# Moose study, mineral deficiencies



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

Just thought I would post this link, I don't think it's on here yet:

http://sfw.net/news.asp?NewsEvent_ID=74


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

That link hasn't been on here but Lonetree's reports of the same thing has been on here once a month for almost 2 years.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

1-I,
I knew you were a SFW homer but now you went and did it. 
You just made ole Lonetree's day. He may even pee his pants.:shock:


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

SW, Are you saying I'm making progress :mrgreen:

one eye, Considering that moose have been dying in epizootic declines across all of their ranges for the last 30 years, it is not exactly news. It is nice to see some one else look at it, even if they are going about it in a not so productive way, and don't return emails. 

I did like the part about how they were excited that the moose made it through the winter. Just a note for everyone else that is new to this, they die during the last two weeks of May, not in the winter.

This also means that if you survey during April, and don't follow up in June, your data may be lacking reference.

Snails


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

I would not worry too much. Even though bighorns, moose and mule deer trends have all suffered the same declines and timeframe, I am sure it is just the coyotes, and over hunting. If we get those Bull to cow ratios up, translocate them all over the place, reduce tags, and get a bounty going on raccoons, everything will be just fine.

Ridge, I don't get excited about our declining wildlife, and the ignorance that surrounds it, and furthers it, I get pissed.


----------



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

ridgetop said:


> 1-I,
> I knew you were a SFW homer but now you went and did it.
> You just made ole Lonetree's day. He may even pee his pants.:shock:


No, I just don't have a big enough problem with SFW to disregard the good they do in some situations. You should be happy with SFW here, they are going away from there usual trophy status ideas.


----------



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

Lonetree said:


> SW, Are you saying I'm making progress :mrgreen:
> 
> one eye, Considering that moose have been dying in epizootic declines across all of their ranges for the last 30 years, it is not exactly news. It is nice to see some one else look at it, even if they are going about it in a not so productive way, and don't return emails.
> 
> ...


I don't think this study has concluded it is just an update.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> I..............................................................I don't get excited about our declining wildlife, and the ignorance that surrounds it, and furthers it, I get pissed.


me too

.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Lonetree said:


> SW, It is nice to see some one else look at it, even if they are going about it in a not so productive way, and don't return emails.


That one made me laugh........you, after all, are such a positive influence and have a great gift of making all of your efforts overwhelmingly productive. Everybody wants to ride on the Lonetree Train.:-?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> That one made me laugh........you, after all, are such a positive influence and have a great gift of making all of your efforts overwhelmingly productive. Everybody wants to ride on the Lonetree Train.:-?


Have I told you lately......


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Hey LT....I wonder if there is a mineral deficiency in humans that keeps us from being as smart as you are? Or maybe we have trophy hunted wives for so long that we are genetically challenged? I don't know about epizootic hemorrhagic disease but I did inhale a bunch of bugs while fishing the other day. I hope I will be ok? All in good fun!----SS


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Lonetree said:


> Have I told you lately......


that you are full of yourself? Yep. Hear it every day.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Lt you would think with the last 15 years in general units with low buck to doe ratios. Some units below 10/100 some units forced to 3 day hunts because of such low buck to doe ratios we would have seen an explosion in deer numbers if you were correct bucks dont make fawns. No they have all been as stagnant as the le units.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> Lt you would think with the last 15 years in general units with low buck to doe ratios. Some units below 10/100 some units forced to 3 day hunts because of such low buck to doe ratios we would have seen an explosion in deer numbers if you were correct bucks dont make fawns. No they have all been as stagnant as the le units.


Below 10/100, and you start to see trouble. And like you said, prior to the recent uptick, with improved fecundity, and improving fawn retention, they were *ALL* stagnant, and flat. You do realize that your argument negates the argument for higher buck to doe ratios, and for LE areas, right? See, you are starting to get it.

I would like to also point out that you have made very contradictory claims about the health of deer herds in the past. Specifically about "your" unit that is an "exception".


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Here is the deal, in North America moose have experienced declines due to several known diseases going back 100 years, long before we had any appreciable numbers here in Utah.

Starting in 1984 there were large scale marked declines of moose across almost all of their ranges. Keep in mind at the same time across the West mule deer numbers crashed. So did bighorn sheep numbers. Millions of birds were born deformed, or did not hatch at all. Amphibians started into their biggest ever declines. All of which got even worse with the declines we witnessed in the early '90s, that were sympatric, along with the sudden and rapid spread of whirling disease and CWD. 

