# More Deer Tags



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Since the F$G and $FW are so confident in their ability to increase deer, err uh buck to doe ratios, er uh lower fawn to doe ratios, they should put that confidence to work. 

If they are so sure of themselves, and their "management", then they should be able to guarantee more deer tags, for a longer period of time. If they are so sure deer numbers are on the rise, and that these higher buck to doe ratios are so good, then they should be able to lock in an increase in higher deer tags for oh say 5 years. Their management and understanding of the situation is that good right?

Given that they cut tags at the first sign of a population bump, I'm calling BS. My money says these guys have no more of a clue now, than they did when they decided to change up the management. A few years ago, and 20 years ago.

Can anyone tell me why we are seeing the same results with most mule deer(and Bighorns, and antelope, etc.) populations across the West, even though Utah F$G and $FW only have influence here in Utah?

Hint: What we are seeing is in spite of our management, not because of it. Our wildlife managers don't have a clue what they are looking at, or what is playing out. Let alone how to influence it.

Like I said, if they did, and were so confident of their management, and wildlife knowledge, they would lay it out for the long term. We would have a 5 year plan, with tag expectations tied to management goals, and those management goals would be for over all populations, not buck to doe ratios. Because 100 does and 20 bucks, is not as good as 300 does and 24 bucks. That's called being Ghetto rich, anyone can put 1000 dollars in their pocket, but not everyone can generate 1000 dollars on interest. 

Given how mild this winter has been, one would expect a bumper crop of fawns this spring. But given what has been showing up in necropsied animals in several states, and what last fall's surveys looked like, I'd be buying shorts, not gold, unless maybe I did not know what I was talking about? Which is, no if ands or buts, the case with our sportsmen's orgs and F$G.

If they were really power hitters, they would point the bat to out field and show us what they have, not commentate on it, while trying to attribute their unrelated actions to what they just saw happen. Becasue they would be able to demonstrate from step A through to step Z, the impacts and out comes of their management and policies, which they of course can not.

And furthermore, when we see the next crash, $FW and the F$G get credit, right? I mean all of this "management" that they are saying is responsible for an uptick, most certainly would be responsible for a down turn as well, right?

I know, I know, "whats my solution?". The T's are being crossed and the I's are being dotted. No money, no politics, no conventions, no memberships, no tag sales, no state job fiefdoms, no big anti wildlife industries dictating the research criteria, no salaries, just real, ecologically sound wildlife science, for the benefit of wildlife and hunters.

The only way I can find to grow more deer for myself, is to grow more deer for everyone. Too bad that is the sticking point for the money and power guys.

Have fun getting sold out.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

Yeah, let's riot.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

So Lonetree, no expo tags this year?

Looks like there should be an increase in buck tags this coming year on many sub-units. Most hunters should see plenty of bucks of all age groups this coming fall. 
I for one am looking forward to a great deer hunt.
Thanks for your opinion.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> Yeah, let's riot.


Unfortunately, I don't think most sportsmen have it in them.

But in all seriousness, if the powers that be do not understand what has caused the steady decline in our Western wildlife over the last 40 years, then there is no way they can effectively "manage" said wildlife for the benefit of hunters.

Here is an excerpt from the 1976 Mule Deer symposium:

"Mule deer numbers in the Western United States experienced a 
general decline in numbers from the early 1950's until the present 
mid-1970's. At least a part of this decline was a result of a planned 
reduction by game managers to adjust deer numbers to the carrying 
capacity of overused deer winter ranges. In addition to the planned 
reduction of deer numbers, it became apparent by 1970 that the 
reduction in number of deer on western ranges was the result of some 
thing beyond the planned reduction programs. The cause, or causes, for 
the reduction was not clearly understood or even defined in many cases. 
Such influences as predation, competition, weather, disease, habitat 
changes, and nutrition were suspected causes. Perhaps the main cause of the decline has not been discussed and will need to wait for further 
research. This symposium was designed to help natural resource managers become better informed about the reduction and the various reasons for the mule deer decline in the West. The speakers at this conference are 
considered to be authorities on the various aspects of mule deer 
populations."

They were concerned back then with the declines, and we have even fewer deer now, especially after the declines of the early 1990s. But the F$G and everyone else with short term memory loss or an agenda is wringing their hands in victory. Even though they have come no further than where they were in 1976.

What victory? There has been no net gain in Western wildlife in 40 years! And mule deer have been the prime example of this. Did I mention tag numbers?

The long term trend line is still pointing down.

Until we understand what has driven these declines, we can not do anything about it, no matter how hard some pretend.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

ridgetop said:


> So Lonetree, no expo tags this year?
> 
> Looks like there should be an increase in buck tags this coming year on many sub-units. Most hunters should see plenty of bucks of all age groups this coming fall.
> I for one am looking forward to a great deer hunt.
> Thanks for your opinion.


Opinions are unverifiable feelings, I'm not presenting opinions.

The only increases we will or have seen, will still not equal the tags cut, just like with wildlife, no net gain. Its still a loss.

If you, or for that matter, an actual "wildlife professional" could explain what a dilated lymph vessel was, and why it was important to mule deer management, then I might take some of you seriously.

You know less than the F$G about this, no thanks for your opinion.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Lonetree,
I'm sorry you "feel' the way you do but hey, I see you have 1-I's nose firmly up your rear end.
It's hard to complain when I haven't seen buck hunting conditions much better than they have been in the last 20 years. 
You sound like the guy that keep preaching about the big earthquake we are bound to see along the Wasatch Front in the near future and he will be sure to tell us that he told you so.


----------



## mtnrunner260 (Feb 15, 2010)

So overall numbers aren't up but just holding steady counts for something in my book when you count the things game managers can't control. Loss of habitat to development. Interrupted migration routes. Loss of animals to road kill. I'm sure there are others as well.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

ridgetop said:


> Lonetree,
> I'm sorry you "feel' the way you do but hey, I see you have 1-I's nose firmly up your rear end.
> It's hard to complain when I haven't seen buck hunting conditions much better than they have been in the last 20 years.
> You sound like the guy that keep preaching about the big earthquake we are bound to see along the Wasatch Front in the near future and he will be sure to tell us that he told you so.


:mrgreen: That is not the reality on the ground. You must have been asleep 20 years ago, or you are a kid to young to remember the good old days.

We still have less deer, and bucks than we did 20, or 40 years ago, and the trend line is still pointing down. These gains are marginal at best for an animal that can have twins and double its population in a matter of just a few years. That's not a feeling or an opinion, thems just the facts boys.

Higher buck to doe ratios is not more bucks, and when things do become worse, it only makes further declines, because the population will not be able to rebound. I know, I know, the bucks will have fawns, right?

Deer are already heading into decline in many areas, that is not an earthquake warning, that is just another fact of what is going on.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

mtnrunner260 said:


> So overall numbers aren't up but just holding steady counts for something in my book when you count the things game managers can't control. Loss of habitat to development. Interrupted migration routes. Loss of animals to road kill. I'm sure there are others as well.


The problem is that what has driven the declines of the last 40 years is something that can be controlled. And current and former management practices have exacerbated the declines.

If you look at the increase in mule deer across the West from the 1930s to the 1960s, they faced severe weather, loss of habitat, etc. Those things are not driving the last 40 years of decline.

Multi-generational, chemically induced disease has driven the last 40 years of declines. In the last 20 years much of this has been sponsored by game departments, and "conservation orgs", under the guise of "habitat improvements", but that is only a piece of it, there are a lot more ways in which this happens.

"Holding steady" is like praising a rat or rabbit breeder, because their animals are not declining, that is ridiculous.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

This already needs to be updated and drastically expanded, but this is what the reality on the ground looks like, sans the press releases, and buck to doe ratio propaganda. BTW, higher buck to doe ratios, with an over all lower population fits into all of this as well.

This is broad and covers more than mule deer, and all of the west. There is tons and tons of peer reviewed science, and field work that supports this, unlike the current understanding of the F$G and their policies.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy (Nov 14, 2008)

Lonetree said:


> The problem is that what has driven the declines of the last 40 years is something that can be controlled. And current and former management practices have exacerbated the declines.
> 
> If you look at the increase in mule deer across the West from the 1930s to the 1960s, they faced severe weather, loss of habitat, etc. Those things are not driving the last 40 years of decline.
> 
> ...


- Utah population in 1960 - 900,000.
- 1080 coyote control and lions were vermin
- Very few elk.

What the hell is multi-generational chemically induced disease? If we fitted deer with foil hats would that help?

p.s Where is your biology degree from again?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Dukes_Daddy said:


> - Utah population in 1960 - 900,000.
> - 1080 coyote control and lions were vermin
> - Very few elk.
> 
> ...


-1080 was used well into the 1980s, we have fewer lions now than then, and coyotes are not the predator of healthy deer.
-In the 1930s when mule deer numbers where very low in Yellowstone, there was a lot of elk, and declining habitat. And yet, mule deer double their numbers in a matter of 4-5 years.

I don't have a biology degree, but most of the people whos work that I have dismantled do, some a lot more than just a biology degree.

