to point out a potential problem but it's another thing altogether to provide evidence that the issue supposedly causing the problem actually exists.


:mrgreen: This is only more proof that you don't understand the science involved in any of this. You are just a mouth piece.

I just explained it to you with several days worth of peer reviewed science, all referenced and cited. And even broke it down to a sixth grade level, synopsis, but you still choose to ignore the science, while claiming that's what I do.

You never cite anything you dribble, and its always out of context. You lie about having degrees in wildlife related fields, and then make accusation about who I "really" am, but can't support that either.

People like you are the problem with wildlife politics.

I'll make you the offer, come spend a few days, meet some people that actually have degrees and do this work, and then tell them they are full of ****, out in the field. I won't show you a 2,4-D map, I'll take you to places where it is used on wildlife habitat, and show you the affects.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish

Lonetree said:


> Have anything of substance to offer?


I think it is a combination of all the things that you guys are mentioning.

I don't think any one thing is worse than the other.

Habitat, Nutrition, Weather, and Predation all effect deer herds.


----------



## LostLouisianian

Lonetree said:


> :mrgreen: This is only more proof that you don't understand the science involved in any of this. You are just a mouth piece.
> 
> I just explained it to you with several days worth of peer reviewed science, all referenced and cited. And even broke it down to a sixth grade level, synopsis, but you still choose to ignore the science, while claiming that's what I do.
> 
> You never cite anything you dribble, and its always out of context. You lie about having degrees in wildlife related fields, and then make accusation about who I "really" am, but can't support that either.
> 
> People like you are the problem with wildlife politics.
> 
> I'll make you the offer, come spend a few days, meet some people that actually have degrees and do this work, and then tell them they are full of ****, out in the field. I won't show you a 2,4-D map, I'll take you to places where it is used on wildlife habitat, and show you the affects.


And there you have it folks, problem A is caused by scenario B...however I have no data or proof that scenario B exists and to what level. Thanks young man.


----------



## Lonetree

Iron Bear said:


> Pro predator?
> 
> Are you slow?


No I'm not slow. The film you cited is on the subject of what is known as "predator appreciation", which was first really coming into the scientific understanding with the Murie's work in the 30s to the 60s, before wildlife science was sold out.

You are all about predator control, predator control has not been shown to scientifically increase ungulate populations. This film is about the positive role of predation, and how apex predation actually fosters wildlife.

After everything you have posted WRT predation, I don't think you quite get it. When you can show us that predator control increases declining wildlife populations, then you will have something.


----------



## Lonetree

MuscleWhitefish said:


> I think it is a combination of all the things that you guys are mentioning.
> 
> I don't think any one thing is worse than the other.
> 
> Habitat, Nutrition, Weather, and Predation all effect deer herds.


But what has been shown scientifically to be able to increase numbers? That is where the rubber hits the road when we are talking about declined, and suppressed populations.

Yes it is all intertwined, but many factors are weighted more so than others, and have disproportionate affects on other factors. If you are not looking at the way all of those interact, you are missing everything that can make difference.


----------



## Iron Bear

Geez half the film was talking about the overpopulation of elk and deer because of a lack of apex predators. I don't have anymore then that for you. 

Amazing predators control prey populations. What a novel concept.


----------



## Lonetree

LostLouisianian said:


> And there you have it folks, problem A is caused by scenario B...however I have no data or proof that scenario B exists and to what level. Thanks young man.


Listen old man, I've forgot more about wildlife science than you ever learned in your life.

You want a base line measurment, for something that you don't understand the most basic concepts of. You want a metric that is completely irrelevant, to the subject at hand. Partly because you don't possess the capacity to understand the subject matter, but mostly because you will argue against anything I say out of false ideology, of which you are not the first, or last, to make that misstep. The easier one makes that step, easier it is to know just how full of it they are.

You can't discount hundreds of scientists work, just because I reference them. The only ones that are with you on that, are the other folks that run on the same false ideology, that overrides logic.

The offer still stands for the field trip, and you still have not shown us those degrees you claim to have, or an understanding of science that one holding those degrees should possess, or come up with my name for that matter. Come on, unmask me. Show the world what I "really" am, and what I'm "really about".


----------



## Lonetree

Iron Bear said:


> Geez half the film was talking about the overpopulation of elk and deer because of a lack of apex predators. I don't have anymore then that for you.
> 
> Amazing predators control prey populations. What a novel concept.


Its not quite that simple. There is a lot missing in that narrative. If predation was the controlling and limiting factor for ungulates, then removing them, like has been done in predator control study's, would increase declining populations, which it does not do.

My reference to Adolf Muries work, has real world implications. They quit killing coyotes in YNP in the 1930s when he was studying them. The deer population went up when this was done, not down.

Predators "cleanse" herds, keeping them in check not by primary number reductions, but through keeping them strong via movement, and disease reduction. Its about balance,and I remember when you changed your signature to sort of reflect this.

Predators are not the controlling or limiting factor of ungulate populations, yes they play a huge role, but its not as simple as you are trying to make it.


----------



## LostLouisianian

Lonetree said:


> Listen old man, I've forgot more about wildlife science than you ever learned in your life.
> 
> You want a base line measurment, for something that you don't understand the most basic concepts of. You want a metric that is completely irrelevant, to the subject at hand. Partly because you don't possess the capacity to understand the subject matter, but mostly because you will argue against anything I say out of false ideology, of which you are not the first, or last, to make that misstep. The easier one makes that step, easier it is to know just how full of it they are.
> 
> You can't discount 100 hundreds of scientist work, just because I reference them. The only ones that are with you that, are the other folks that run on the same false ideology, that overrides logic.
> 
> The offer still stands for the field trip, and you still have not shown us those degrees you claim to have, or an understanding of science that one holding those degrees should possess, or come up with my name for that matter. Come on, unmask me. Show the world what I "really" am, and what I'm "really about".