These post 1984 moose declines were bigger than anything that had been experienced in the previous 70 years. And the moose never rebounded like they had in the past. Again in the early '90s and again in the early 2000s moose experienced episodic declines across all meta-populations, with the steepest declines in the early '90s. In the early '90s when they were tipping over all over Utah it was suspected early on that it was poaching, and that was how it was being reported in the newspapers. But there were never any bullet holes, and that theory never panned out. 

When we would report a dead moose, the UDWR would tell us that they already knew about it, and we would have to explain, no this is a new one. At one count there were 7 dead moose around the shores of Causey reservoir that I know the DWR and myself knew about. I knew of at least 6 more, that were 2 plus miles from trail heads, but in the same area. I never could get a UDWR officer to investigate them. I never saw a single moose get moved, or necropsied. With the exception of one that appeared to have been cut open, possibly to investigate what may have appeared to be a bullet hole. Over the next 2 years I found the remains of what were easily 100 moose that had all died at around the same time. 

In the mid 2000s they were dropping like flies again, and you can still find some of the remains as that episode drug on for several years in some areas. You can always tell when they died, if they are bulls. They will be packing 10”-16” of new growth. During these episodes when you find bulls that died in the late fall, they will be mature, as evidenced by their teeth, but they will be packing very small racks, and the tips many times are pointy like deer antlers. 

You can usually see these declines coming in mid winter. The moose will hunker down in a small area, and not move around too much. In Northern Utah and other places with oaks, they will eat the oak brush back to nothing. I watched one moose in 2007 that stayed in an area of about 1 acre, all winter and right into early May. There was tons of curl leaf mahogany within 100 yards of the area, but the moose never ate any of it. He just ate oak brush, until one day he just tipped over and died. You could walk right up to this moose. 

When I spoke with people from the UDWR ~4 years ago, I was told that they had known about the mineral deficiencies that accompanied the moose die offs for several years back then. This came up because I was talking to them about mineral deficiencies. I was told that they had put out salt blocks, and that helped the situation, but did not reverse it. They were using surplus and broken salt blocks that had been donated. In Wyoming the same thing was observed with bighorns. They would put out mineral licks, and the situation would improve some, but it would not reverse the problem. In Wyoming they knew exactly what minerals needed to be supplemented, and they had custom blocks manufactured to spec.

What you see with bighorns, and moose both, is selenium deficiencies, and many times low to no traces of cobalt(B12), cromium, and some other minerals. This is in liver assays, blood samples will many times get you “adequate” levels of some of these minerals that are being tested for in the blood. In fact if you do blood tests under stressful circumstances, such as right after capture, you can get elevated selenium readings, in deficient, or sub clinically deficient animals. This is particularly true of sub clinical deficiencies. 

So the fact that replacing the minerals helps, but does not reverse the problem tells us that it is a secondary problem, or more likely a symptom, or trigger to something else. In the upper midwest moose almost always have liver flukes or meningeal(brain) worms in conjunction with mineral deficiencies, when they start to die off. 

I don't know about the prevalence of liver flukes in conjunction with moose declines in Utah other than that when the moose were rebounding in the late '90s, early 2000s, just before the last big decline, I saw the biggest explosion of amphibians I had seen since I was a kid. I was finding leopard frogs at 10,000 feet in the Uintas, and in almost every pond in Northern Utah that was around 7000+ feet there were multiple species of frogs and toads, along with lots of salamanders. This year the couple of ponds I have surveyed had no amphibians, but very high snail densities. It is aquatic snails that carry liver flukes that infect moose. 

So excuse me if I am a little bit critical of a study, that appears to be baseline in nature, that is being conducted 30 years after the onset of the problem being studied. I do appreciate that the problem is finally being studied though.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Springville Shooter said:


> Hey LT....I wonder if there is a mineral deficiency in humans that keeps us from being as smart as you are? Or maybe we have trophy hunted wives for so long that we are genetically challenged? I don't know about epizootic hemorrhagic disease but I did inhale a bunch of bugs while fishing the other day. I hope I will be ok? All in good fun!----SS


DYAC, that was supposed to be episodic.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> No, I just don't have a big enough problem with SFW to disregard the good they do in some situations. You should be happy with SFW here, they are going away from there usual trophy status ideas.