Can you actually attack the science, or just me? That's rhetorical, you would not have a clue where to start. You had to ask what it was after I put up a picture of it.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

By all means, if anyone can dismantle even one link in that feedback loop, have at it.

You kick pesticide exposure out, and the whole thing collapses. 

The chart was built based on a huge amount of field work, on real world, on the ground conditions of wildlife over the last 30 plus years across the West, conducted by hundreds of people(ie. lots of peer reviewed work by many individuals and groups), not just me. The science behind every link is solid, and we now have a model for how all the symptoms, ie. mineral deficiencies, disease, malformation, etc. come to be, and are influence in different ways, in different species, by different compounds. The outcomes are many times very similar, yet individually quite different. This was done by looking at and verifying, retrospectively and in real time, pesticide exposure of different declining species, that were studied for many different conditions.

Did I mention the huge decline in pesticide use during the economic decline, that correlates perfectly to the wildlife increases observed? Oh, and did I mention that we have reversed that course and are now using more pesticides than has ever been used before? Just like the huge surge in pesticide use in the late 1980s and early 1990s when we saw some of the biggest declines across the West.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy (Nov 14, 2008)

Lonetree said:


> By all means, if anyone can dismantle even one link in that feedback loop, have at it.
> 
> You kick pesticide exposure out, and the whole thing collapses.
> 
> ...


Which scientific studies can you cite? Please share. I'm shocked that none of the state, federal or private wildlife organizations have identified this problem.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Which scientific studies can you cite? Please share. I'm shocked that none of the state, federal or private wildlife organizations have identified this problem.


Start here: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/education/ I am a private wildlife organization, working with several wildlife researchers and biologists. Not everyone who's work I have rewrote, hates me for it, some are quite appreciative. Some working with me almost daily.

What were your qualifications again? Hotel industry or something if I remember right?

To actually read all of it will take days, and that is only the tip of the iceberg, as none of the latest has been put up.

Just one link, give it a try.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Yes, if any of this were easy, it would have been unraveled completely by now. 

Much of it had/has been, its just a matter of context and perspective. Most of the supporting work is about the symptoms, not causation, that has been the crux.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy (Nov 14, 2008)

OMG that is hilarious. Deer with overbite and underbite. You surveyed roadkill. I wonder if the split second of horror before death causes their jaw to move? 

My suggestions would be take tissue samples and have them tested. 

It's gonna be a better year so why don't you jump on the feel good bandwagon.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Lonetree. I'am old enough to remember the GOOD OLD DAYS.. So am guessing I better check to see if my EARS are hanging out my BUTT>


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

It's weird how people generally skirt the single biggest and undeniable factor, that is the fact that we live in their winter range now. We as humans find it normal to get all bothered arguing about the downstream effects of the biggest problem, but no one will approach the subject of us building our houses in places that deer need to survive the winter. Basically everything in that rat's nest of causal factors can be attributed to us building on the benches.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Jedidiah said:


> It's weird how people generally skirt the single biggest and undeniable factor, that is the fact that we live in their winter range now. We as humans find it normal to get all bothered arguing about the downstream effects of the biggest problem, but no one will approach the subject of us building our houses in places that deer need to survive the winter. Basically everything in that rat's nest of causal factors can be attributed to us building on the benches.


Jedidiah, I'll agree that is a problem in some areas but not all. Not in the remote ranges of the West Desert or the North Slope of the Uintahs.
Same with pesticides, many ranges out there have never been exposed but Lonetree would like everyone to think it has spread to every range in the Western states.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

There are many places where we DON'T live in their winter range. Vernon unit comes to mind. And yet, even with limited entry quotas there aren't as many deer as there used to be.

I wouldn't look at deer that have been hit by a vehicle to determine occlusions either.

I'm not convinced that there were more cougars then than there are now. They were vermin. Legal to shoot on sight. And every cattleman and sheepherder did exactly that.

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



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

Despite all the hoopla, I think Lonetrees points are valid. If you don't believe pesticide application is bad for wildlife ask yourself if you would spray pesticides on your children's food and then feed it straight to them? Now that sounds like a great idea doesn't it? Deadly chemicals couldn't disrupt normal growth could it? Spread pesticides on your food before you eat and let's see if it affects you. We as people sit here and think we don't do anything wrong and giant problems aren't create by us, guess what they are. We are the problem with this world not the solution. The stupidity in the state and those with power is insurmountable at the moment so let's watch it burn down the farther into the future we go. Good luck to our kids and grandchildren well make sure we use and abuse this world and teach them the same thing so they can live in a world they never got the opportunities we wasted away instead of protecting and preserving.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Lone,
Your blog a little slow on hits? Beating the drum on here to get more traffic? Sounds like the village favorite is all in! Good work!


----------



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

Muley73 said:


> Lone,
> Your blog a little slow on hits? Beating the drum on here to get more traffic? Sounds like the village favorite is all in! Good work!


Looks like the uneducated bafoons will remain uneducated bafoons who follow the same failed policies into the future and expect different results instead of more of the same. In One bad winter you'll all be bitching about plummeting deer herds and crying about how all the same reasons we've already tried and failed at are the reasons. Why keep going found and round in this ridiculously uneducated and plain stupid cycle instead of moving forward and making things work.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

ridgetop said:


> Jedidiah, I'll agree that is a problem in some areas but not all. Not in the remote ranges of the West Desert or the North Slope of the Uintahs.
> Same with pesticides, many ranges out there have never been exposed but Lonetree would like everyone to think it has spread to every range in the Western states.


ridgetop, you are spot on with the winter range assessment. It is most certainly a factor in many places, but its not the smoking gun.

Pesticides: The use and prevalence is greater than anyone can imagine. State and county road sides, power line right of ways, pipe line right of ways, agriculture, after logging operations, before logging operations, in irrigation water, sagebrush removal for cattle and sheep. And that does not include all of the "habitat" projects where the wildlife ends up getting directly targeted.

Then, factor in 20-150 mile migrations where exposure can happen anywhere along the way. Herbicide treated plants can remain preferable to at least deer and moose for months.

Now take into account that the decline does not occur immediately. Say a doe is exposed to the insecticide Dimilin, and it brings on a pre-Diabetes propensity for insulin resistance. The fawns that are born to this doe, should they survive(reproduction rate will be down), may also be predisposed as well. Now add in a wet spring with lots of nitrate deposition, or a dry summer with a lack of protein and carbohydrate content in the forage, and you bring on full blown type 2 Diabetes,and everything that comes with it. Which includes but is not limited to, cryptorchidism(cactus bucks), laminitis(damaged hooves), 3 times the risk for pnuemonia, miscarriage, etc.

Depending on the complicating factors, this can go on for several generations from a single exposure. Factor in herbicides that can remain in the soil for several years, and repeated applications, and this goes on for even longer.

This is why mountains goats have done so well, they stay high, and avoid most areas that may be treated. Elk have also done well in areas where they can avoid people roads and other application areas, as they prefer to. They are only suffering in areas where they can not avoid treated areas. With much of this being attributed to logging practices.

In many cases deer and bighorn sheep winter ranges have been treated over multi-year periods. It is this sort of targeted application that we have the most control over.

If anyone else can explain the synchronous declines of moose, deer, antelope, bighorn sheep, and rabbits, while simultaneously explaining all of the mineral deficiencies, pneumonia, cactus bucks, laminitis, under bites, shrunken thymus's, hypospadia, micro penises, higher parasite loads, other disease, skewed at birth sex ratios, and testicular decline that follow, and lead up to these declines, then I'm all ears. Because that is what has been documented on the ground, over the last 30+ years, in association with our wildlife declines.

Explain all of those realities away, with a loss of winter range, or a lack of forest fires, or predation, or anything else you might find in a WAFWA manual(they are good fire starter).

Like I said, explain away, I'm listening.

I can take you out in the field and show you all of this. In one retrospective case(not published yet) the source of the 90% decline in the early 1990s ended up being irrigation water. And that stuff is probably the nastiest we have looked at, its a biocide, meaning it kills everything. Those deer are essentially gone forever, the water is still treated and there are other areas of treatment in the vicinity.

I can show you mountain ranges that are essentially completely encircled by treated areas, covering multiple square miles of treated foliage. So when it snows, and the deer are pushed down, there is a winter range issue, and it involves us, but its not just the houses.

Anyone care to take a crack at the feedback loop chart, just one link?

This big picture is novel, but not many of the individual pieces that it is composed of are.

Videre est Cruder


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Can anyone show me anything else that can explain the biological realities on the ground, by any other means?

Try just copper and selenium deficiencies. They have been the hallmarks of ungulate declines across the West for 30 years. Can anyone of you explain just those? 

Those are not something I dreamed up, they have been seen in almost every big game species, in every Western state, for 30 years, always accompanying a decline. Come on if I'm wearing a tinfoil hat, this should be easy to shoot down.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> Lone,
> Your blog a little slow on hits? Beating the drum on here to get more traffic? Sounds like the village favorite is all in! Good work!


