# How cold is too cold for deer?



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

What temps start to wear on deer and elk as the winter starts to take hold? Snow storms seem to be rolling through more this year so far. Next week we're supposed to see single digits at night.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Elk can take about anything temp wise. 
Deer, generally can take 45 days of extra cold weather if fat storage is good.

It looks to me this El nino set up is perfect! 

Extra moisture plus warmer temps throughput the winter will be the perfect combo.


----------



## c3hammer (Nov 1, 2009)

Super cold temps aren't as much of a deal as wet and cold. Deer survive in -20 deg F all the time up in Montana and Wyoming. Dry cold snow is actually a very good insulator for the deer. It's that warm, then wet, then cold in the springs when their reserves are at the lowest point that cause most of the die offs.

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

What gets'em is a big heavy deep wet snow that freezes down hard that they cant dig through for forage. Even worse with a few more storms of deep snow on top of that.

If they can pick and choose some food through the winter, the less reliant on fat they are for fuel... fat can then be used for insulation.

-DallanC


----------



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

So far we seem to be in decent condition. There is decent snow up high for mid November from the last couple storms. It was wet all summer, and the winter ranges where I am at least are burning off with snow in-between the storms at this point. There is a storm in the forecast for next week that is going to drop temps fairly low, no negatives yet though. I was just wondering what the thoughts were on this early snow and topping it with cold so soon in the winter. The last few years have been pretty dismal snowfall and if this wet cycle continues, which it is supposed to at this point, we've been getting about a storm a week.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

1-I

It is not really about the temps, but rather the health of the animals in question. Some of the healthiest bighorn sheep in the lower 48 are in the Tetons, and spend most of their time very high, sustaining 30 plus days at -25*F at a time. 

Now if you have something like a metabolic disorder, like with copper and selenium deficient animals, then lower temps will take a disproportionate toll. In the case of animals with copper deficiencies, you are looking at animals that are in various states of wasting, with very inefficient metabolisms. These animals require more nutrition than other animals to keep going. They have to feed more, and feed longer, which takes it's toll on them. If this occurs on marginal winter range, the problem is exacerbated. 

Temperature in mammals is regulated by the thyroid. Animals that have disrupted thyroids suffer from varying degrees of selenium deficiencies, because selenium and iodine regulate thyroid function. So as the temps drop, the thyroid has to work harder to keep an animal warm, depleting selenium levels further. Animals with selenium deficiencies have much lower tolerances of cold. So an animal that is marginally deficient may come out of a cold winter further depleted. With females this has additional disproportionate affects because of the need for now depleted trace minerals they need for nursing. And with thyroid levels in postpartum females all over the place, further thyroid disruption predisposes to future thyroid disease. couple wet conditions that reduce redux potential in the soil, reducing trace minerals and it gets even worse come spring.

Which brings us to Goofy and El Nino:

This is exactly why this El Nino could spell disaster. This one has the same pattern, but with increased intensity from the 1983 and 1998 El Ninos. For those that need some refreshing, 1983 decimated deer populations with deep heavy, sustained snow, and the 1998 El Nino helped push the deer trend line further down for the next 5-6 years. And then you have the rare rapid succession of of El Ninos in '91-'95 that contributed to some of the most marked declines in Biggame we have seen in North America. As individual events they were smaller, but they fell one on top of the other. With the exception of 1983, we have seen sustained suppression of herds, particularly with deer, with some of this being regionally driven. 

And this can cut several ways, if we don't see really heavy snows that bring animals to lower elevations, we may well see them stay at higher elevations which could mean colder temperatures, which could have just as much of a detrimental affect as heavy snows given what a lot of our animals look like health wise right now. With a lot of deer and elk, not to mention moose, being in varying states of poor health, a decline will not only be disproportionately large, the resulting lack of rebound will be proportionately similar. Things look a lot like 1991 right now. 

Currently this El Nino is holding to the I-70 split, laying down more snow South of I-70 and East of I-15. With some SnowTel sites recording 250%+ of average snow fall totals out of these last few relatively weak storms. We won't see the full affects of this El Nino until at least mid January, at which point things could get really bad, like in '83 and '98. If the pattern persists into spring, things will get even worse. Wet springs are not productive for biggame. Average winters with wet summers(August monsoons) are the patterns that benefit biggame the most.

Further more, if this thing sort of fizzles but sticks around we have the potential for consecutive El Ninos like we saw from '91-'95, and turned out really well........