And the amount of 2,4-D usage you claim to be the cause of the problem in Utah is?????????????????????????????????????????????????? Surely you have that information right??????????????????????????????????????????????????


----------



## Iron Bear

If I've been anything over the last 10 yrs here it been consistent. 

I don't argue that predators are good or bad. I'm no dummy I know they serve a purpose. I argue it's defies logic to facilitate a general hunt for 100K hunters while trying to achieve a wildlife tapestry that resembles presettlement. Mother Nature created that tapestry over 1000s of years and it never accounted for 100,000 humans out on 4 wheelers with high powered riffles and what not. It evolved with a few thousand native Americans harvesting a tiny fraction of what is harvested today. 

So if you want to harvest 50,000 deer per year like the general hunter would have it. We better cut "spending" somewhere else. I say we can take from the cougar to help out that general hunt. Now if that's not an option or it won't work as some have suggested. The problem in my mind is an overcrowding of hunters. So I don't support hunter recruitment or retention efforts.


----------



## Lonetree

LostLouisianian said:


> And the amount of 2,4-D usage you claim to be the cause of the problem in Utah is?????????????????????????????????????????????????? Surely you have that information right??????????????????????????????????????????????????


Amounts, time of application, locations......Yes, You can start with many county and state roads, and then go from there.

If you are going to go into some sort of "well they use more than that in India", then you can shut the **** up right now. I've documented the spraying in real time, the affects on the plants(death and partial ripening), the affects on the animals(several malformations), affects on browsing habits(deer and moose consumption), the correlating mineral thirsts(copper, selenium, and magnesium) and the bio chemical science that explains the observed affects on wildlife, which you have already tried to discount. You know all that peer reviewed science you can't grasp.

Or simply explain this: http://rutalocura.com/images/IMG_6521.JPG

Care to take that field trip?


----------



## Lonetree

Iron Bear said:


> If I've been anything over the last 10 yrs here it been consistent.
> 
> I don't argue that predators are good or bad. I'm no dummy I know they serve a purpose. I argue it's defies logic to facilitate a general hunt for 100K hunters while trying to achieve a wildlife tapestry that resembles presettlement. Mother Nature created that tapestry over 1000s of years and it never accounted for 100,000 humans out on 4 wheelers with high powered riffles and what not. It evolved with a few thousand native Americans harvesting a tiny fraction of what is harvested today.
> 
> So if you want to harvest 50,000 deer per year like the general hunter would have it. We better cut "spending" somewhere else. I say we can take from the cougar to help out that general hunt. Now if that's not an option or it won't work as some have suggested. The problem in my mind is an overcrowding of hunters. So I don't support hunter recruitment or retention efforts.


No the problem is an overall lack of deer, that is what has driven tag numbers, deer numbers.

To increase deer numbers, you need to understand what has caused their decline, or what has suppressed their numbers. This would be something that could increase numbers, and a nutritional factor is the only thing that has been shown to do that.

And that is even more complex than predator prey relationships.


----------



## LostLouisianian

Lonetree said:


> Amounts, time of application, locations......Yes You can start with many county and state roads, and then go from there.
> 
> If you are going to go into some sort of "well they use more than that in India", then you can shut the **** up right now. I've documented the spraying in real time, the affects on the plants(death and partial ripening), the affects on the animals(several malformations), affects on browsing habits(deer and moose consumption), the correlating mineral thirsts(copper, selenium, and magnesium) and the bio chemical science that explains the observed affects on wildlife, which you have already tried to discount. You know all that peer reviewed science you can't grasp.
> 
> Or simply explain this: http://rutalocura.com/images/IMG_6521.JPG
> 
> Care to take that field trip?


So how much is used in Utah? How much is used in other states? Simple questions that I am failing to see an answer of. Shocking.


----------



## Lonetree

LostLouisianian said:


> So how much is used in Utah? How much is used in other states? Simple questions that I am failing to see an answer of. Shocking.


There you go with the false ideology of casting doubt, because you got nothing else.

Just like with glyph, it has nothing to do with the total quantity, or in which states, but rather the where, when ,and how it is used. and how that relates to wildlife, which is the subject at hand. If you sprayed 10,000 gallons of it some place that deer or moose, or sheep don't live, it won't have a direct affect on them now will it?

In the places where 2,4-D, and other herbicides are used directly on wildlife habitat you can show a direct affect on the wildlife that use that habitat. Start here: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/education/

Those affects include mineral deficiencies and malformations, that can be studied and explained by this thing called science.........

Can you explain the observed mineral deficiencies in wildlife, in every Western state, documented by hundreds of scientist?

As they used to say "Videre est Cruder" the offer for that field trip is still open.


----------



## LostLouisianian

Just like with glyph, it has nothing to do with the total quantity, or in which states, but rather the where, when ,and how it is used. and how that relates to wildlife, which is the subject at hand. If you sprayed 10,000 gallons of it some place that deer or moose, or sheep don't live, it won't have a direct affect on them now will it?


OK so how much is used and when in those areas? You keep saying things without providing any relevant information as to your claims.


----------



## Lonetree

I've posted more citations today, than you ever have in 911 posts, over 4+ years. Read them!, just dismissing volumes of scientific materials only confirms what we already know about you. Just like when you come up with irrelevant parameters, that you think mean something, but have no bearing.

Start with this: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/research/orange-crush/

And this: http://rutalocura.com/deer There are two pages.

Its old and needs to be updated, but it has the basics. I've already posted a few days worth of reading(on this thread) that supports the two before mentioned links.

If I'm wrong, then you should be able to explain the realities on the ground through other verifiable science. This is only one single example.