Past your bedtime isn't it son.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Keep in mind, that most of you are dismissing something that you have not studied, or know anything about.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

Lonetree said:


> Can anyone show me anything else that can explain the biological realities on the ground, by any other means?
> 
> Try just copper and selenium deficiencies. They have been the hallmarks of ungulate declines across the West for 30 years. Can anyone of you explain just those?
> 
> Those are not something I dreamed up, they have been seen in almost every big game species, in every Western state, for 30 years, always accompanying a decline. Come on if I'm wearing a *tinfoil hat*, this should be easy to shoot down.


Illuminati.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

Lonetree said:


> ridgetop, you are spot on with the winter range assessment. It is most certainly a factor in many places, but its not the smoking gun.
> 
> Pesticides: The use and prevalence is greater than anyone can imagine. State and county road sides, power line right of ways, pipe line right of ways, agriculture, after logging operations, before logging operations, in irrigation water, sagebrush removal for cattle and sheep. And that does not include all of the "habitat" projects where the wildlife ends up getting directly targeted.
> 
> ...


Toxicity is based on dose.

The dose makes the poison.

Water is even toxic with a high enough dose.

The issue is how much of the toxin is actually getting into the Deer's system and you can't know if it is enough to have effects, unless you sample


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

The comment about the elk only doing well in areas that they can avoid treatment was pretty broad. What areas are there that they can not avoid treatment? What areas are the elk doing poorly enough that the smoking gun is clearly chemical treatments? Is Kennecott/Rio Tinto one of them? The I-70 corridor from Rifle to Denver?

The comment about the chemical use dropping during the recession encouraged me to see if there was study performed or a record of such to back it up. Where is that available? Specifically.

I have very little doubt about the misuse and overuse of chemicals. I tooted on that horn long before becoming a forum member. Such general claims though should have some back up attached other than just "read my blog".

1-I.........if I have learned anything from you and your new found "education" on the subject it is this...............hmmmm................well there are times that I at least find you entertaining. I have to admit though, as a sitcom, it wouldn't hurt you to hire a new writer every now and then.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Lone,
I have to admit I've been a long time fan of Coast to Coast with Art Bell and George Nori. And I will with out question be staying tuned to see the entertainment of the stern profit Lonetree and his newly converter believer 1I!

I'm not saying you are wrong or right. But its all about the delivery. The man on the corner preaching angrily everyday many times is trying to deliver the same message as the preacher that fills a church full of his loyal congregation every week. It's all about how you go about delivering the message. 

But until then I will eagerly watch this now dynamic duo of 1I and Lonetree. This is absolute interweb gold!!!!


----------



## Dukes_Daddy (Nov 14, 2008)

Lonetree said:


> Keep in mind, that most of you are dismissing something that you have not studied, or know anything about.


Still waiting for scientific research from any institution. Come on I want to believe!

I get the bad crap we put into the environment but you can't draw a line based on your basement club theories.

As for me I give credit to more deer to the following reasons.
1) Mother nature. Haven't had a bad winter in a long time. 
2) Closer herd management by unit and buck/doe ratio.
3) Less critters with teeth. Harvest objective on lions and killing more coyotes.
4) Habitat improvements both man and fire over the last decade.

Looking forward to a better year.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> Toxicity is based on dose.
> 
> The dose makes the poison.
> 
> ...


 Toxicity is not based on the dose. When you look at pesticide toxicity specifically, the dose related affects when charted will look like a U, or an inverse U. Meaning that they can damage at the highest and lowest doses similarly, or the greatest damage can come somewhere in the middle of that exposure range.

You have to then couple that with the problem of combined compounds. When you mix 2,4-D and Dicamba(a product called Veteran 720) like what the FS and DOT like to use here in Utah you see very specific results, and the combination is more toxic than the two separately. When the same combination gets used, but in different proportions, you get very similar results, but there are marked differences.

And sometimes it is not "toxicity", while many pesticides induce immune responses, and spike glucose levels though toxicity, some do so by directly acting on B cells in the pancreas. The end result is the same, but its not what would be called "toxicity".


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Still waiting for scientific research from any institution. Come on I want to believe!
> 
> I get the bad crap we put into the environment but you can't draw a line based on your basement club theories.
> 
> ...


I pointed you to a lot of research, and it is quite clear after putting up a picture, you don't understand any of this.

You just threw out some sixth grade observational science, this is AP ecological bio-chemistry. You can't look forward to a good future, until you solve the problems of the past that keep rearing their head.

Would you like to try to explain the last 30-40 years of declines, with regard to the biological facts facing our herds. You never touched on a single one of them. Not to mention your points 2 and 3 are Utah management specific and don't account for other states, and 4 is part of the problem, not the solution.

As for drawing a line, I can draw multiples from how a couple molecules lead to wide spread declines, just because you don't know the subject matter does not make reality null and void.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> The comment about the elk only doing well in areas that they can avoid treatment was pretty broad. What areas are there that they can not avoid treatment? What areas are the elk doing poorly enough that the smoking gun is clearly chemical treatments? Is Kennecott/Rio Tinto one of them? The I-70 corridor from Rifle to Denver?
> 
> The comment about the chemical use dropping during the recession encouraged me to see if there was study performed or a record of such to back it up. Where is that available? Specifically.
> 
> ...


 I have not looked at elk and Kennecott, but their are a lot of cactus bucks coming out of that area, and its not just areas Kennecott has treated, there are "habitat" projects and power lines as well.

As for elk, I am referring specifically to South West WA elk, Lolo zone elk, and GYA elk. In all of these cases the herds have been in decline for 20 years, mirroring those declines of deer and sheep.

Biologically they are suffering from very similar issues as sheep, deer, and moose, ie. mineral deficiencies, laminitis, abnormal antler growth, low reproduction rates, etc.

So You over lay logging and herbicide use to these areas of declines, and Viola! it lines up perfectly. Not to mention that the symptoms can be explained by pesticide exposure, and not much else.

In the case of declining black tailed deer on Kodiak island, they were looking for a possible estrogenic compound or an anti androgen to explain what was causing the cryptorchid and declining deer. They never found one, but I found the documented use of pesticides in the area, along with observations of deer utilizing those areas to feed. Deer and moose will seek this stuff out, not so much with elk, unless it is just so pervasive they can't get away from it.

Can you explain the last 30-40 years of declines, along with the myriad of biological symptoms that accompanied them? The F&G can't.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

More or less cougar is not the important part. It's the cougar to deer ratio that matters. When we had a million deer and 1080 was banned and we implemented LE cougar hunting. I'm sure there were more cougar back in the day then we have today with 1/3 as any deer. I doubt there were 7000 cats. That would roughly be the same ratio of cat to deer we have today. 

What are the limiting factors on cougar populations in the west?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Can some one explain the last 40 years of declines, in full context? 

I mean I'm crazy, so someone here must be able to step up and explain in detail the etiology of the biological affects observed in our herd declines.

Sorry, winter range encroachment, a lack of wildfires, predation, the weather, and unit management can not even begin to explain the actual biological reality of our declining herds. None of them account for the biological manifestations seen in deer, big horn sheep, moose, antelope, lagomorphs, grouse, etc.

Anyone?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> More or less cougar is not the important part. It's the cougar to deer ratio that matters. When we had a million deer and 1080 was banned and we implemented LE cougar hunting. I'm sure there were more cougar back in the day then we have today with 1/3 as any deer. I doubt there were 7000 cats. That would roughly be the same ratio of cat to deer we have today.
> 
> What are the limiting factors on cougar populations in the west?


All fine and dandy, except you don't account for a single biological reality. How do lions induce cryptorchidism, and low reproduction in deer?

Do lions induce copper deficiencies in antelope in OR?


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Explain increases in wildlife numbers east of the Mississippi. They using different pesticides out there. 

It is void of apex predators though. 

Do you think 1 cougar for every 150 deer on Antelope island would increase the effects of pesticides increase roadkill and degrade habitat enough to keep that herd from growing?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> Explain increases in wildlife numbers east of the Mississippi. They using different pesticides out there.
> 
> It is void of apex predators though.
> 
> Do you think 1 cougar for every 150 deer on Antelope island would increase the effects of pesticides increase roadkill and degrade habitat enough to keep that herd from growing?


False premise, they have seen and are seeing declines from Maine to Florida. They have bobcats, wolves, lions, and lots of bears in many places. The white tail declines from New England to the South are well documented, and the moose and deer in the North are suffering the worst.

Even in places like Connecticut, where you can still shoot multiple deer in a season, they have seen declines. And in the Southern states they are seeing something being called "bullwinkle" syndrome in the deer, where their snout blows up and looks like a moose's.

We can go global on this if you would like, Norway, Argentina, pick a place.

Do the coyotes and lions cause dilated lymphatic vessels in deer?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Yeah, yeah, I know, if I was nice I could sell ice to Eskimos. Its not a sales pitch, its informational. This is not politics or MLM, or Sunday afternoon parking lot conversations. This is tangible.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy (Nov 14, 2008)

Lonetree said:


> I pointed you to a lot of research, and it is quite clear after putting up a picture, you don't understand any of this.
> 
> You just threw out some sixth grade observational science, this is AP ecological bio-chemistry. You can't look forward to a good future, until you solve the problems of the past that keep rearing their head.
> 
> ...