If our animals were in optimal health like they were 5+ years ago, then we might expect to see a decline, with a corresponding rebound. But with the condition that many are in right now, we are looking at something more like '91-'95 or '98, or a combination of them.


----------



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

Lonetree said:


> 1-I
> 
> It is not really about the temps, but rather the health of the animals in question. Some of the healthiest bighorn sheep in the lower 48 are in the Tetons, and spend most of their time very high, sustaining 30 plus days at -25*F at a time.
> 
> ...


I really hope we don't see a huge down turn, but at this point with current weather, it has me worried. I'm trying to be optimistic and we are okay for now, I just hope we don't end this winter in disaster.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

I didn't think weather mattered. I thought it was all about coyotes?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I really hope we don't see a huge down turn, but at this point with current weather, it has me worried. I'm trying to be optimistic and we are okay for now, I just hope we don't end this winter in disaster.


It is not a matter of IF, but a question rather of WHEN and HOW drawn out the declines will be. This winter will play a roll, HOW much? We don't know yet, but the potential is huge.

When I say it looks like 1991, I mean that the deer I was looking at in the early 1990s look like the deer I'm looking at right now.



















And it was because of the same reasons back then, as it is now.










In the case of this particular stuff, they end up weak or deformed on the right side. This stuff(Acrolein) reduces glutathione and catalase activity, increasing selenium-glutathione peroxidase levels, depleting selenium levels and inducing thyroid disruption. With the resulting Sonic hedge hog gene(SHH) mutations reliably affecting right side midline morphology. They put this stuff in irrigation ditches. It is responsible for massive fish die offs in the Cub river and elsewhere. Deer that have access to treated water have suffered massive declines, and had their numbers suppressed. Wintering herds of 700-1000 have been reduced to ~100.

Acrolein and glutathione: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1383571899000522


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

PBH said:


> I didn't think weather mattered. I thought it was all about coyotes?


Well that and we have too many hunters........


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

According to the last estimates I saw, hunters kill less deer than predators (mountain lions particularly) and by some estimates also less deer than automobiles. According to the biologists, this year the deer count was up pretty good over the last few years. I guess come March and April we'll have a good idea of how the winter was and how the deer herd fared. But it is fun to conjecture... ;-)


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

LostLouisianian said:


> According to the last estimates I saw, hunters kill less deer than predators (mountain lions particularly) and by some estimates also less deer than automobiles. According to the biologists, this year the deer count was up pretty good over the last few years. I guess come March and April we'll have a good idea of how the winter was and how the deer herd fared. But it is fun to conjecture... ;-)


And of course this is the best you can come up with. I am lining up hunters to take a few of these deer. If it works out, I'll have their livers assayed, any bets on what the copper and selenium levels will look like?


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

LT. That's meaningless unless you can compare it to the same data from previous years and decades. Of course I'm sure you'll disagree with that but so be it.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

LostLouisianian said:


> LT. That's meaningless unless you can compare it to the same data from previous years and decades. Of course I'm sure you'll disagree with that but so be it.


No, its not meaningless, there is an acceptable range that it should fall into. This is based on quite literally millions of tests conducted on livestock and wildlife over many decades. Copper should be somewhere between 15-140 mg/kg and selenium should be .2-1.1 Depending on what you look at, those selenium numbers could vary more, and may need to be higher. Regardless, this is some very basic stuff, and there are plenty of cases to reference.

Like I said, very basic stuff.

Why don't you get some of those unnamed "biologists" you always reference to counter any of this point for point, with an emphasis on the bio chemistry.

And while you are at it, explain why everything that has declined so sharply in the last 20-30 years is suffering from these deficiencies. It is multiple species, in every Western state, for the last 30+ years. You can't say they aren't, it is very well documented, over and over again.


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

Deer can handle the cold temperatures, a biologist friend once told me, and they can handle deep snow. But prolonged periods of both at the same time is the makings for a dramatic population crash.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

There aren't massive declines. Secondly I have asked you at least 50 times for the same data for the last 100 years on a 5 or 10 year sample cycle yet you continually REFUSE to provide the data. You have yet to show any data that says these same conditions didn't exist 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100 and so on years ago. If you are unable to see the relevance of that data then I can't help it. That's your problem not mine.