----------



## LostLouisianian

Amount of 2,4-D you profess profusely that is used please. If you can't provide the data simply admit it. You've yet to prove anything because you can't provide any information on actual usages


----------



## Lonetree

LostLouisianian said:


> Amount of 2,4-D you profess profusely that is used please. If you can't provide the data simply admit it. You've yet to prove anything because you can't provide any information on actual usages


I have seen them use a few hundred gallons of mix along 5-8 miles of road in a day. This will get done several times over the course of a spring, and will vary with growth rates, and spring moisture. Ultimately the overall usage is irrelevant, and you know that, because it does not matter if its 1 gallon, or 10 gallons. It is the fact that it IS sprayed, and the deer DO eat it, and there IS documented side effects from its use.

It does not matter if they use more in Nepal, or if they don't use any in England, or if the total usage is less than used in the Mississippi basin. You think you have a point, but it is quite obvious just how little you actually know or understand. As per your attempts at casting weak doubt.

We are talking about consumption, by deer, of herbicides, and the resulting affects of that. Are you challenging any of those things? No, you are attempting a peripherally mute argument, that you think counts as a "technicality". It has no bearing on documented spraying of herbicides, and the consumption of those herbicides by deer, and the resulting affects of the before mentioned.

Your arguments are always out of context, and sidelines. Because that's all guys like you with fake internet claimed wildlife degrees can muster.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Iron Bear said:


> http://www.lordsofnature.org/
> 
> An interesting film.
> 
> Backing my position that apex predators like wolf and cougar are the biggest effect on the species they prey on deer and elk. Not weather and selenium levels.


LMAO!!!!-_O--_O--_O--_O-

You are using a pro-predator movie that is pushing the idea of reintroducing apex predators like wolves into our ecosystems to help balance them and keep them healthier as evidence that we need to kill more cougars? You're joking, right?


----------



## wyoming2utah

Some of the links from your Lords of Nature folks:
Wolves not causing most elk losses:
http://www.lordsofnature.org/documents/IDFGReportonWolfImpactsonElk.pdf

Wolf debate is seldom rational:
http://www.lordsofnature.org/documents/Wolves_Thedebateisseldomrational-HighCountryNews.pdf

Lack of predators will destroy wild lands:
http://www.lordsofnature.org/press/lon_press_san_mateo_times_6_21_08.pdf

The West needs more not fewer wolves:
http://www.lordsofnature.org/documents/Missoulian_GeoWuerthner.pdf

Here is a link to a page of study after study showing the trophy cascade problem with too few predators:
http://www.cof.orst.edu/cascades/articles.php

This one details the decline of apex predators across the west and the resulting mesopredator problem:
http://www.lordsofnature.org/documents/MesopredatorsBioScience.pdf

Geez....I could go on and on. Thanks! You just gave me all kinds of awesome data-driven and science-based reasons why we shouldn't be killing off the apex predators and why your ideas are so ignorant....


----------



## wyoming2utah

The stuff from Lords of Nature on mesopredators is really interesting....I love this paragraph:
"Thus, mesopredators have the potential to exploit
prey resources more thoroughly than top predators do. 
The ascendancy of the coyote in North America is an
excellent example of the pitfalls mentioned above. The fact that
coyotes are now considered top predators throughout much
of the United States illustrates the problem of shifting baselines
and the promotion of mesopredators to apex status.
While coyotes may suppress some mesopredators, they display
several classic mesopredator traits themselves: They have
an omnivorous, opportunistic diet; tolerate close contact
with humans; and flourish despite intense persecution.
Because of these traits, coyotes will never fully replace the role
of the top predators that once controlled their numbers. The
dominance of coyotes across several habitats and the high cost
of efforts to control them illustrate that the serial promotion
of mesopredators to apex status may be a less effective means
of maintaining ecosystem integrity than learning to live with
true apex predators and protecting their habitat."

http://www.lordsofnature.org/documents/MesopredatorsBioScience.pdf

Man....thanks for the link, LB, you have given me a lot of great reading information that really exploits your predator theories!


----------



## Iron Bear

Yep predators do indeed effect wildlife. 

Now the question is it ethical to send 100,000 hunters out after 50,000 buck and drive buck to doe ratios to the brink? 

What other species do we manage to the threshold of collapse. Is our bull to cow ratio being managed to its limits. How about the moose? Sheep? Antelope? 

I'll concede that large scale intensive predator control will ever take place for the benefit of providing a quality general hunt for 100,000 plus hunters. I won't concede that it would achieve the desired results. Which is the ability for hunters to harvest more game without a reduction in herd size.


----------



## Lonetree

Iron Bear said:


> Yep predators do indeed effect wildlife.
> 
> Now the question is it ethical to send 100,000 hunters out after 50,000 buck and drive buck to doe ratios to the brink?
> 
> What other species do we manage to the threshold of collapse. Is our bull to cow ratio being managed to its limits. How about the moose? Sheep? Antelope?
> 
> I'll concede that large scale intensive predator control will ever take place for the benefit of providing a quality general hunt for 100,000 plus hunters. I won't concede that it would achieve the desired results. Which is the ability for hunters to harvest more game without a reduction in herd size.


Seriously, you have no clue do you?

Hunters can harvest more game without reductions in herd size, by increasing overall herd size and health. Hunter management, AKA reduced deer tags, does quite the opposite. Cutting tags reduces hunters, increases buck to doe ratios, and reduces fawn to doe ratios. This sets the stage for declines, sub par recover, and reduced overall numbers that have become the norm over the last several decades.

"Now the question is it ethical to send 100,000 hunters out after 50,000 buck and drive buck to doe ratios to the brink?"

Its quite the inverse actually. Not only are your numbers wrong, so is your perceived concept. You would have to drop buck to doe ratios below ~7 to 100, to drive deer herds to the brink. When it is keeping the buck to doe ratios high that is a component in what drives herds to the brink. The difference between net and gross makes all the difference in the world, and allows for growth, decline, or stagnation.

Its no wonder people in Utah don't understand it, its similar to fiscal responsibility, not MLM.

Predators: You continually show just how much you don't understand about this subject as well. But I did enjoy the film, and some of the reading material. Predator appreciation is yet one more lacking piece of modern "wildlife management".