Just messing with you and Lonetree a little.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> Below 10/100, and you start to see trouble. And like you said, prior to the recent uptick, with improved fecundity, and improving fawn retention, they were *ALL* stagnant, and flat. You do realize that your argument negates the argument for higher buck to doe ratios, and for LE areas, right? See, you are starting to get it.
> 
> I would like to also point out that you have made very contradictory claims about the health of deer herds in the past. Specifically about "your" unit that is an "exception".


LT the thing you dont get is I understand the deer herds dont grow with high buck to doe ratios anymore then they do with low ratios. I just dont want to hunt units with under 10/100 ratios. I dont want to hunt them with 10-15/100 ratios. I like our general deer unit ratios we have now. When numbers go up tags go up. When they go down tags get cut.

I have no idea what your talking about with my area.

Ive never argued with you about the selenium deficiency. I accept it could be the problem. Ive just argued what can be done about it? Nobody is going to get in a horse and buggy and give up their car for a deer.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> LT the thing you dont get is I understand the deer herds dont grow with high buck to doe ratios anymore then they do with low ratios. I just dont want to hunt units with under 10/100 ratios. I dont want to hunt them with 10-15/100 ratios. I like our general deer unit ratios we have now. When numbers go up tags go up. When they go down tags get cut.
> 
> I have no idea what your talking about with my area.
> 
> Ive never argued with you about the selenium deficiency. I accept it could be the problem. Ive just argued what can be done about it? Nobody is going to get in a horse and buggy and give up their car for a deer.


I completely agree with you SW.
We have been managing the state as a whole for a 15/100 B/D ratio a several years now. 
What Lonetree fails to let people know in his push for more tags, is on those struggling B/D ratio units. They were very dangerously close to becoming LE units if not for the change in the 30 sub-unit structure.
Now the sub-units are more balanced for the number of bucks being hunted or the hunter/bucks hunted ratio is better now than what it has been in a long time.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Lonetree,
thanks for all you do and keep up the hard work.
Well, except for being a jackass most of the time.;-)


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

ridgetop said:


> I completely agree with you SW.
> We have been managing the state as a whole for a 15/100 B/D ratio a several years now.
> What Lonetree fails to let people know in his push for more tags, is on those struggling B/D ratio units. They were very dangerously close to becoming LE units if not for the change in the 30 sub-unit structure.
> Now the sub-units are more balanced for the number of bucks being hunted or the hunter/bucks hunted ratio is better now than what it has been in a long time.


You can agree with SW all you want, it does not change the biological reality. You guys keep referring to things in the context of a deer management system that is based on arbitrary made up bull ****, there is no biological basis for any of it. It is a policy based on how people feel about the current situations.

This is as usual the people pushing hunter management, and social engineering, as mule deer management. Stop confusing the two, they are two very different things.

Subunits are arbitrarily drawn lines on a map, and do not account for actual movement on the ground, migration, or actual habitat. They are nothing but lines on a map, for hunter management.

Objectives: The only reality in these numbers is that they move up and down, over the course of several years, depending on what the herds are doing. The objectives themselves do not influence deer numbers to move up, because they are biologically disconnected.

Buck to doe ratios: The science is simple, you manage for higher buck to doe ratios, you get lower fawn to doe ratios, and less deer overall. And these do not take into account biological circumstances of skewed at birth sex ratios of deer, that we see leading up to, and during sharp declines. Those circumstances make the current management even worse for deer. Our management is tied to numbers that may reflect unhealthy conditions in deer herds, yet we are looking at it as a good thing.

In the absence of a clear biological understanding of the last 30 years of mule deer declines, and biology, we are "managing" completely blind to the ecological realities of mule deer dynamics. Utah has not even acknowledged the number one controlling factor of mule deer numbers of at least the last 20 years. How can you honestly manage, or create a management plan that does not address the number one issue that has driven mule deer declines?

LE areas, and buck to doe ratios are implemented based on social considerations, and they contribute to the overall decline of mule deer.

Reduced tags: Why have we reduced mule deer tags, while mule deer numbers are increasing? That one simple fact proves that the management is based solely on social considerations, with intentions to sell the management as successful, when it is anything but.