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

Is it just me, or don't you two guys like each other?:fencing:


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

LostLouisianian said:


> There aren't massive declines. Secondly I have asked you at least 50 times for the same data for the last 100 years on a 5 or 10 year sample cycle yet you continually REFUSE to provide the data. You have yet to show any data that says these same conditions didn't exist 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100 and so on years ago. If you are unable to see the relevance of that data then I can't help it. That's your problem not mine.


You are as usual fundamentally NOT understanding the information or context. You have asked multiple times for SOIL numbers, which vary widely from region to region and only play a small role in any of this. They only play a role when animals are already deficient. The deficiencies are NOT CAUSED by a lack of selenium in the soil or diet, that only complicate the root problem of animals that are selenium deficient.

The selenium deficiencies that these animals are suffering from, are created by two different means. One being the exertion and depletion of reserves because they are used up in biological processes within the animal. For example the before mentioned ingestion of the biocide Acrolein which depletes glutathione and selenium. The second is a sort of chicken and egg scenario, that can be brought on by the before mentioned ingestion of poison, where thyroid disruption has occurred which further drives the depletion of of selenium.

The copper and selenium deficiencies we see in big game are a matter of endocrinology and biochemistry, brought on by environmental factors. But not the environmental factors that everyone seems to think, like soil and plant bioavailability. They are driven by the pesticides applied to their environment. Which is why you see these issues, guess where.......In areas where there have been pesticides applied.

It does not work the way you think.

Secondly, the time frame corresponds with uses, advent, and increase use of compounds which create these issues. This reaches back into the '40s, but with real noticeable affects showing up by the sixties, read this for reference on the way some of this was playing out as chemical companies were looking for new markets after the Vietnam war: http://www.researchgate.net/publica..._in_Columbian_black-tailed_deer_in_California

As for being in a decline, we are headed into a decline after a small uptick the last several years. The trend line for the last 40 years is down across the West, and has remained very suppressed following the sharp declines of the the 1990s.

We are seeing all of the same things right now that we saw leading up to, during, and after the early '90s declines. This includes high rates of malformed animals, and mineral deficiencies. Are you going to tell me that antelope, deer, bighorn sheep, and moose were not documented to be copper and selenium deficient across the West 20 years ago? Are you going to tell me that's not the case right now? Or that the increase in CWD we are seeing now is not related to rise and spread we experienced 20 years ago?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Can anyone explain why these guys are spending so much money, if everything is doing so good? You know, "no massive declines" like Lost says http://blog.eastmans.com/wyoming-mule-deer-need-your-help/

They are barking up all the wrong trees as usual, but at least they see what has been going on for decades unlike some people.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Dunkem said:


> Is it just me, or don't you two guys like each other?:fencing:


It has nothing to do with not liking him. It is however a matter of not liking the way he assumes that everyone else, including myself, operates like him, just making **** up as he goes without the consonants even supporting the vowels he types.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

The issue for him is I have the college degrees in the subject matter and over 15 years of actual paid field experience and all he has is a PhD in Google. I'm asking for relevant data that would prove or disprove his theories. He knows that data will disprove his theory so he resorts to personal attacks to derail the discussion. This is the precise reason why biologists walked out of the room on his last "presentation". He has even gone so far as to say on this very forum that if he didn't like the factually proven data that the data was therefore wrong


----------



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

LostLouisianian said:


> The issue for him is I have the college degrees in the subject matter and over 15 years of actual paid field experience and all he has is a PhD in Google. I'm asking for relevant data that would prove or disprove his theories. He knows that data will disprove his theory so he resorts to personal attacks to derail the discussion. This is the precise reason why biologists walked out of the room on his last "presentation". He has even gone so far as to say on this very forum that if he didn't like the factually proven data that the data was therefore wrong


Can I just ask you what Lonetree has to gain from this personally? If it's more wildlife I'm all for that. I have read a lot of what he has posted and the studies he has pointed to. There are a million factors affecting our wildlife in one way or another. Some of them have bigger affects and more large scale affects than others. I think denying deadly chemicals could be disrupting proper development, survival, and reproduction is a blind ride. We've been flying this blind ride and if not for a few extremely favorable weather years in Utah, we would be experiencing the same downturns as mule deer are seeing in other states. Is their a variety of factors and problems? Yes. Have we really gotten very far with wildlife in the last couple decades? For the moment we can say yes because of a short and small rebound, but how long will this minor hill in the graph last? Mule deer populations have seen small spikes in perfect situations, but continue to have shorter lived rebounds and end up back where we started. If we see a major crash over the next few years I hope you can explain the question of why. I read an article in RMEF about mule deer and it explained how wildlife managers can't seem to figure the mule deer out. Like a roller coaster you see peaks and sharp drop offs. Then smaller peaks until the ride finally levels out and ends. We're on that roller coaster and haven't figured out what comes next, I hope it isn't the end of the track.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Copper deficiencies in diabetes, and other metabolic disorders:
The interrelationship of copper and insulin: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6344092