 You pointed to your website with roadkill research. Can you provide any links that show your pesticide theory? I'm out! Can't reason with a fool or atheist.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Maybe all the predators chasing the deer, moose, and elk around is what causes the laminitis we see?

And its probably the bears that scare the copper and selenium right out of the animals, right?

_*CONTEXT*_


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Dukes_Daddy said:


> You pointed to your website with roadkill research. Can you provide any links that show your pesticide theory? I'm out! Can't reason with a fool or atheist.


What does atheism have to with it, besides me not being one? Can you you spell deflection?

Get a dictionary, and start here: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/sulfonylureas/

While reading keep in mind that 20 other pesticides, insecticides, herbicides, and biocides cause similar results, in a similar manner.

The affects of pesticide exposure account for the vast majority of biological ills observed by thousands of researchers over the last 30 years. And we can look at many specific declines, where we see these biological manifestations, and show how and what they were exposed to.

The problem is you can't grasp the subject matter, but feel compelled to comment on things you know nothing about.

Can you explain the last 40 years of declines in full context? I did not think so, that's why you deflect. You should get a job with the F&G.

Furthermore, you have not read the website obviously,. because there is a whole lot more than road kill research, just another example of you speaking of things you know nothing about.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I'm no expert on back east whitetail. But I know they are not in decline. A 5 min Google search gave me these.

http://blog.nature.org/science/2013/08/22/too-many-deer/

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/nwrc/publications/03pubs/verc033.pdf

And yes there are bears and coyote but the eastern mtn lion is all but extinct. And no eastern state has a ratio of 1 car for every 15O deer. And several if not all of the western states have ratios above 1 cat per 150 deer.


----------



## Charina (Aug 16, 2011)

-O\\__-

Can we please got an upgrade to forum functionality to include a "block user" option?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> I'm no expert on back east whitetail. But I know they are not in decline. A 5 min Google search gave me these.
> 
> http://blog.nature.org/science/2013/08/22/too-many-deer/
> 
> ...


The first is about Pennsylvania and Minnesota, I never mentioned either. Although Minnesota has seen dramatic declines in their moose populations over the last 30 years.

The second only has data up to 2000, and is very generalized. And the white tailed deer in Maine are still declining in areas with heavy timber harvest, and herbicide use.

The most important point, is that the health of Eastern white tails has no bearing on our western wildlife, or anything I have presented. Its a nice tangent, but you still can't explain the last 40 years of Western wildlife declines, in full CONTEXT, accounting for the biological manifestations seen during these declines.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Charina said:


> -O\\__-
> 
> Can we please got an upgrade to forum functionality to include a "block user" option?


That would be very nice indeed. Care to join the conversation, or just quip like an uninformed child?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Can anyone explain the full range of biological and ecological manifestations of our last 40 years of Western wildlife declines? Can you detail the etiology of these declines and their correlative symptoms?

If you can't, you are powerless to affect the future in regard to these things, and will remain a victim to our disappearing wildlife, as anything resembling hunting as our forefathers knew it disappears forever.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

On the bright side, for those that don't get a tag, I heard Rulon Jone's elk farm will be having discounted hunts this coming season. :mrgreen:


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Was it the low buck to doe ratios that caused the dental malocclusions, and cryptorchidism in deer? 

Or was that the lack of a coyote bounty?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Maybe if we implement 3 point or better rules, it will fix the mineral deficiencies in our declining moose. 

And if we raise lion harvest objectives, maybe that will keep bighorn sheep from contracting pneumonia?

And then we can start transplanting rabbits.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

So anyway, wildlife has been declining across the board for 40 years. There is a whole laundry list of biological and ecological factors that have accompanied these declines.

Anyone care to explain what brought all that on, and the intricacies of how it has played out?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

It looks exactly like this:


----------



## Charina (Aug 16, 2011)

Lonetree said:


> That would be very nice indeed. Care to join the conversation, or just quip like an uninformed child?


The reason I would prefer to ignore your facile posts is largely due to the childish tantrums, condescension, and overall foolishness that you seem unable, or unwilling, to avoid. You have proven yourself to be completely and totally incapable of actually having a conversation, or even a civil debate.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Charina said:


> The reason I would prefer to ignore your facile posts is largely due to the childish tantrums, condescension, and overall foolishness that you seem unable, or unwilling, to avoid. You have proven yourself to be completely and totally incapable of actually having a conversation, or even a civil debate.


Coming from the quip queen :mrgreen:

That post only solidified that you can't handle the subject matter, but have no self control, to prevent yourself from commenting anyway.

Care to actually contribute on point, or will you just pop in occasion to let us all know you are still here, but still don't know whats going on?

Tantrums, the actual subject matter, a tangent, yes unlike you I wonder a bit, its called range.

Care to expound upon the last 40 years?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

58 posts (counting this one) and 32 of them are Lonetree's (including as many as 5 in a row). Do you think he's convinced himself yet? I know he's convinced me of two things. His message is close and his method of delivery cancels the message.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

elkfromabove said:


> 58 posts (counting this one) and 32 of them are Lonetree's (including as many as 5 in a row). Do you think he's convinced himself yet? I know he's convinced me of two things. His message is close and his method of delivery cancels the message.


:mrgreen: Lee, that would be called a quip, its like we have a beauty pageant going on. Who's it going to be, Charina or elkfromabove, everybody get your votes in, both these ladies are neck and neck.

Whether you are convinced of anything or not, is completely irrelevant. You could not pass a ****ing 6th grade science class, let alone grasp anything that is relevant to wildlife management.

That's why you head a sportsmen's club, that gave up on conservation goals, before you ever had any.

Care to tackle the question of the last 40 years? or are you going for the swimsuit competition next?

If I need the garbage taken out, I'll let you know.......


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

Alrighty folks here we go,get your bets on the table-O,-


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Top of the page! Tags for everyone!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Dunkem said:


> Alrighty folks here we go,get your bets on the table-O,-


I'm guessing Lee and the other USFWC folks are just mad that I served them with a cease and desist letter, for unauthorized use of my fathers and my own business logos, and implied sponsorship, on their website.

Just like with the other orgs, when you are feeding them money it's a whole different story.

Of course other orgs would be able to provide a receipt, for tax purposes, because they are an actual 501c tax exempt organization.

I just want to be clear, Lee's quip has nothing to do with the subject matter of this thread. He is just sore, for getting scolded for not being on the up and up. Seems to be a pattern with these guys.

Edit: BTW Lee, I'm sitting on more dirt than the sands covering the library of Kemet.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

Lonetree said:


> Toxicity is not based on the dose. When you look at pesticide toxicity specifically, the dose related affects when charted will look like a U, or an inverse U. Meaning that they can damage at the highest and lowest doses similarly, or the greatest damage can come somewhere in the middle of that exposure range.
> 
> You have to then couple that with the problem of combined compounds. When you mix 2,4-D and Dicamba(a product called Veteran 720) like what the FS and DOT like to use here in Utah you see very specific results, and the combination is more toxic than the two separately. When the same combination gets used, but in different proportions, you get very similar results, but there are marked differences.
> 
> And sometimes it is not "toxicity", while many pesticides induce immune responses, and spike glucose levels though toxicity, some do so by directly acting on B cells in the pancreas. The end result is the same, but its not what would be called "toxicity".


I disagree, The basic principle of toxicology is the dose makes the poison.

Some chemicals can cause acute effects or chronic effects in low doses or high doses.


----------



## mtnrunner260 (Feb 15, 2010)

Sorry lonetree but you need to add another arrow in your chart.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ned-rabbits-if-utah-passes-medical-marijuana/


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> I disagree, The basic principle of toxicology is the dose makes the poison.
> 
> Some chemicals can cause acute effects or chronic effects in low doses or high doses.


I think we are talking semantics. The principle of "the dose makes the poison" is typically construed to mean that more of it is more toxic. That is not always the case, especially with pesticides.

Depending on the observed toxicity, it might manifest across all dose ranges from very small to very large. It can also have its greatest toxicity somewhere in between that range, while also having similar effects at the smallest doses, and the highest doses, with minimal effect in the mid-range.

In the case of a pesticide that acts on the pancreas, thyroid, or thymus of a mammal, this makes a difference. A small dose can have the affect of inducing an auto immune response, where as a large dose may not. This is because the large dose may be more readily detected as foreign and dealt with differently. This does depend on the specific compound that we are talking about though.

Sulfonylurea herbicides and insecticides act on the pancreas, and at certain doses would not be considered "toxic" as the resulting glucose spike does not cause classic intoxication.

2,4-D on the other hand will also spike glucose levels, with marked intoxication symptoms. Both ultimately can have the same result of inducing insulin resistance, but only the 2,4-D is likely to induce a thyroid response. This is most likely because of 2,4-Ds tenancy to induce intoxication.