Crowding: We have more people tagging along, so like every other argument for the current plan, that argument went out the window.

You guys can interpret, and feel how ever you want about it. There is not a single aspect of Utah mule deer management that has ever been shown to increase mule deer, or further the long term future of mule deer hunting.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

what is the number one issue that has driven mule deer declines and what is the solution Lonetree?

Oh yea......that discussion has been had for what seems like the last 30 years as well.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

ridgetop said:


> Lonetree,
> thanks for all you do and keep up the hard work.
> Well, except for being a jackass most of the time.;-)


Its seems that along with the decline of the mule deer that I have noticed an increase in the jackass population. HMMM...Makes one wonder, what is the connection?--------SS


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> what is the number one issue that has driven mule deer declines and what is the solution Lonetree?
> 
> Oh yea......that discussion has been had for what seems like the last 30 years as well.


Why don't you tell us what has been shown to be the only thing that could increase deer numbers, there by identifying it as the leading factor in suppression of mule deer numbers? Hint, Utah is not looking at it. Though they are looking at other factors that were disproven a decade ago.

If you don't like the long drawn out arguments and discussions, don't participate.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Springville Shooter said:


> Its seems that along with the decline of the mule deer that I have noticed an increase in the jackass population. HMMM...Makes one wonder, what is the connection?--------SS


Definite connection, one is contributing to the other. You can get hung up on the messenger all you want. If it is not what you want to hear, then there are plenty of others with tailored messages, in tones that are suited to your ears.

If you do not like, or agree with the facts, science, and math on the subject, then please, attempt to refute it. Pointing out that I'm an elitist, egotistical, lunatic, jackass does not refute the science, and math on the subject. It is merely pointing out the obvious about me, it does not change anything I present. That would require counter arguments, facts, science, and numbers. The very things our mule deer plans lack. And a contributing factor in our wildlife declines.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I will participate when and where I feel like it. Thank you.

If nutrition is the leading factor in suppression of mule deer herds and what grows more deer, it would appear to me that the many millions that has been spent on bull-hogging, plantings and all that goes on with habitat improvement would indicate that Utah is actually looking at it. You just seem to turn a blind eye to it in your comments and act as if you know of every study that has or is taking place.

If you have come to believe that nutrition is no longer the driving force, feel free to let everybody know. I in particular may need another hint. I think am one of the stupid ones that you are always referring to.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> I will participate when and where I feel like it. Thank you.
> 
> If nutrition is the leading factor in suppression of mule deer herds and what grows more deer, it would appear to me that the many millions that has been spent on bull-hogging, plantings and all that goes on with habitat improvement would indicate that Utah is actually looking at it. You just seem to turn a blind eye to it in your comments and act as if you know of every study that has or is taking place.
> 
> If you have come to believe that nutrition is no longer the driving force, feel free to let everybody know. I in particular may need another hint. I think am one of the stupid ones that you are always referring to.


Yes it is nutrition, and no Utah is not addressing it, and looking at it. Habitat improvements are just that, habitat improvements, they are not nutritional improvements, nor do they address or look at the bigger picture of nutrition, and all of the factors that affect it. I will go so far as to say that there are some habitat "improvements" being implemented that are actually detrimental to deer.

If habitat improvements alone increased deer numbers, that would be easily demonstrated, but it has not been. Instead the quandary has been why do these not get us the same results, they did 40 years ago?

Here are two of only very few examples of experiments that have been shown to increase mule deer numbers in the past 30 years. http://deerlab.org/Publ/pdfs/23.pdf 
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2193/2008-107/abstract

We don't see these kinds of results with habitat improvements, though we used to. There is something missing. It is complex and involves more than theories about fence posts. Why do we have reduced mycorrhizal fungus, how does lupine play into that? How does it help to protect sagebrush and bitterbrush communities? Why has it declined? Why have 100 other plants declined?

From the nutritional study conducted by Bishop: "We found strong evidence that enhanced nutrition of deer reduced coyote (_Canis latrans_) and mountain lion (_Puma concolor_) predation rates of ≥6-month-old fawns and adult females. Our results demonstrate that observed coyote predation, by itself, is not useful for evaluating whether coyotes are negatively impacting a deer population. Our results also indicate that mountain lions may select for deer in poorer condition under some circumstances, suggesting that mountain lion predation may not always be an additive source of mortality."