----------



## wyoming2utah

Iron Bear said:


> Now the question is it ethical to send 100,000 hunters out after 50,000 buck and drive buck to doe ratios to the brink?


Do you realize that when our deer herds in Utah were at their very highest, our buck/doe ratios were at their all-time lowest?

You seriously need to read some of the information on that original link you posted.....because you obviously have totally missed the boat!


----------



## Lonetree

wyoming2utah said:


> Do you realize that when our deer herds in Utah were at their very highest, our buck/doe ratios were at their all-time lowest?
> 
> You seriously need to read some of the information on that original link you posted.....because you obviously have totally missed the boat!


Yeah, yeah, yeah, but what were the buck to doe ratios in Istanbul at the turn of the century? Cause I know a guy that talked to someone, that did not see any rabbits when his great grandfather had the tag.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Lonetree said:


> Yeah, yeah, yeah, but what were the buck to doe ratios in Istanbul at the turn of the century? Cause I know a guy that talked to someone, that did not see any rabbits when his great grandfather had the tag.


Istanbul did not exist until 1930


----------



## Lonetree

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Istanbul did not exist until 1930


That's nobody's business but the Turks........


----------



## Iron Bear

Yep Mother Nature evolved over 1000s of yrs and came up with about a 40/100 b/d ratio. But missed the mark by 30/100. And also buck got it wrong by growing big antlers. 

Sorry guys you can't argue with eons of evolution. I'm pretty sure nature got it right with higher b/d ratios and mature bucks doing most of the breeding. I'm talking a buck in his prime not a 3 yr old 20" 4 pt. 

How many deer were in Utah before we got here? 

Why would we expect there to be anymore today than then. 

And a lower B/D ratio in the 50s then today is an asinine statement.


----------



## Lonetree

Iron Bear said:


> Yep Mother Nature evolved over 1000s of yrs and came up with about a 40/100 b/d ratio. But missed the mark by 30/100. And also buck got it wrong by growing big antlers.
> 
> Sorry guys you can't argue with eons of evolution. I'm pretty sure nature got it right with higher b/d ratios and mature bucks doing most of the breeding. I'm talking a buck in his prime not a 3 yr old 20" 4 pt.
> 
> How many deer were in Utah before we got here?
> 
> Why would we expect there to be anymore today than then.
> 
> And a lower B/D ratio in the 50s then today is an asinine statement.


You don't know anything about how evolution even works, its called epigenetics, and it plays into much of what we are talking about. 40 to 100 buck to doe ratios exist in the presence of no hunting, human or other wise, and cause suppression of overall herd numbers. There is no evolutionary advantage in that. ungulates evolved to be preyed upon, in the presence of human hunters, in fact humans in North America may very well predate Mule deer.

Several researchers(Hutto, Geist, Flueck, etc.) have also documented over the last several decades, that some of the largest buck deer in the herd, will abstain from the rut, this is also not natural, and serves no evolutionary purpose. This was seen in conjunction with higher buck to doe ratios and suppressed herd numbers.

Look at places like Hanford WA, or the Paunsugaunt, they have limited or no hunting, with very high buck to doe ratios, and flat, suppressed or declining overall numbers.

How many deer were in Utah before the pioneers? What record do you want to look at? Over what time frame? I have several friends that are archeologists, and over the last 10,000 years, mule deer showed up on the dinner plate second only to bighorn sheep. How many Bison were in Utah when the pioneers arrived? None, but they existed in very high numbers just prior to their arrival. Misquoted and misunderstood trapper journals(Russell,etc.), misinterpreted over the years, have led to this myth that wildlife numbers were low, that is a false generalization.

We know there were more deer in the '50s, than in the '20s, and that we have fewer now. We know its possible, and we have even identified what is limiting carrying capacity, and its not predators.

A lower buck to doe ratio in the '50s is not asinine, we did not start to experience the buck to doe ratios we see today, until the late '80s early '90s. Some of the largest and most resilient herds, that were able to rebound from the '83 winter had buck to doe ratios of ~12 to 100.

You simply are not grasping the totality of the subject.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Iron Bear said:


> And a lower B/D ratio in the 50s then today is an asinine statement.


Asinine? Oh really....you mean back in the day when multiple
permits, multiple seasons, and extra permits for antlerless deer were common and back in 1961 when more deer were harvested than any other year, we had HIGHER buck to doe ratios? Hmmm....wasn't that also when deer herds started to decline and buck-only season were instituted?

....to take it even a step further, the total number of buck hunters peaked in the 1980s and the highest number of bucks harvested peaked in the 80s as well. You know, back when deer herds were much higher than they are now....and when buck/doe ratios were much LOWER!


----------



## wyogoob

Lonetree said:


> ................................................*Boy, I'm glad the UWN anti-potty mouth thingie is working.
> *
> Care to take that field trip?


Can I go with? I worked in Louisiana a lot and would like to shoot the BS with Lost L. Would you mind driving?

.


----------



## Iron Bear

As if the DWR new it's ass from a hole in the ground in the 50s till now. 

I never recall a hunt where I only put eyes on 2 buck and 30 doe until the later 90s 

This low b/d ratio is terrible in so many ways. I'm not sure of the motives but its effects are very anti hunting. 

The reality is deer being a public resource belong to everyone. So for every person that wants to shoot a buck there are 30 who would prefer you just left it alone so they can just see it when camping riding an ATV driving there car hiking with their dog or golfing. So Im sure slaughtering a 90% of the buck that exists in Utah annually isn't a recipe for public support. We've been replaced as the primary culler of the deer herd. And hunting deer in Utah is no longer necessary to the overall health to the herd. Deer hunting now is in the category of tolerated not required. 

Do you know where deer hunting is still a necessary tool to keep deer populations in check? One hint. There isn't 1 cougar for every 150 deer there.


----------



## wyoming2utah

OH....I see, now the DWR is anti-hunting and pushing that agenda! Dang, IB, you come up with some real good stuff....which coffee shop do you hang out at? It would be a real hoot to listen in one day!