Copper deficient elk: http://jwildlifedis.org/doi/pdf/10.7589/0090-3558-24.4.656

Copper deficient diabetic moose: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10813452

Pesticides connected to diabetes: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/257045.php

Pesticides and diabetes, note these people were not eating them like the deer do: http://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/long-term-pesticide-exposure-may-increase-risk-diabetes

Copper and diabetes: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22828546

Copper deficient antelope: http://www.azgfd.gov/pdfs/w_c/research/antelope_study_plan.pdf

Copper deficient elk: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17347394

Copper deficient deer and DNA abnormalities: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021997596800508

Copper deficiency in deer with access to adequate copper/slat licks: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18447913

Se and copper deficient antelope: http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70021454

Se deficient bighorn sheep: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10344-007-0128-9

Se deficient deer: http://deerlab.org/Publ/pdfs/23.pdf

Se and Cu deficient elk: http://jongosch.com/local-farriers-research-connects-herbicides-to-hoof-disease-in-elk-horses/

Se and Cu deficient deer: http://www.researchgate.net/publica...natomical_anomalies_in_Hanford_Site_mule_deer

Se and Cu deficient moose: http://sfw.net/2014/03/07/utah-dwrusu-moose-study-report/


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

LostLouisianian said:


> The issue for him is I have the college degrees in the subject matter and over 15 years of actual paid field experience and all he has is a PhD in Google. I'm asking for relevant data that would prove or disprove his theories. He knows that data will disprove his theory so he resorts to personal attacks to derail the discussion. This is the precise reason why biologists walked out of the room on his last "presentation". He has even gone so far as to say on this very forum that if he didn't like the factually proven data that the data was therefore wrong


The guy that supposedly has the college degrees and field experience, can not grasp the basics of normal reference concentrations for mineral concentrations in animals, but he can disprove what I'm saying :mrgreen: Like I said it does not get anymore basic than this.

The same guy that can't provide a single piece of anything to support anything he claims.

Here is the "theory": Pesticides induce metabolic disorders and mineral deficiencies, with either leading to the other. The results of this are declined populations, malformations, reduced reproduction, suppressed populations, etc, etc. Dismantle it! Explain how this can't possibly be the case. I have provided plenty of explanation as to how this plays out scientifically, and provided reams of reference material. Explain to everyone how this is scientifically not possible.

Explain how pesticides can't cause thyroid disorders and diabetes?

Explain to us how thyroid disorders and diabetes don't cause, are not caused, and are not associated with mineral deficiencies, specifically Selenium, copper, magnesium and cobalt.

Then explain how thyroid disease does not affect the sexual dymorphism, and the balancing of lateral mid line development of fetuses?

Then explain away the exponential increase in pesticide use over the past 40 years, and the corresponding mineral deficiencies seen in wildlife, over the same time period?

At a minimum, explain all the Cu and Se deficiencies seen in Western Wildlife over the last 30 years......?

YOU can't do it.........


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)




----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

The real question might be, how cold is too cold to take pictures of deer balls?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Jedidiah said:


> The real question might be, how cold is too cold to take pictures of deer balls?


:mrgreen: And to catch more of the "It would be funny, but....." comedy tour, check the schedule here: http://wildlife.utah.gov/board-rac.html


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

So we have established that pesticides can cause thyroid disease, and diabetes.

We have also established that thyroid conditions and diabetes have very interrelated roles with copper and selenium. With thyroid conditions driving and being driven by selenium deficiencies. While diabetes is associated with copper deficiencies. We have overlap among all of this, as both conditions are autoimmune, and metabolism rooted conditions.

We have also seen that during and after big game population declines, we see copper and selenium deficiencies in these animals, along with other related mineral deficiencies such as cobalt(B12) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18655403 and magnesium.

Enter CWD: So CWD had been known in Colorado since the late 1960's, when deer populations first entered free fall. But the spread and increase of cases was slow until the late 1980's/early 1990's, when it became a much bigger problem than it had been in the past. Just like back then, we are now seeing increases in cases of CWD, and we are seeing CWD in places we have not seen it before.