This is contrary to Utah management.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Lonetree said:


> Definite connection, one is contributing to the other. You can get hung up on the messenger all you want. If it is not what you want to hear, then there are plenty of others with tailored messages, in tones that are suited to your ears.
> 
> If you do not like, or agree with the facts, science, and math on the subject, then please, attempt to refute it. Pointing out that I'm an elitist, egotistical, lunatic, jackass does not refute the science, and math on the subject. It is merely pointing out the obvious about me, it does not change anything I present. That would require counter arguments, facts, science, and numbers. The very things our mule deer plans lack. And a contributing factor in our wildlife declines.


Hey Mr. Narcissistic, you don't even make my top five list of jackasses on this site. It's not all about you. As far as the rest of your post, I will pay attention to the numbers, science, math, etc when someone can produce results. I admit that I am NOT a biologist so I don't have a lot of answers. I like observations. When one of your fancy ideas gets some results, I will jump right on board. Until then, the ideas and theories that you present are interesting, but pretty much as worthless as every other science that has failed to improve mule deer. Please keep trying though. I honestly hope that you single handedly figure out how to bring back the mule deer heydays of the past. I would even nominate you for the hemionis peace prize.-------SS


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Springville Shooter said:


> Hey Mr. Narcissistic, you don't even make my top five list of jackasses on this site. It's not all about you. As far as the rest of your post, I will pay attention to the numbers, science, math, etc when someone can produce results. I admit that I am NOT a biologist so I don't have a lot of answers. I like observations. When one of your fancy ideas gets some results, I will jump right on board. Until then, the ideas and theories that you present are interesting, but pretty much as worthless as every other science that has failed to improve mule deer. Please keep trying though. I honestly hope that you single handedly figure out how to bring back the mule deer heydays of the past. I would even nominate you for the hemionis peace prize.-------SS


Hey we have something in common, I'm not a biologist either.

I just presented two of the very, very, few things that have been shown to increase mule deer populations in the last 30 years. These would be results, no? Some of the only results to show improvement on behalf of mule deer. Welcome aboard.

I won't be single handedly accomplishing anything, nor is it my intention. My goal is to change the conversation to one that is productive for mule deer and other wildlife, rather than detrimental.

Science is observation............with reference.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

20 years of failed mule deer policies, but because I have not shown "results", what I'm presenting is discredited?

I guess the same goes for MDF, SFW, UDWR, ETC?


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> You can agree with SW all you want, it does not change the biological reality. You guys keep referring to things in the context of a deer management system that is based on arbitrary made up bull ****, there is no biological basis for any of it. It is a policy based on how people feel about the current situations.
> 
> This is as usual the people pushing hunter management, and social engineering, as mule deer management. Stop confusing the two, they are two very different things.
> 
> ...


This has to be the biggest load of crap that you've come with yet. 
Your the one that keeps getting "confused" with hunter management and overall deer management.
You say that under 10/100 buck/doe ratios are bad for the herd but you are against the 15-20/100 ratios we have now. So, I'm guessing you thing somewhere in the 10-15/100 ratio would be best. I agree that above 40/100 ratios are bad and I wished the DWR would lower the premium units. I wished they would lower the regular LE units to somewhere in the 27-30/100 ratio range.
But until you can prove that 15-20/100 is a lot worse than 10-15/100, I will continue to support that set ratios we have now.
I truly do hope the committee will address the nutrition value or lack of in the food the deer are eating and other environmental factors in their meeting and get it added to the new plan.
How's that for some what coming around.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

ridgetop said:


> This has to be the biggest load of crap that you've come with yet.
> Your the one that keeps getting "confused" with hunter management and overall deer management.
> You say that under 10/100 buck/doe ratios are bad for the herd but you are against the 15-20/100 ratios we have now. So, I'm guessing you thing somewhere in the 10-15/100 ratio would be best. I agree that above 40/100 ratios are bad and I wished the DWR would lower the premium units. I wished they would lower the regular LE units to somewhere in the 27-30/100 ratio range.
> But until you can prove that 15-20/100 is a lot worse than 10-15/100, I will continue to support that set ratios we have now.
> ...


We are probably closer to agreement on the B/D ratio than either of us know. I don't currently endorse a particular bracket across the state, other than to say that 15-20 by all accounts, appears to grow deer the best, and leaves plenty of bucks.