----------



## wyoming2utah

Iron Bear said:


> Do you know where deer hunting is still a necessary tool to keep deer populations in check? One hint. There isn't 1 cougar for every 150 deer there.


Bountiful city limits....? Panguitch unit....specifically the Parowan front....? Antelope island....?


----------



## Lonetree

wyogoob said:


> Can I go with? I worked in Louisiana a lot and would like to shoot the BS with Lost L. Would you mind driving?
> 
> .


Goob, I already said that I would come pick you up.


----------



## Lonetree

Iron Bear said:


> As if the DWR new it's ass from a hole in the ground in the 50s till now.
> 
> I never recall a hunt where I only put eyes on 2 buck and 30 doe until the later 90s
> 
> This low b/d ratio is terrible in so many ways. I'm not sure of the motives but its effects are very anti hunting.
> 
> The reality is deer being a public resource belong to everyone. So for every person that wants to shoot a buck there are 30 who would prefer you just left it alone so they can just see it when camping riding an ATV driving there car hiking with their dog or golfing. So Im sure slaughtering a 90% of the buck that exists in Utah annually isn't a recipe for public support. We've been replaced as the primary culler of the deer herd. And hunting deer in Utah is no longer necessary to the overall health to the herd. Deer hunting now is in the category of tolerated not required.
> 
> Do you know where deer hunting is still a necessary tool to keep deer populations in check? One hint. There isn't 1 cougar for every 150 deer there.


Yes, hunters have been replaced as the primary "culler" of the herd, but it is not even close to the way you make it out to be. There was some amazing wildlife science being done from the '30s to the '70s thats when our wildlife professionals actually knew what was going on, that really changed in the '70s, and especially after the '90s.

Here is the simple truth of the matter here, you don't understand what suppresses or what increases deer herds. If predators are the ruling factor, and the deer are increasing, then why do you keep trying to make the case that we have too many lions? If they are the regulating factor, then their numbers must be good, becasue deer have been increasing for several years now. Explain this for us.

You have not one clue about the vast majority of any of this.


----------



## Dunkem

wyogoob said:


> Can I go with? I worked in Louisiana a lot and would like to shoot the BS with Lost L. Would you mind driving?
> 
> .


I wanna go!!I wanna go!!


----------



## Iron Bear

A deer killed by a predator is a deer not available to be killed by a human. 

Can't get any simpler than that.


----------



## Lonetree

Iron Bear said:


> A deer killed by a predator is a deer not available to be killed by a human.
> 
> Can't get any simpler than that.


Yet in the real world, when you test this theory, and you kill the predator, to save the deer, the deer still dies anyway, the population does not increase, and hunters still don't get to hunt.

Like I said, you haven't been able to demonstrate even a basic understanding of most any of this.


----------



## Lonetree

Dunkem said:


> I wanna go!!I wanna go!!


Let me know when works for you.


----------



## Iron Bear

Lonetree said:


> Yet in the real world, when you test this theory, and you kill the predator, to save the deer, the deer still dies anyway, the population does not increase, and hunters still don't get to hunt.


And this is an absolute?

I'm not going to educate you on individual cases where predator reduction resulted in prey increase. You seem to be a good enough researcher that you can site them yourself.


----------



## Lonetree

Iron Bear said:


> And this is an absolute?
> 
> I'm not going to educate you on individual cases where predator reduction resulted in prey increase. You seem to be a good enough researcher that you can site them yourself.


Are you going to post the enclosure study, or the lion study in CA where there was no deer increase demonstrated?

I have money says you can't produce a study that shows what you claim. On the flip side, I can produce works that show that predator control can NOT increase deer numbers.

Side bet says you can't find the two best studies that could almost support your case.

You post yours, then I'll post mine.

You are not going to "educate" me, because you can't.


----------



## Iron Bear

Iron Bear said:


> I'm not going to educate you on individual cases where predator reduction resulted in prey increase. You seem to be a good enough researcher that you can site them yourself.


Maybe if you read it again you will comprehend my stance with you on the matter.

Do you work for protectors of wildlife? Honestly?


----------



## Lonetree

Iron Bear said:


> Maybe if you read it again you will comprehend my stance with you on the matter.
> 
> Do you work for protectors of wildlife? Honestly?


I have read your stance. You like to make the case that predator reduction can increase deer numbers. And that predation is the regulating factor of big game. But you have never been able to demonstrate this, or provide supporting information on this.

The information that you have provided, does not demonstrate increases in big game, after the removal of predators. Which is what you need to show to make your case.

This is very heavily studied material, there has been a lot of time and effort put into this area of wildlife science, unlike some of the areas I'm looking into. Yet you are rolling snake eyes in the department of supporting information.

And then you come in with a video, that was made with people that have ties to defenders of wildlife, claiming this supports your case for predator reduction? And then ask me if I work for them? It does not get anymore disconnected than that.

I'm with you on wanting to increase deer numbers, and therefor hunting, but your overly simplistic view of how this all works is not going to move that idea forward.


----------



## Iron Bear

Well I guess I was wrong. I'm not surprised. You failed to understand my message. 

That's is don't ask me to educate you on something you already know and are perfectly capable of researching yourself.

So how does protectors pay you guys? Biweekly or is it just a lump sum. 

Bantering on the internet sure beats sitting out in the dark with an air horn and a starters pistol. "Protecting wildlife"


----------



## wyoming2utah

Lonetree said:


> And then you come in with a video, that was made with people that have ties to defenders of wildlife, claiming this supports your case for predator reduction? And then ask me if I work for them? It does not get anymore disconnected than that.


That's what is so funny about this whole thread....he uses a very pro-wolf stance and video made by the same people he hates so dearly and then he tries to spin the message to support his own cause....and he does this most likely whithout having any clue he has done so!

One thing I like about you IB is that you shoot from the hip...in another day and age you probably have been right in the middle of the gunfight at the ok corral!