Not only do we have chronic and acute affects from toxicity, you have to factor whether or not the exposure is chronic or acute. A single acute exposure may not manifest into intoxication, but it can predispose for chronic affects with a second exposure, that by itself would not cause chronic affects.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

mtnrunner260 said:


> Sorry lonetree but you need to add another arrow in your chart.
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ned-rabbits-if-utah-passes-medical-marijuana/


Yeah, pot cultivation is another source for pesticide use, and it does draw in deer and rabbits.

And even though I love eating stoned rabbits(easier on the cheeks), you do have to worry a little about what they might have been eating.

Seriously, a few beagles, a shotgun, some stoned rabbits, and a pot field. That could be interesting. Should the shooter and the beagles be stoned too, for it to be considered "fair chase"?

I only smoke organic.


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

mtnrunner260 said:


> Sorry lonetree but you need to add another arrow in your chart.
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ned-rabbits-if-utah-passes-medical-marijuana/


Hippie bunnies?Ahh sounds interesting.eace:Now that is something to think about.The fair chase thing is spot on Lonetree.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Lonetree said:


> I'm guessing Lee and the other USFWC folks are just mad that I served them with a cease and desist letter, for unauthorized use of my fathers and my own business logos, and implied sponsorship, on their website.
> 
> Just like with the other orgs, when you are feeding them money it's a whole different story.
> 
> ...


Lee doesn't get mad! If you knew me, you would know that! Saddened maybe, but not mad. And curious! Since you were the first one to publically bring up the lawsuit threat you made, which I was not aware of when I accepted the leadership position and which we took care of within hours of your second demand, I was wondering, If I were your business customer and you were asking me for money, would you treat me as kindly as you are now doing? And which of your two distinctly different approaches brings the best results?

I'll say it again, your science is sound, but your approach cancels any chance that you or anyone else who mentions you has of getting the points across. You may not like the way things work with people, but you're much better off trying to change yourself than trying to change mankind.

Edited: FWIW, UWC is currently tax exempt (non-profit) compliant with the State of Utah (License # 8536927-CHAR) and with the IRS barring any unknown legal issues with our 54 page application. (They go by the postmark of the application.) This is our second IRS application and user/processing fee because our first application dated 12/21/12 was not processed and eventually canceled because it was unknowingly sent with a fee that was $100 short. (The fee went up $100 and a new IRS 1023 form with the new amount was printed in the short time between UWC starting the application until it was sent.) And our founders didn't know about the problem until they called about the delay. By then we were in the middle of the resignations and uncertainty, and we weren't even sure if we were going to continue. In any case, the issue was put aside until the Southern crew came on the scene and by then it was too late. The IRS canceled our application and kept our money and we had to start all over again. Which is what we did and the new application and fee were sent before the Big Outdoor EXPO!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Lee, anger is a gift.

The first notice was sent to you two weeks prior to the second notice that contained the legal cease and desist. We did not go straight for a legal remedy, you were simply sent an email. If you knew me, then you would know that's how I roll. If you were closer I'd knock on your door. You had to be compelled with threat of legal action to remove the logos, two weeks after being asked nicely. This is all documented.

If my science is sound, then the understanding it brings to wildlife management is also more cutting edge than anything seen in 40 years. And yes my personality may cut almost as sharp, maybe sharper. And yes my customers, worldwide, understand this quite well. 

So if you and others can't acknowledge biologically and ecologically sound science, that has the potential to bring about real gains in wildlife conservation, because my personality "cancels" it out, this only proves one thing. 

You guys are not real conservationists, your politicians running a conservation org, working a system where money, power, and personalities, override reality, conservation, wildlife, and hunting. Your just a hunt'n and fish'n club, a subsect of hunting social media, where it pays more to be one of the cool kids, than it does to work on anything that is even remotely related to wildlife conservation, and its role in the preservation of hunting. 

Lee changing myself, will not bring about a better understanding of the last 40 years of wildlife declines, or benefit wildlife conservation, in fact it would do quite the opposite. If you would deny the sky being blue, because of the way I said it was blue, then it is your hubris and not mine that is the problem.

Are you still handing out UWC business cards with my phone number on them? I have not got a call for quite awhile, I had fun with the last ones I got. :mrgreen:


----------



## cornerfinder (Dec 4, 2008)

It's absolutely ridiculous; the only way to increase numbers is to know the numbers. The only way to know the numbers is to find out how many deer are actually coming out of the field. And the only way to do that is mandatory reporting for every tag sold. End the story. Until then it's just a by guess by golly. It's all about revenue the more money they make the more people they can hire, the more fancy trucks they can drive around, the more expensive binoculars they could buy etc. etc. mandatory reporting is the only solution!


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

cornerfinder said:


> It's absolutely ridiculous; the only way to increase numbers is to know the numbers. The only way to know the numbers is to find out how many deer are actually coming out of the field. And the only way to do that is mandatory reporting for every tag sold. End the story. Until then it's just a by guess by golly. It's all about revenue the more money they make the more people they can hire, the more fancy trucks they can drive around, the more expensive binoculars they could buy etc. etc. mandatory reporting is the only solution!


You really think people are going to accurately report that they killed one and dinged X more? How many people report deer / car collisions? I hit a deer last month, never reported it. You will never know the total numbers.

-DallanC


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

cornerfinder said:


> It's absolutely ridiculous; the only way to increase numbers is to know the numbers. The only way to know the numbers is to find out how many deer are actually coming out of the field. And the only way to do that is mandatory reporting for every tag sold. End the story. Until then it's just a by guess by golly. It's all about revenue the more money they make the more people they can hire, the more fancy trucks they can drive around, the more expensive binoculars they could buy etc. etc. mandatory reporting is the only solution!


We know the numbers. Deer, moose, big horn sheep, antelope, sage grouse, etc. etc. have been in decline for 40 years.

The only way to increase the numbers of these animals, is to understand what has lead to the declines. Solve that riddle, and then you know what to do to counter the declines and grow more animals.

This in turn increases hunting opportunity for all, and preserves hunting as a Western egalitarian heritage, as it has been known.

Mandatory reporting solves non of this. And your follow the money conspiracy is not sound. It looks more like: Less wildlife leads to less tags, which increases the price of things like convention tags, and conservation tags, which in turn drives a money and political cycle, that benefits from low wildlife numbers, while hiding behind the auspice of "conservation". Are there F$G officials and employees that are a part of this? you better believe it! But you assessment of trucks and binoculars won't pass the litmus test. The guys driving most of those trucks, and using those binoculars, are not the bad guys. You need to look to their leadership, and the political influence that drives the decisions at the top.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Also, it would nice if the F$G could hire more people, financially they can't. And they have lost much of their talent because of these shortfalls, and we as hunters continue to suffer for this. 

Its a money problem, just not like most people think.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy (Nov 14, 2008)

Lonetree said:


> We know the numbers. Deer, moose, big horn sheep, antelope, sage grouse, etc. etc. have been in decline for 40 years.


Less sheep and antelope; really? Are elk, goats, wild horses, bison, chukars, ECD, Canadian Geese, whitetailed p-dogs, wolves, grizzlies, black bears, coyotes, ferretts, condors and a few other species immune to LTB (Lonetree Toxic Brew)?

Maybe mule deer, moose and sage grouse are just stupid and should go extinct. My historical research society; DDHRS (Dukes Daddy Historic Research Society indicated the Great Auk and Passenger Pigeons were stupid and people could whack them with sticks.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Less sheep and antelope; really? Are elk, goats, wild horses, bison, chukars, ECD, Canadian Geese, whitetailed p-dogs, wolves, grizzlies, black bears, coyotes, ferretts, condors and a few other species immune to LTB (Lonetree Toxic Brew)?
> 
> Maybe mule deer, moose and sage grouse are just stupid and should go extinct. My historical research society; DDHRS (Dukes Daddy Historic Research Society indicated the Great Auk and Passenger Pigeons were stupid and people could whack them with sticks.


Do they have over bites?


----------



## Dukes_Daddy (Nov 14, 2008)

martymcfly73 said:


> Do they have over bites?


and very LARGE TESTIES. Maybe Lonetree should try crossbreeding critters that thrive with deer. I would even donate $1 for that research. Then he could list paid biologist on his website.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Troy, I'll start with your first sentence, to keep this simple.

Show me that there are more sheep and antelope, not less, than there were 20 years ago across the west. 

Your lack of understanding on this subject is so fundamental, it is not funny. You start with something so ridiculously false as your foundation, but I don't know what I'm talking about? At least you have company.

I'm a fool and atheist?, you might want to read Matthew 7:26, its good for "starting" points.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Then he could list paid biologist on his website.


I've been paid by both GNP, and YNP for wildlife management work, I've dealt with the FS in Wyoming on bighorn sheep issues, and YOSEKI and Teton on bear issues. I'm in contact with biologists, zoologists, university professors, and wildlife researchers in four Western states, Canada, Argentina, and Pakistan.

I'm not a paid toady, some of us do this because it needs to be done.

You do what again?


----------



## Dukes_Daddy (Nov 14, 2008)

Romans 16:17-18

Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

:mrgreen: But he still can't support his own claims about antelope and sheep. Liers and deceivers, go well beyond "dissension".