Copper, Prions, and CWD: So CWD is a "transmissible spongiform encephalopathy". It is wasting condition affecting cervids. CWD has a shared etiology with other conditions such as diabtes, ALS, and other metabolic/autoimmune/degenerative conditions http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21571086 where the aggregation of misfolded proteins are at the root of the condition/disease.

The biggest difference with CWD is that its misfolded proteins, known as Prions are infectious, and the condition can be spread from one individual to another.

But the similarities at a certain level are striking. Especially between Diabetes and CWD as they share many of the same features, AND TSE's like CWD can be misdiagnosed as metabolic disorders like diabetes. From this: http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/15/9/09-0253_article

"However, if CWD in humans appears like a wasting syndrome similar to that observed in the squirrel monkeys in our study, affected persons might receive a diagnosis of a metabolic disorder and never be tested for TSE."

The copper connection: http://www.copper.org/publications/newsletters/innovations/2001/12/mad-cow.html So infectious prions share misfolding with diabetes, and they also have a shared role of copper deficiency. Prions are copper binding proteins that can bind to several copper molecules. Infectious misfolded prions are copper deficient, and have had those copper receptors replaced with manganese. Copper deficient misfolded prions are not infectious, IF their copper receptors have not been filled by manganese. Therefor you need two thing to occur to predispose for initiation, and therefor increased transmission. One is copper deficiency like is associated with many metabolic disorders, and second is an increase manganese to fill the voids left because of copper deficiencies.

CWD, Manganese, and magnesium: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2801312/

So if you apply a herbicide like a sulfonylurea or Amidazolinone which can biochemically induce insulin resistance in mammals and therefor lead to diabetes, and therefor copper deficiency. You have the makings for part of this. In many areas that have experienced big game declines in association with copper deficiencies, herbicides in the Sulfonylurea and Amidazolinone classes have been documented to have been used.

So if you are half way there, and all you need is more manganese, how does that happen? Well one way would be if the area is naturally high in manganese like the area around Fort Collins CO where CWD was first discovered in North America. The other way would be by chemical means. If you use a herbicide like Tebuthiuron to take off sagebrush, then you would see the following plants that are grown in this area have an increased manganese content for as long as a decade after. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3986813?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Not only will the manganese content be higher, animals will preferentially eat these plants.

So what do you think would happen if you used large amounts of Imazapic(An Amidazolinone) and large quantities of Tebuthiuron in the same area? Well, I'd bet on the potential for CWD.

Now guys like Lost will tell you that I can't prove this, and I just read some stuff on the internet. So lets step back and look at what animals that have frequented a real life place where tens of thousands of acres were treated with Imazapic and Tebuthiuron. While you can't look at them and make a CWD diagnosis, they do have malformed antlers like are seen in copper deficient animals: http://jwildlifedis.org/doi/pdf/10.7589/0090-3558-24.4.656

And they now have access to plants with higher concentrations of manganese, that are shown to be preferred by animals.



















Lost can probably explain it better as he has "degrees and 15 years of field experience". Though he should probably start with an explanation of why he does not understand "normal reference concentrations" as they pertain to mineral concentrations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_range This is how those look with HIGH levels of selenium http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3003580/table/t1-cvj_01_70/ If an animal was deficient or high in selenium in 1960, or 2015, it would chart against the same "reference values" You would think that a guy with degrees in the field would understand this. Or maybe that's the problem, maybe people with degrees, like Lost, are just that,.....well,....Lost, yet leading the charge on the past 20 years of failed attempts at "wildlife management".


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

How cold is too cold for deer? 

Duration humidity wind snow depth all important factors. Like mentioned also deer up north manage cold temps. Canada? 

Surprise! I think it matters what the predators are doing. I'm certain that a deer being chased by a cougar or coyote is burning more calories then a deer that has never seen a cougar and rarely seen a coyote. Of coarse there is middle ground. But the mere presence of predators leads to a more alert more stressed deer or elk. 

Something completely denied in the deer body fat winter survival assessments. 

But we easily identify shed hunters as problems because they make deer run when they look for horn. 

As for pesticides I'm not at all in disagreement that pesticides are negative to life in general. All forms. But I question to what degree they are the cause of all ills wildlife. Simply based on the fact it's not constant. Some critters are thriving these days some aren't. Some areas better than others. Some areas totally void of pesticides aren't booming with game while some areas that pesticides are doing well. And why don't pesticides decimate predators.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> How cold is too cold for deer?
> 
> Duration humidity wind snow depth all important factors. Like mentioned also deer up north manage cold temps. Canada?
> 
> ...