----------



## Lonetree

And you have to love everyone that clicked "like" on one of his posts. At least IB was leading the charge, some were just blindly in tow.

IB, my only contribution to the pro predator folks was clicking on their link, that you provided.


----------



## wyogoob

Uh....................Richard Nixon once said, and I quote verbatim:

"I don't think you quite understand that what you believe I may have meant isn't what you think I said."


.


----------



## redleg

If predators killing deer doesn't reduce deer numbers then Americans killing wolves won't reduce wolf numbers.


----------



## Lonetree

redleg said:


> If predators killing deer doesn't reduce deer numbers then Americans killing wolves won't reduce wolf numbers.


Simpletons........

Wolves first: Killing wolves the wrong way will actually cause them to disperse, and breed more.

So maybe you want to take me up on the bet that Iron Bear does not seem to be able to deliver on. If predator control reduces predators, which it does, then there should be a corresponding and proportionate increase in prey numbers, right? Why then, when they have done this, and studied it, multiple times over the last several decades, does predator control not raise prey populations? Why do the prey populations rise, fall, or stay the same, in areas where predators were removed, as in areas where predator were not removed?

Keep in mind, many of these researchers set out to prove your point, but only disproved their own hypothesis, as well as yours.


----------



## swbuckmaster

LT 
Its a fact that predators can hold a deer population back if the deer numbers are lower then the carrying capacity of the land. 




I don't need to find a study proving this it's common sense.

About the only way you will know if the carrying capacity is capable of holding more deer is to kill the predators. If the herd grows yup predators were holding the numbers from increasing. If the deer just die in the winter yup predators weren't causing the deer numbers to increase, habitat may have been the problem.

Funny thing is if you kill predators and habitat improves because of rain at the right time or mild winters you get what LT? 
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

MORE DEER!

I'd like to see a sheep herder have a pack of wild dogs eat his sheep and have a biologist tell him it's compensatory predation.


----------



## LostLouisianian

"Wolves first: Killing wolves the wrong way will actually cause them to disperse, and breed more."

There you have it folks. Right from LT. Dead wolves will disperse and breed more. Now who can argue with that scientific fact. Yes remember folks you have to kill wolves the "right way" because if you kill them the "wrong way" they will come back to life, disperse and breed more. Zombie wolves...a new species discovered by the degree-less LT. 

Wygoob that's EXACTLY why you have no videos of wolves in Utah. They're like vampire wolves and cannot be seen with trailcams...right from LT's mouth.


----------



## Lonetree

swbuckmaster said:


> LT
> Its a fact that predators can hold a deer population back if the deer numbers are lower then the carrying capacity of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to find a study proving this it's common sense.
> 
> About the only way you will know if the carrying capacity is capable of holding more deer is to kill the predators. If the herd grows yup predators were holding the numbers from increasing. If the deer just die in the winter yup predators weren't causing the deer numbers to increase, habitat may have been the problem.
> 
> Funny thing is if you kill predators and habitat improves because of rain at the right time or mild winters you get what LT?
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> 
> MORE DEER!
> 
> I'd like to see a sheep herder have a pack of wild dogs eat his sheep and have a biologist tell him it's compensatory predation.


SW, I'm an idiot,? just not how you think, you ****ing retard.

If that were the case, then you would be able to demonstrate this for us. You and the other mouth breathers would be able to show us a real world example, like oh say a predator study, where removal of predators increased prey numbers, over areas where predators were not removed.

Sheep have been bred to have traits that promote predation, not intentionally, but as a byproduct of breeding for other traits. That's a false equivalency, to say the least.

Anecdotes, and simpleton theory don't prove anything but your lack of understanding on the subject. If you can't demonstrate it in the real world, it exists only in your mind.


----------



## Lonetree

LostLouisianian said:


> "Wolves first: Killing wolves the wrong way will actually cause them to disperse, and breed more."
> 
> There you have it folks. Right from LT. Dead wolves will disperse and breed more. Now who can argue with that scientific fact. Yes remember folks you have to kill wolves the "right way" because if you kill them the "wrong way" they will come back to life, disperse and breed more. Zombie wolves...a new species discovered by the degree-less LT.
> 
> Wygoob that's EXACTLY why you have no videos of wolves in Utah. They're like vampire wolves and cannot be seen with trailcams...right from LT's mouth.


Good twist of words, but that's all you have. That's why you were the first one to click like after IB posted the pro predator video, you can't navigate the actual subject matter, so you follow along blindly, or cast weak doubt on things you know nothing about.

No, I don't have any degrees, I don't need any. And you claiming to have any at all, only proves that having one means nothing if you can't demonstrate competency. I have money says you are lying about having even a single degree, let alone two.


----------



## Lonetree

"Funny thing is if you kill predators and habitat improves because of rain at the right time or mild winters you get what LT? .....MORE DEER!"

That does not prove predator control increases deer, you just made the case for weather.


----------



## Lonetree

"About the only way you will know if the carrying capacity is capable of holding more deer is to kill the predators. If the herd grows yup predators were holding the numbers from increasing. If the deer just die in the winter yup predators weren't causing the deer numbers to increase, habitat may have been the problem."

And this has been tested on several levels across the West, over the last several decades, and reduced predation has never been shown to increase deer numbers. "Nutrition" is the only thing that has been demonstrated through real world science to be a limiting factor, that when manipulated can increases numbers. You are still just making my case for me, but I'm the idiot? More than you know........


----------



## Lonetree

"Its a fact that predators can hold a deer population back if the deer numbers are lower then the carrying capacity of the land."

No, its a fact you don't know anything. 

We know deer are below carrying capacity, said capacity has been shown to be "nutritional" in nature. So if predator removal were conducted under this scenario, based on your "fact", then populations would increase. This has been tried several times over the last several decades, and has not produced the results of increased populations. When the nutritional factors are manipulated, and numbers rise, predation decreases, without predator control.