I mean something so simple, and on topic, yet he can't begin to even touch it.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Besides, I spit anything but "smooth and flattering speech". :mrgreen: You are hilarious.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

How about explaining the sand you used for the foundation of your argument? :shock:


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Less sheep and antelope; really?


Show us otherwise.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

Lonetree said:


> I think we are talking semantics. The principle of "the dose makes the poison" is typically construed to mean that more of it is more toxic. That is not always the case, especially with pesticides.
> 
> Depending on the observed toxicity, it might manifest across all dose ranges from very small to very large. It can also have its greatest toxicity somewhere in between that range, while also having similar effects at the smallest doses, and the highest doses, with minimal effect in the mid-range.
> 
> ...


I see what you are saying. The pesticides that you are describing are having similar effects as carcinogens. One dose can throw a wrench into the biochemistry and molecular biology.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> I see what you are saying. The pesticides that you are describing are having similar effects as carcinogens. One dose can throw a wrench into the biochemistry and molecular biology.


More than similar, exactly like a carcinogen, especially when you start looking at the underlying prions associated with "TSEs", and diabetes, that have been shown to be caused by pesticides. Both of these things are correlated to the lead up to many cancers.

But yes, starting in the gut after ingestion, there is a spike in glucose levels, either by an auto immune response, or other biochemistry( such as direct action upon the pancreas). This either leads to an autoimmune disorder, and many seemingly unrelated symptoms, or it predisposes to an auto immune or metabolic disorder, by additional exposure(through increased sensitivity), or by an environmental trigger, that induces a related immune response.

But Troy and Marty can probably explain it better.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Charina said:


> The reason I would prefer to ignore your facile posts is largely due to the childish tantrums, condescension, and overall foolishness that you seem unable, or unwilling, to avoid. You have proven yourself to be completely and totally incapable of actually having a conversation, or even a civil debate.


Tantrums and condescension are two of the building blocks of the UWN, and I for one encourage foolishness.

.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

wyogoob said:


> Tantrums and condescension are two of the building blocks of the UWN, and I for one encourage foolishness.
> 
> .


Building blocks are more solid than, oh....., say sand.....

You must have been doing a lot of encouraging Goob.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> I'm not saying you are wrong or right. But its all about the delivery. The man on the corner preaching angrily everyday many times is trying to deliver the same message as the preacher that fills a church full of his loyal congregation every week. It's all about how you go about delivering the message.


Sorry, but that is a load of BS! What matters is whether he is wrong or right regardless of the delivery....if that guy on the street preaching is wrong and we dismiss him because of his delivery, what are we losing? Nothing...no big deal. BUT, if he is right and we dismiss him, what then are we losing? Everything....

....that guy who filled his congregation with loyal listeners because he delivered the message in a flattering way only sweetened his message. What if his message is BS?

Personally, I would like to see something that disproves what Lonetree is saying....or, someone who can intelligently refute it or at least give a good counterargument....so far, I ain't seen shizz!


----------



## Charina (Aug 16, 2011)

wyogoob said:


> Tantrums and condescension are two of the building blocks of the UWN, and I for one encourage foolishness.
> 
> .


Sure, but when you combine it with a lithium deficiency . . . -O,-


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Well it certainly isn't universal. 

I can't argue that foreign chemicals would be negative to living things that it came in contact with. After all the type of chemicals mentioned are used to kill. 

DDT helped give us crazy rabbit numbers. 

So what I don't get is why this is only effecting thing I want to hunt. Why isn't it putting a dent in the cougar or eagle population? Like 1080 and DDT did. 

And what about whitetail? Are they impervious to all things that kill western wildlife. Show me where there has been a decline in the national whitetail population over the last 40 yrs. Universal like out west. More importantly to the context of our debates. Show me were hunter harvest has suffered as a result of chemicals back east. Like it has been out west. I'd bet they use just as many sprays back east as out west.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy (Nov 14, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> Personally, I would like to see something that disproves what Lonetree is saying....or, someone who can intelligently refute it or at least give a good counterargument....so far, I ain't seen shizz!


 Here chew on this. He argues there are less bighorns today than 40 or 20 years ago. (He contradicts himself). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_bighorn_sheep#Conservation_status_and_trends

If you want a good read, get this months National Geographic and read the article about War on Science. Personally I believe we are disrupting the environment in many ways. I also believe the state, federal agencies and academic institutions would have studies to support what he rants about if it exists. Mercury in fish - proven - check, DDT - created thin eggs - proven - check, Lead harmful to birds - proven - check.

I imagine this is what discussing God with ISISS would be like. Guess I'm just and infidel!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Ok....but, could you give me something a bit more reliable than Wikipedia? And more current than 1993...?


----------



## Dukes_Daddy (Nov 14, 2008)

Are you old enough to remember when Utah had something like 15 sheep tags for the entire state? Some good advise from mom "don't follow fools you will become one".


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

It may be more along the lines of discussing ISIS with God


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Are you old enough to remember when Utah had something like 15 sheep tags for the entire state? Some good advise from mom "don't follow fools you will become one".


Who said anything about following a fool? I am simply asking you guys to refute what he says with a solid counterargument....so far all you have done is attack the person and not the message. Give me a reason to believe his ideas are those of a fool...


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

So the DWR makes a claim about elk on the Wasatch and they need to provide proof but Lonetree makes a claim about sheep and goat populations from the 80's and everybody else must prove him wrong...............makes perfect sense on this forum.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy (Nov 14, 2008)

I was referring to you as the fool for not recognizing the lack of evidence from credible sources and following a zealot! Or worse you can't rationalize arguments that claim populations are crashing against our growing opportunities to hunt.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Charina said:


> Sure, but when you combine it with a lithium deficiency . . . -O,-


 You'ld have to tell us about that.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Perhaps someone would care to explain to us how deer populations are on the rise in some states that have SIGNIFICANTLY more pesticide and herbicide use than Utah does per land area. If you don't believe me then do the research yourself. Search what the herbicide and pesticide use is by state then look at the deer populations per state. There are NUMEROUS states with more pesticide and herbicide use than Utah per land area with increasing deer herds. Facts don't lie.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> Well it certainly isn't universal.
> 
> I can't argue that foreign chemicals would be negative to living things that it came in contact with. After all the type of chemicals mentioned are used to kill.
> 
> ...


 DDT did not give us crazy rabbit numbers.

This has reduced lion numbers, and it is impacting eagles.

Northern whitetails declined in ID and MT synchronously with the mule deer, elk, bighorn sheep, and moose, in the early 1990s.

This included all the hallmark symptoms seen across the west, and gave us a base line for skewed at birth sex ratios in deer, because of land mark studies conducted prior to the declines.

Symptoms increase, population goes down, symptoms wane, population goes up.

Here is older work on it by a colleague: 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12602857


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Dukes_Daddy said:


> I was referring to you as the fool for not recognizing the lack of evidence from credible sources and following a zealot! Or worse you can't rationalize arguments that claim populations are crashing against our growing opportunities to hunt.


Again, who said anything about following him? I didn't say I agreed with him...I just said I would like you to refute any of his arguments. I haven't seen anything that says you can....


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> So the DWR makes a claim about elk on the Wasatch and they need to provide proof but Lonetree makes a claim about sheep and goat populations from the 80's and everybody else must prove him wrong...............makes perfect sense on this forum.


Wait a second....are Lonetree's ideas driving tag numbers?

Again, you guys continue to attack him personally, but I am not seeing much to attack his theories.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Sheep and antelope: You could show an increase in Utah bighorns, if you look at the numbers a certain way. Its all through transplants, that barely keep up with the declines. Bighorn sheep numbers have crashed across the west, with 70-100 percent declines. The Hells canyon, Yakima river gorge, Goslin mountain, Santa Catalina mountains, Thompson falls, Provo peak, Valley of fire, and Sula herds to name just a few have all experienced huge declines since the early 1990s, synchronous to deer and moose.

Antelope have experienced similar declines across the west, over the same time period. Just like with bighorns it has been net losses overall. Look at Hart mountain OR http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70021454 where antelope have declined and suffered from copper and selenium deficiencies, just like antelope from AZ to ID have for the last 20 years, the bighorns there have followed the same course.

These are just basic population trends, if you don't grasp these basics, you have no clue about the bigger picture, you're just pissing in the wind.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I have not attacked him personally at all. In fact I agree with much that he has said that is backed up and has been for quite some time. I have been on the "chemical warfare against wildlife band wagon" for years. I don't necessarily buy into the sheep and antelope numbers though without some pretty substantial backup and by that I don't mean pinpointing particular ranges and plains, I mean OVERALL numbers in the U.S.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

LostLouisianian said:


> Perhaps someone would care to explain to us how deer populations are on the rise in some states that have SIGNIFICANTLY more pesticide and herbicide use than Utah does per land area. If you don't believe me then do the research yourself. Search what the herbicide and pesticide use is by state then look at the deer populations per state. There are NUMEROUS states with more pesticide and herbicide use than Utah per land area with increasing deer herds. Facts don't lie.


 You did not present any facts. It is about actual exposure, and the resulting declines, which you or anyone else has yet to disprove.