That being said, I think there are some much bigger problems with B/D ratios in our deer herds. So tying management plans to such metrics is very unwise. Why don't we manage antelope on a B/D ratio? Moose? Sheep? elk?

But I will reiterate, Utah manages hunters, not deer. In the last 20 years we have monetized wildlife and wildlife conservation more than any other state. Yet when you look at research that actually benefits wildlife conservation, there is very little, that has produced any results coming out of Utah. Let alone any management that has produced deer.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> We are probably closer to agreement on the B/D ratio than either of us know. I don't currently endorse a particular bracket across the state, other than to say that 15-20 by all accounts, appears to grow deer the best, and leaves plenty of bucks.
> 
> That being said, I think there are some much bigger problems with B/D ratios in our deer herds. So tying management plans to such metrics is very unwise. Why don't we manage antelope on a B/D ratio? Moose? Sheep? elk?
> 
> But I will reiterate, Utah manages hunters, not deer. In the last 20 years we have monetized wildlife and wildlife conservation more than any other state. Yet when you look at research that actually benefits wildlife conservation, there is very little, that has produced any results coming out of Utah. Let alone any management that has produced deer.


I don't like the way the DWR manages for age either. I wished they would give out a lot more Antelope, elk and sheep tags. We are having sheep dying of old age, which should be hunted. 
As for the OP, I sure do hope something can be done to help the moose.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Lt what brand salt block helps out and ill set a few up


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> Lt what brand salt block helps out and ill set a few up


Me too


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

With regards to the OP, I'm certainly happy to see that there are others looking into the importance of nutrients relative to ungulates; that's a good thing. Although I have a great concern for all wildlife and their environment, it is the Mule Deer that I cherish the most and wish to see flourish and persist. I have a hunch that should we (as conservationists) manage to solve some underlying issues affecting the negative population dynamics of the Mule Deer, it will have a positive effect on many other wildlife species, and perhaps, on spatial ecosystems.

There is a vast amount of relative information available on the Mule Deer, from physiology to habitat and myriad contributors to negative and positive affects on its population dynamics. A good deal of that information is dated, although still relevant today, but desperately needs to be refreshed with currently available technologies, strategies and research. The 'new' information being gathered is, unfortunately, scattered, unorganized, and rarely being disseminated to those not in the scientific communities. That's a shame and a problem for our wildlife and their habitats. But I do see hope. There are those who are attempting to shine a light on this fragmented information and collate into useable data to incorporate for the well being of our big game herds and the other species that share their habitats. Though some of you may disagree, LT is one of them.

I certainly don't agree with LT's chosen form of getting his information out, but I will not ignore the message because of his questionable delivery. Do I agree with everything he has brought forth? No, but there is relevance in a great majority of that information, and I think it deserves to be looked at in much, much greater detail.

Information I've found shows that game agencies across the west have been looking at nutrients for our big game for decades, but have done very little if anything to further that knowledge. Why? I don't know for sure, but I have a hunch much of it has to do with politics, funding and social implications. I'm sure the constant barrage from hunters to cut tags, kill more predators, grow bigger antlers, reduce or eliminate seasons-all in the false hopes of helping our game animals-hinders those game agencies from furthering scientific exploration to a fair extent.

We hunters are the most important stakeholders in the health and persistence of Mule Deer and other big game, and as such it is incumbent upon us all to help and not hinder those who we entrust in the care of same. We need to start focusing on educating ourselves with that vast information base available, and insisting on any viable implementations of that information and research that is/could be beneficial to our wildlife and its habitat by those in charge. Not such a big thing to ask is it? Too many of us can't see the forest for the trees and that may just be the undoing of our long hunting heritage and the critters we love. Nothing great happens when we hold back.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

LT all im hearing is crickets. Im trying to save the undulates here throw me a bone


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

I see your auto correct loves you about as much as mine loves me. 

You want something that has the full 36ppm of selenium, you can't get more than that. The blocks they used in Wyoming were custom made up with 60ppm, I think. The observed results have been improvement, but not reversal. 

My observations with deer have been phenomenal, but I have no way of truly quantifying or verifying that. The deer were just beginning to increase when I started supplementing ~3 years ago. So all I can really point to is that every 30” deer that has been taken, or seen in the area, was on those licks. You go North or South of there a few miles, and things change quickly. But there are other factors such as geology that play into that as well.