While its possible that predation could further suppress herd numbers that are below carrying capacity, the vast majority of large scale predation studies, here in the West, on wild Western animals, have shown predation to be compensatory. 

You want to limit predation, and increase deer, you have to solve for the variables of the limiting carrying capacity, which in the real world, over the last several decades, is not predation.


----------



## Lobowatcher

Lonetree said:


> "Its a fact that predators can hold a deer population back if the deer numbers are lower then the carrying capacity of the land."
> 
> No, its a fact you don't know anything.
> 
> We know deer are below carrying capacity, said capacity has been shown to be "nutritional" in nature. So if predator removal were conducted under this scenario, based on your "fact", then populations would increase. This has been tried several times over the last several decades, and has not produced the results of increased populations. When the nutritional factors are manipulated, and numbers rise, predation decreases, without predator control.
> 
> *While its possible that predation could further suppress herd numbers that are below carrying capacity, the vast majority of large scale predation studies, here in the West, on wild Western animals, have shown predation to be compensatory.*
> 
> You want to limit predation, and increase deer, you have to solve for the variables of the limiting carrying capacity, which in the real world, over the last several decades, is not predation.


I find both statements in the above bold text to hold weight.

It is exceedingly rare in today's scientific understanding and research that biologists don't address both nutrition/habitat AND predation together when referencing population dynamics of predator/prey relationships. Seems that when the habitat (nutrition) for ungulates suffers, predatory effects are magnified; when habitat (nutrition) is optimal, although predation still occurs, it's effects on overall population numbers can be less than magnified, and ungulate numbers may follow a normal pattern of ebb and flow, increase and decrease over time.

The science on predator/prey population dynamics continues to evolve: That is the nature of scientific research. Can an already suppressed population of ungulates become stagnated by predation, holding that population from growing or perhaps even reducing in numbers? More than likely, but it can be very complicated in extracting the variables.

What we all have to understand is that ecological science isn't black and white in nature, it is filled with shades of gray and is evolutionary in nature. I find a bit of truth in many of the posts on this thread, and also find worthless statements that do nothing to increase both our knowledge and understanding of predator and prey relationships.



> LostLouisianian
> 
> "Wolves first: Killing wolves the wrong way will actually cause them to disperse, and breed more."
> 
> There you have it folks. Right from LT. Dead wolves will disperse and breed more. Now who can argue with that scientific fact. Yes remember folks you have to kill wolves the "right way" because if you kill them the "wrong way" they will come back to life, disperse and breed more. Zombie wolves...a new species discovered by the degree-less LT.
> 
> Wygoob that's EXACTLY why you have no videos of wolves in Utah. They're like vampire wolves and cannot be seen with trailcams...right from LT's mouth.


Removing predators from the landscape to effect population changes or fecundity in ungulates is, indeed, predicated on spacial and temporal factors, and has nothing whatsoever to do with 'The Living Dead', so to speak! 8)


----------



## Lonetree

*"While its possible that predation could further suppress herd numbers that are below carrying capacity, the vast majority of large scale predation studies, here in the West, on wild Western animals, have shown predation to be compensatory."

*That is the crux for the predator control crowd. It is all theory(possibility), and will remain as such, until it can be shown in the real world with real prey and real predators.

Are there some examples that fall outside of this norm, and show an increase in prey numbers with the removal of predators? Yep, yet the people that proclaim this to be the norm, can't even cite the best examples of exception, which only shows just how little they understand the details and actual subject matter.

Its like a bunch of potheads saying "And,.....you can........make rope with it", while not being able to show you how that is done, or cite the materiel that could make their case.


----------



## Lobowatcher

Lonetree said:


> *"While its possible that predation could further suppress herd numbers that are below carrying capacity, the vast majority of large scale predation studies, here in the West, on wild Western animals, have shown predation to be compensatory."
> 
> *That is the crux for the predator control crowd. It is all theory(possibility), and will remain as such, until it can be shown in the real world with real prey and real predators.
> 
> Are there some examples that fall outside of this norm, and show an increase in prey numbers with the removal of predators? Yep, yet the people that proclaim this to be the norm, can't even cite the best examples of exception, which only shows just how little they understand the details and actual subject matter.
> 
> Its like a bunch of potheads saying "And,.....you can........make rope with it", while not being able to show you how that is done, or cite the materiel that could make their case.


Mr. Tree,

Let me ask you this: What exactly is the purpose of your many posts here on the UWN referencing your own hypotheses relating to ungulate nutrition and the effects therein that pesticides have upon the subjects? In addition, what is your purpose in refuting the statements made in this particular post regarding predators? Serious questions.


----------



## Lonetree

Lobowatcher said:


> Mr. Tree,
> 
> Let me ask you this: What exactly is the purpose of your many posts here on the UWN referencing your own hypotheses relating to ungulate nutrition and the effects therein that pesticides have upon the subjects? In addition, what is your purpose in refuting the statements made in this particular post regarding predators? Serious questions.


Simple answer: In the beginning(several years ago) it was only about raising deer numbers, it has since grown beyond that. So my interest is in the science which can explain what does and what does not affect deer numbers. Theory and philosophy on the subject are fine, but what do the hard numbers on the ground say?

That is where my "working hypothesis" comes into play. It is only a hypothesis in broad terms. In specific cases, it builds on, and fills in existing peer reviewed and accepted work, growing the original body of proven science, with additional proven science. It is novel only in concept, not application. It is ultimately about increasing wildlife populations, which is the foundation for increasing and sustaining hunting.

So why do I refute the statements on this thread about predation? Beyond the ridiculous context that it was first introduced in this thread. Predation _theory_ has held for decades that predator reduction is a means to raise ungulate numbers, which has not been shown to be the case, in any substantial quantifiable means. I shoot coyotes, and came from the kill them all crowd, I get the sentiment, its just not a real world applicable solution, and the effort put into takes away from things that have been shown to positively impact herd numbers, and therefor hunting.