You look at a Western decline, you look at the symptoms and conditions leading up to the decline and subsequent suppression, and you see things that have been shown to be caused by pesticides, so you look for pesticide use, and viola, its on their winter ranges, its through their summer ranges, the increased use in the late '80s and early '90s correlates to the declines.

But you knew this being a biologist that has studied this right?

I'm calling BS on your supposed degrees.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> So the DWR makes a claim about elk on the Wasatch and they need to provide proof but Lonetree makes a claim about sheep and goat populations from the 80's and everybody else must prove him wrong...............makes perfect sense on this forum.


 No its that you can't prove it wrong, you guys don't even get the basics here. You guys going to tell me we have more moose now too? Seriously, this is the simple and easy part of this.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> I have not attacked him personally at all. In fact I agree with much that he has said that is backed up and has been for quite some time. I have been on the "chemical warfare against wildlife band wagon" for years. I don't necessarily buy into the sheep and antelope numbers though without some pretty substantial backup and by that I don't mean pinpointing particular ranges and plains, I mean OVERALL numbers in the U.S.


Yes, over all US numbers for bighorns and antelope are down, for the last 20 years just like our deer and moose. This is so fundamental, its laughable.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)




----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Lonetree said:


> No its that you can't prove it wrong, you guys don't even get the basics here. You guys going to tell me we have more moose now too? Seriously, this is the simple and easy part of this.


Nope.......I know the moose numbers are down. Having a high school buddy that works full time for the Wild Sheep Foundation though I will question your claim as far as you want to push it. You have done nothing to show that the overall numbers are lower than they were in the 80's and 90's when CWD was running rampant.

BTW you are the one that can't help but to resort to personal attacks. It is in fact what you are best known for. UI actually pity you. With all of your knowledge you could do so much more if you had the true desire to make a difference. The basics lie in communication and respect.


----------



## Charina (Aug 16, 2011)

wyoming2utah said:


> I am simply asking you guys to refute what he says with a solid counterargument....so far all you have done is attack the person and not the message. Give me a reason to believe his ideas are those of a fool...


W2U, it has never gotten as far as needing a solid countering the ethereal propositions. For quite a while, requests have been made for what would be the most basic and fundamental supporting data and research. Stuff that would be foundational to the building of any claim such as this (this latest iteration, as well as prior iterations).

Time and time again, even in this thread (although to a lesser extent here than in the numerous other threads), the support is not brought forth in responses to legitimate requests. Rather, the requestor is belittled with personal attacks, claiming they are 'stupid' for asking for such foundational support, and LT retreats to the ethereal hypothesis that, by their nature, are neither supportable, nor refutable. They are hypothesis, not theories, and not established facts.

Perhaps you have not been paying attention over the last several years to what has been happening, but I fail to see how any astute person that has paid attention cannot see the fallacy of the chicken little claims. Does LT have a real inside scoop to people that actually are discovering something legitimate? Perhaps. Are there problems associated with chemical use? Most likely. Is the trollish antics worth entertaining? Not a chance. I'm saddened in myself that I responded out of basal instincts. There are parts of me that want to help the uneducated and unexposed to not feed the troll, but I failed.

"Give me a reason to believe his ideas are those of a fool" I'm not well versed in the terminology of debate, so I can't succinctly define it for you. But it is clearly obvious that the claims are foolish and without foundation. Go through the copious amounts of LT threads/posts over the last year alone, and it should be obvious there is nothing but building a case in the clouds, without a foundation attached to the ground. The condescension is not just because he is simply an a$$, but it is a fundamental part of maintaining an egotistical illusion of superiority and deflecting legitimate questioning. He wants to play in the ethereal where nothing can truly be contested, and refuses to engage in reality where discussions of fact and hypothesis can be delineated.

The greatest prophet of all time is of zero use to anyone if that person cannot convey their message. The manner of approach is not only counterproductive, it's damaging to the cause. If I were a researcher on these topics, and I became aware of LTs antics on here, I would cut all ties with him in a heartbeat. He is most clearly a self-serving egotistical fool without a solid foundation to build his case. You can know you are following a fool by examining his foolishness.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Now because you have a friend in the wild sheep foundation, you can imply that CWD reduced numbers in the early '80s and '90s. :mrgreen: but not now?

CWD has not been a concern in bighorns, the over riding pathogen has been pneumonia die offs since the early 1990s. Again this so fundamental, you make my points for me. 

Bighorn numbers have declined by as much as 70% in many herds across the West, with many native herds disappearing completely. :shock:

Communication and respect? From you :mrgreen: You have me rolling today Mr. parrot.


----------



## Charina (Aug 16, 2011)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> I actually pity you. With all of your knowledge you could do so much more if you had the true desire to make a difference. The basics lie in communication and respect.


 Amen! I regret even beginning to intimate that path in this post. I have had lots of pity in the past. I legitimately, with respect and concern, tried to help improve the trajectory of the conversations. And it all eventually turned to ad hominem as his savior.

Barney Frank once stated: "Trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table. I have no interest in doing it." In relation to EVERY LT thread, I think arguing with a dining room table would be preferable.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Lonetree said:


> Now because you have a friend in the wild sheep foundation, you can imply that CWD reduced numbers in the early '80s and '90s. :mrgreen: but not now?
> 
> CWD has not been a concern in bighorns, the over riding pathogen has been pneumonia die offs since the early 1990s. Again this so fundamental, you make my points for me.
> 
> ...


I am so glad that I have learned to expect nothing more than nothing from you.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Charina said:


> W2U, it has never gotten as far as needing a solid countering the ethereal propositions. For quite a while, requests have been made for what would be the most basic and fundamental supporting data and research. Stuff that would be foundational to the building of any claim such as this (this latest iteration, as well as prior iterations).
> 
> Time and time again, even in this thread (although to a lesser extent here than in the numerous other threads), the support is not brought forth in responses to legitimate requests. Rather, the requestor is belittled with personal attacks, claiming they are 'stupid' for asking for such foundational support, and LT retreats to the ethereal hypothesis that, by their nature, are neither supportable, nor refutable. They are hypothesis, not theories, and not established facts.
> 
> ...


Challenge: Spend a day or two in the field with me, ask anything you want, and then try to repeat your blathering.

You have offered far less substantiation than most here. Try the subject matter, if you can.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

blathering...............hahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahha

does anybody else sense Lonetree replying to himself 5 times in row again?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> I am so glad that I have learned to expect nothing more than nothing from you.


 Brent, we pared this down to some basic trends, and very simple concepts, yet here you are, with all your communication skills and respect, chastising me about mine.

Bighorn numbers across the West are down, does not matter if you have a friend from high school.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Lonetree said:


> You did not present any facts. It is about actual exposure, and the resulting declines, which you or anyone else has yet to disprove.
> 
> You look at a Western decline, you look at the symptoms and conditions leading up to the decline and subsequent suppression, and you see things that have been shown to be caused by pesticides, so you look for pesticide use, and viola, its on their winter ranges, its through their summer ranges, the increased use in the late '80s and early '90s correlates to the declines.
> 
> ...


You typically refuse to accept indisputable facts and call BS on everyone who disagrees with you and your unproven and outright disproven theories so to you I say, blank you and the horse your rode in on. Have a rotten day! I am tired of your lies and bull crap you spew on here when I have proven much of what you say wrong every step of the way. I don't care who or what you are I know most of what you put on here is pure unadulterated garbage without any shred of credible proof. End of discussion. Your theories on selenium fall flat as do your theories on pesticide and herbicides. I've proven it over and over. I couldn't care less about your supposed education either.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> blathering...............hahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahha
> 
> does anybody else sense Lonetree replying to himself 5 times in row again?


 All this, because you guys don't grasp the basics, then get but hurt when you get served.

Bighorn numbers are down across the West, CWD has never been a significant concern of any kind in bighorn sheep.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

LostLouisianian said:


> Your theories on selenium fall flat as do your theories on pesticide and herbicides. I've proven it over and over. I couldn't care less about your supposed education either.


I guess I'll play the fool....honest question, though: Where? Could you show me where you have done this?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

LostLouisianian said:


> You typically refuse to accept indisputable facts and call BS on everyone who disagrees with you and your unproven and outright disproven theories so to you I say, blank you and the horse your rode in on. Have a rotten day! I am tired of your lies and bull crap you spew on here when I have proven much of what you say wrong every step of the way. I don't care who or what you are I know most of what you put on here is pure unadulterated garbage without any shred of credible proof. End of discussion. Your theories on selenium fall flat as do your theories on pesticide and herbicides. I've proven it over and over. I couldn't care less about your supposed education either.


 I'm not the guy lying about having a biology degree, that's you.

You have never dismantled a single selenium deficiency claim. You would have to disprove 100 other peoples work to discredit me. You could not do that with one.

Disprove any of this:

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70021454

http://media.nwsgc.org/proceedings/NWSGC-2002/2002-Hnilicka et al.pdf

http://deerlab.org/othercervids.html


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Lonetree said:


> Brent, we pared this down to some basic trends, and very simple concepts, yet here you are, with all your communication skills and respect, chastising me about mine.
> 
> Bighorn numbers across the West are down, does not matter if you have a friend from high school.