I had to move some of my deer efforts to different areas, because the moose will find a new lick, and hoard it for themselves. They will literally just camp out on it. Two years ago I packed in bags of salt to snow line, in a different area. I tucked them up under some cliffs so they would stay dry. The moose found them, and had 20 pounds gone in 2 weeks. They had to crawl on their bellies to get to it. This stuff was still in the paper bad, with a garbage bag over it. 

A few other observations when you use salt with selenium in it. Not only does it draw in moose like a magnet, you will get higher hits from snow shoe hare, and cotton tail rabbits. The most interesting thing I have observed, is that coyotes will dig up, and defecate around salt licks that contain selenium. I have not seen this on other licks in the area. They also defecate near and mark shed antlers in the area as well. They don't chew on the antlers, and I don't know if they ingest the salt, but they dig at the licks.

In Utah(moose) and in Wyoming(sheep) they used blocks. I have been using loose minerals. I find old sites, and what appear to be natural licks, and place the loose salts there. If they have been hitting the dirt, I mix the salt into the dirt some. My theory on this is that they ingest more dirt this way, and they ingest more salt as well, verses blocks. Deer and moose, naturally don't ingests much dirt. One of the reasons I do this, is because in the case of Wyoming bighorns the ewes would travel very long distances to a natural mineral lick. When they would do this they were weak, suffering from white muscle disease, and could not nurse their lambs. When they returned from the natural lick, they were better, and their lambs would rebound as well. The sheep were shown to be selenium deficient, and the natural lick had high levels of selenium in it, yet the manufactured blocks, did not perform as well, as the natural lick. There could be several reasons for this. 

I have played around with some mixes, but ultimately because of where I put it out, it is hard to tell if other minerals in the mix are creating a draw. Or if the deer are preferential to them. I know that moose and deer prefer selenium supplemented salt over salt with out. But what I would like to do, I just have not found the time, is to do several licks, at one site, with multiple cameras. Do something like three piles, one with high selenium, one with high copper, and one that is more broad and has several macro nutrients as well. It might demonstrate whether there is an underlying primary magnesium deficiency that is driving the selenium deficiency. Deer in Utah have been shown to feed preferentially for copper and selenium. And moose have been shown to be copper and selenium deficient. Bighorns in Wyoming have been shown to be selenium deficient as well, and bighorns through out the West, with declining populations, will congregate on roadways for minerals. This is not always just “salt” but usually magnesium chloride. The white stripes they paint on the highway before a storm. If you have ever tasted it, it is not like salt, it is bitter. Deer, moose, and elk, will work the same road side licks here in Utah. Curves, transitions, and places where it accumulates on the side of road, will attract all of them, repeatedly. 

When I get few other things knocked out, and a wheel for my motorcycle built, I'll add that to the list. In the past, all my licks were hike in only, for several reasons. But in the name of time, and possibly doing more sites, the bike needs to come out of the garage.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)




----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Thanks for the info. Can I find the stuff at cal ranch

^What your seeing is whats left of a deer that has been consumed by coyotes.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> Thanks for the info. Can I find the stuff at cal ranch
> 
> ^What your seeing is whats left of a deer that has been consumed by coyotes.


What I am seeing: No that is what you are seeing. What I took a picture of is a spot that has been marked by multiple coyotes, several times. Where there are also shed antlers. I have seen this several times. I took that shot partly because it was a double drop. And the mark is right between the two.

Cal ranch should have it. Look for the 36ppm, and tell them it is for goats.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Thanks


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> What I am seeing: No that is what you are seeing. What I took a picture of is a spot that has been marked by multiple coyotes, several times. Where there are also shed antlers. I have seen this several times. I took that shot partly because it was a double drop. And the mark is right between the two.


Lol you kill me


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> Lol you kill me


You might be on to something. I rechecked the bases of those antlers, and you can see the rough chew marks from where the coyotes detached them from the skull.

Observations without context, are incapable of possessing accuracy in their summation.


----------



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

http://wildlife.utah.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1184&catid=157

Here's more added info to the study. I don't know why they start good pages like this then stop giving updates before the study is over.


----------



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

Here's the latest update:



> Utah Moose Study Update September 2014
> Provided by
> Joel Ruprecht
> USU grad student
> ...


----------