My bottom line is health sustainable ecosystems that support and _sustain_ hunting.


----------



## swbuckmaster

Lonetree said:


> "Funny thing is if you kill predators and habitat improves because of rain at the right time or mild winters you get what LT? .....MORE DEER!"
> 
> That does not prove predator control increases deer, you just made the case for weather.


What I made was the same case your making about bucks killing fawns. Your saying if carrying capacity increases with weather you get a better bump production. It's the same thing. It's still all tied to nutrition and weather. Two things we can't really control. If utah wasn't so dry we could increase the numbers pretty easy from where they are now.


----------



## Lonetree

swbuckmaster said:


> What I made was the same case your making about bucks killing fawns. Your saying if carrying capacity increases with weather you get a better bump production. It's the same thing. It's still all tied to nutrition and weather. Two things we can't really control. If utah wasn't so dry we could increase the numbers pretty easy from where they are now.


"Nutrition" is not solely about rain, and preferred browse, though that plays into it. My argument about carrying capacity is that it "_relates to nutrition_", there is a weather factor, but it is not as simple as just summer rains, or wet springs, or drought. By themselves those things do not exert the kind of suppressing forces we have seen across West, over the last 20 years.

How come coastal black tails, very close Muley analogues, have followed the same course as mule deer, bighorn sheep, moose, etc. etc? They inhabit much wetter climes than here.

How come after all the huge fires of '88, that created large amounts of new wildlife habitat, did numbers decline, and then stay suppressed for 20 years?


----------



## Lobowatcher

Lonetree said:


> Simple answer: In the beginning(several years ago) it was only about raising deer numbers, it has since grown beyond that. So my interest is in the science which can explain what does and what does not affect deer numbers. Theory and philosophy on the subject are fine, but what do the hard numbers on the ground say?
> 
> That is where my "working hypothesis" comes into play. It is only a hypothesis in broad terms. In specific cases, it builds on, and fills in existing peer reviewed and accepted work, growing the original body of proven science, with additional proven science. It is novel only in concept, not application. It is ultimately about increasing wildlife populations, which is the foundation for increasing and sustaining hunting.
> 
> So why do I refute the statements on this thread about predation? Beyond the ridiculous context that it was first introduced in this thread. Predation _theory_ has held for decades that predator reduction is a means to raise ungulate numbers, which has not been shown to be the case, in any substantial quantifiable means. I shoot coyotes, and came from the kill them all crowd, I get the sentiment, its just not a real world applicable solution, and the effort put into takes away from things that have been shown to positively impact herd numbers, and therefor hunting.
> 
> My bottom line is health sustainable ecosystems that support and _sustain_ hunting.


Thanks for the reply. Apologies for my poorly worded question, your response was not what I was looking for, though it is what i already knew about you.

My question relates to why you are posting here, on the UWN, to achieve your "bottom line". Is it to educate hunters in general, thus building a groundswell of backing to further your research and ultimately your bottom line? Or do you simply not care about informing the general hunting population, but are counting on the few researchers/biologists, etc. who may be lurking in the shadows to assimilate your information and take it to the next level, thus explaining your methodology of info dissemination? My question doesn't really pertain to your "bottom line", but rather in your efforts to see it come to fruition.

Just call me curious, if you will.


----------



## Lonetree

I would not post the information that I do here, if I did not care about the general hunting population, I belong to that population. I would not engage them at all if that was the case, just like most wildlife "professionals". Any other researchers/biologists that pick it up, and get anything out of it is a plus. And some have, its been funny to see how a few of the feed back loops work. Example: I was on the phone with a guy from MT that was researching velvet retention, and he starts referencing things that he read here, via a Google search. This is a MT grad student, that was told to contact Western Wildlife Ecology via someone else in MT, that I did not know.

If he reads this, he will get why its so "similar" now :mrgreen:

I'm in contact with wildlife professionals directly and regularly. And it has taken many of the same harsh tactics and challenges to get some of them to come around, but some have. I have gone from asking many of these wildlife professionals questions over the years, and in some cases barely being tolerated by them, to contributing to their work. 

As for bringing anything to fruition. I unfortunately don't believe that anything will get done in time. In some cases, it is already too late. But its going to be documented, in better context this time around. Even if only for the next generation that tries to make the future, and understands that the answers to some of that lie in lessons of the past, learned or ignored.

As for my education methodology: I don't subscribe to the Ron Burgundy appeasement philosophy of, "Why do we have to tell them what they need to hear? Why can't we tell them what they want to hear."

And I like to argue, it is a proven form of problem solving.


----------



## Lobowatcher

Lol, fair enough, thanks.


----------



## Lobowatcher

Lonetree said:


> As for bringing anything to fruition. I unfortunately don't believe that anything will get done in time. .


I would tend to agree with this observation.

Although I haven't seen everything you have posted here, what I have seen I am already familiar with through my own persistent needs to understand how things work and evolve. Some of the info you present is fairly new, most has been around longer, some even much longer.

Can't say that I agree with everything you assert, but I can't fault your passion one bit. Had I not already been familiar with the info you present, in all honesty, I don't know that I would have been interested enough to follow through with further research, given your method of 'arguing' your points, which is a shame. But, I'm also sure you don't care a bit about that, :mrgreen:

Now back to the OP. Apologies to all for the side-track.


----------



## Lonetree

"Some of the info you present is fairly new, most has been around longer, some even much longer." The understanding and context of some is literally only a few days old. 


"But, I'm also sure you don't care a bit about that, :mrgreen:"

Nope, I don't. It's certainly not for everyone, but the science stands on its own, with or without me.

As for sidetracking, that is how you discover new things, some pan out, others don't, some lead to failure. It is all good as long as you are learning something in the process.


----------



## drsx

Hey on a lighter note, there is a new TV show called Apex Predators with Remi Warren produced by the MeatEater crew. It looks awesome!!!


----------