What are the populations in total? Then and now? Show us the back up. Learn me up. I have zero problem learning something knew. If you are correct, then you are correct.

Somebody once said "saying so doesn't make it true"

must have been blather but I bought into the theory.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Some basics on bighorn numbers: http://www.idahowildsheep.org/big_horn_sheep_decline.htm

Note the prognathia in the bighorn pictured in the upper left, kind of ironic.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Here is the most recent: http://www.pentictonwesternnews.com/news/291750721.html

Edit: WRT to the mite induced mange. They see something very similar on coastal blacktails in OR and WA suffering from copper and selenium deficiencies. And several ungulate species have been shown to exhibit very high tick loads when in decline, and suffering mineral deficiencies.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

read both of the articles before you even posted them. Read them again afterwards.

NOTHING in there about overall numbers of sheep in the 80's or 90's

*Idaho's bighorn population trends compared to other surrounding states:*

Washington: all native populations lost by 1917 - current population estimate: _1,500_
Oregon: all native populations lost by 1945 - current population estimate: 4,000
Nevada: only 700-1000 remaining by late 1940's - current population estimate: 10,000
Utah: less than 100 remaining by 1930 - current population estimate: 5,000
Wyoming: less than 1,000 by 1900 - current population estimate: 6,400
Montana: 1200 bighorns in 1950 - current population estimate: 5,000
Idaho: a few hundred bighorn in 1914 - current population estimate: 3,000

They are definitely doing better overall than they once were though.

Now how about providing something that backs up your claim.

Once again............overall population now versus the 80s and 90s


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> read both of the articles before you even posted them. Read them again afterwards.
> 
> NOTHING in there about overall numbers of sheep in the 80's or 90's
> 
> ...


 :mrgreen: Yeah better than 100 years ago, same can be said for deer and moose, its a false argument that ignores the realities of the last 20 years.

That reality is a trend line that has been pointing down, very down.

Squirm all you want, your dislike of me, which drives your ridiculous twists ands turns on this subject is to your detriment, not mine.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Show me that the vast majority of herds have not seriously declined in the last 20 years I provided many specific examples, and numbers. 

Changing the context does not change the facts.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Lonetree said:


> :mrgreen: Yeah better than 100 years ago, same can be said for deer and moose, its a false argument that ignores the realities of the last 20 years.
> 
> That reality is a trend line that has been pointing down, very down.
> 
> Squirm all you want, your dislike of me, which drives your ridiculous twists ands turns on this subject is to your detriment, not mine.


ONCE AGAIN 80'S AND 90'S!

No need to deflect or get personal. Stay on point.

It's basic........... population then.........population now.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Whiskey mountain herd: 50%+ decline in the last 20 years

Provo peak herd: 70%+ decline

Yakima herd: 50%+ decline

Hells canyon herd: 50%+ decline

Golsin herd: destroyed

Santa Catalina herd: extirpated

Hart mountain herd 50%+ declines

etc. etc. etc


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

When you can substantiate your claim let us know..........

anybody up for a breath holding contest?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

And this is just the basics, of the big picture, we have not got down to the cellular lever, and how it relates, or that the sky is blue.

But if I say it, there will be some that will immediately take a knife to their face. :mrgreen: Fine by me, my nose is still well situated.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

yep it's in the same place as 1-I's


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Shooting fish in a barrel is almost as fun as hunting.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> When you can substantiate your claim let us know..........
> 
> anybody up for a breath holding contest?


 Whiskey mountain: http://www.wyomingnews.com/articles/2007/11/23/outdoors/1_out_11-21-07.txt#.VPdM9ek5CM8

Prove Peak: http://www.wildsheepfoundation.org/Page.php/News/73/1233468000-1235797200

Goslin, and a "few" others: http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2010...marizes-pneumonia-outbreaks-in-bighorn-sheep/

Santa Catalina herd: www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_rm/rm_gtr264/rm_gtr264_245_250.pdf

Anaconda: http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/article_2467d20a-fc63-11e0-9d2b-001cc4c03286.html


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Shooting fish in a barrel is almost as fun as hunting.


 :mrgreen: you should try it some time, 1-I doesn't count.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Okay

Last time...........

total numbers 80s and 90's in the U.S.............total numbers now in the U.S.

oooorrrrrrrrrrr.............

You can simply say that you don't have or can not find that information.

Multiple choice works better for some.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

If you are so intelligent, you google it for us.

Then tell us about he CWD outbreak in sheep in the '80s and '90s :mrgreen:


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Context: Deer have increased over the last several years, this does not mean they have "recovered". 

The vast majority of sheep increases have been because of transplant efforts. None of that negates the declines and the cause of those declines. Just like with our deer, the over all trend line is still down, with wide spread issues driving that trend.

As much as anyone here does not like reality, you can't change it, unless you understand it.

We have more moose than 100 years ago, some one break out the Champaign!


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

-_O- 

now that was predictable. Checkmate.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> -_O-
> 
> now that was predictable. Checkmate.


No, you have provided no information within the context of early 1990s declines, I have, you have only asserted that what I have said, and all the information I have posted is not true.

We are not laughing with you.

I posted volumes of information, that included numbers, on bighorn declines over the last 20 years. You provided numbers from much further back, which if I went further back could bolster my claim as well, I won't play that game of semantics.

Then you try to assert something about Chronic wasting disease and bighorns, because you "know someone", when you don't know what a prion is, or how it relates to the subject matter at hand.

Like I said this is the basic stuff, we have not even got into the etiology of these declines.

Talk about predictable.

I'll give you the same challenge as Charina, and raise the stakes, multiday trip, field and in my "office", then we'll meet with actual biologists and wildlife researchers(when convenient for them, travel required), and you can tell them that they are full of ****. I have, on a few levels, you won't hold up like I did.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Look on the bright side, there are quite a few that are glad its you on point right now, and not them. Way to take one for the "team".


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Yep. It is pure pity I feel you. 

Until next time............:^8^:


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Anyone think they can dismantle the etiology of pesticide induced declines, on a case by case basis, and then expand it out to all of the Western United states?

You have to not only disprove the declines, you have to disprove selenium deficiencies as well.........


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

This kind of stuff reminds me of court drug treatment programs. 

They have all kinds of studies to show their effectiveness and justify their existence. They need them to secure funding. It's total BS though. These studies are commissioned and conducted by themselves. They cook the numbers to achieve the desired narrative. Problem is nobody else has the resources authority or interest to counter these studies.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Yep. It is pure pity I feel you.
> 
> Until next time............:^8^:


Nana, nana, neener.......

How apropos, it sums you up quite well, no substance, except whats in your blood stream.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> This kind of stuff reminds me of court drug treatment programs.
> 
> They have all kinds of studies to show their effectiveness and justify their existence. They need them to secure funding. It's total BS though. These studies are commissioned and conducted by themselves. They cook the numbers to achieve the desired narrative. Problem is nobody else has the resources authority or interest to counter these studies.


That's one of the best conspiracy theories I have ever heard. Explain my $0 studies, you can't follow my money, it does not exist.

It does not take money, it takes initiative, and intelligence. Tell me how all these scientists, are colluding with each other, around the globe, getting similar, but many times contradictory results, many times disproving themselves.

That's classic, but I have tinfoil on my head?

Hit the actual substance, I set out to refute some of these things, I did on some counts, while many have held quite firm, after being reevaluated by many people, most of them strangers to each other.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

I do have to give you credit Iron Bear, for including toxicology and intoxication in your post, and not in the same way as Muleskinner.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Anyone think they can dismantle the etiology of pesticide induced declines, on a case by case basis, and then expand it out to all of the Western United states?

You have to not only disprove the declines, you have to disprove selenium deficiencies as well.........

This is a little harder than bighorn and antelope declines.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

So, no ones up for a field trip.........? 

Funny how things always change when the rubber actually hits the road.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy (Nov 14, 2008)

Wow while some of us had to work looks like others spent the day online. 

Back to the original point of this post 15 pages ago.

I think we will have more tags for deer this year and better numbers. Just watched the weather and Mr. Sterling Poulsen forecast was for above average precipitation the next 90 days. We are on the downhill side of winter so the temperatures should not be to bad. With good precip the ranges should be good for growing nice fat bucks with big antlers.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

:mrgreen: That wasn't the original topic, but oh well. 

I work seven days a week.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy (Nov 14, 2008)

Did anyone post about kittens yet? They are young cats.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Lately much ? sense make


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

What was the point of your OP again?
I did like your diagram though, that was pretty cool but I could have understood it a little better if it was drawn in crayon.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

ridgetop said:


> What was the point of your OP again?
> I did like your diagram though, that was pretty cool but I could have understood it a little better if it was drawn in crayon.


I have a picture of the original on the dry erase board if that helps, it looks like a 10 year old was up all night on meth mapping the universe with a crayon.

Even I wasn't sure what I was looking at the next morning.


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

:noidea:Well,Im confused.


----------