:mrgreen: And you have studied areas with and without pesticides? Are you seeing any trends in areas where certain kinds of pesticides are being used? Maybe you could expound upon your observations.

As for cold and winter, yes winter conditions will affect predation. Movement and ease of movement, ie. snow depth will play a huge role in this. But ultimately it is the health of these animals heading into winter that plays the biggest role in how they will emerge from winter after facing cold, snow, predators, etc.

And it has been shown over and over again in declining big game populations that are suffering from poor health, and are afflicted with conditions, and mineral deficiencies(very well documented stuff) that they will not fair well when faced with excessive cold, snow and predation.

Everyone always says we can't do anything about the weather, but you can shoot predators, which has been done and has been studied. It has been shown that reducing predators does not increase long term survival, or increase population numbers though. So......what is the best bet for getting more deer through the winter, and past the predators?.......Make sure they are healthy.

So looking at declines and suppression of populations we see several health factors play in, and they include mineral deficiencies and other health conditions over and over again.

Predator reduction has been studied to death, and the results keep showing essentially the same thing, there is no gain in big game populations.

Examples: Declining Whiskey mountain big horn sheep are shown to be selenium deficient. As their health declines, predation increases. So they implement predator control, but the population continues to decline. Why? becasue it was a health issue, not a predator problem.

Declining deer and antelope with copper deficiencies at Hart Mountain were experiencing increased predation(and predator populations) as their populations collapsed, so it was proposed to implement a large scale predator control program. This proved to be controversial so it was cancelled. Guess what happened with the deer and antelope? The population stabilized and experienced an modest increase, in the face of increased predation. Why, becasue it was a health problem not predator problem.

In the late 1930s Yellowstone mule deer were in extreme decline, they faced competition from elk, and range conditions were poor. Because of budgetary limitations(depression) predator control was halted, and coyote numbers increased. So what do you think happened to the deer? That's right they doubled their population in 4 years. Why?, because what ever was driving their declines and suppression, was not predator related. I don't have the full picture on this yet, but the use of chemicals for "conservation" purposes in Yellowstone was massive in the 1920s.



















The above pictures are of lead arsenate being sprayed on spruce in and near Yellowstone in the late 1920s, early 1930s.

Iron Bear how do we address these documented realities?


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

Getting back to the weather for a second...

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), says most of the state is still below normal for the water year, which began October 1. The southeastern quadrant of the state appears to be in good shape, but the crucial central mountain ranges and the Uintas aren't fairing nearly as well.

We're still early in the year, though, and the trend is looking wetter than the past few years. Honestly, though, there's rarely a happy medium. It's either too wet, too dry, too cold, too warm, floods or drought. Maybe this year, we'll land somewhere in the average zone - at least I'm hoping so.

Here's a screen capture from today (Nov. 20). I've drawn in the Utah outline.

http://1.usa.gov/1QCxCzV










Now back to the enlightening and highly entertaining disagreements over pesticides, herbicides, prion proteins and trace minerals... ;-)


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

HunterGeek said:


> Getting back to the weather for a second...
> 
> The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), says most of the state is still below normal for the water year, which began October 1. The southeastern quadrant of the state appears to be in good shape, but the crucial central mountain ranges and the Uintas aren't fairing nearly as well.
> 
> ...


I already said that on the first page of this thread, I wrote:

"Currently this El Nino is holding to the I-70 split, laying down more snow South of I-70 and East of I-15. With some SnowTel sites recording 250%+ of average snow fall totals out of these last few relatively weak storms. We won't see the full affects of this El Nino until at least mid January, at which point things could get really bad, like in '83 and '98. If the pattern persists into spring, things will get even worse. Wet springs are not productive for biggame. Average winters with wet summers(August monsoons) are the patterns that benefit biggame the most."

But thanks for the graphic.


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> I already said that on the first page of this thread, I wrote:


Yeah, I know; I read it. Your post is what prompted me to provide evidence backing up your statements.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)




----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

:mrgreen: The guy that can not provide any data, or demonstrate an understanding of "reference". Then goes and posts a picture and quote from a man who is the god father of statistical process control(SPC) which is the analysis of data which includes real time predictive control of future outcomes, based on trending ofhistorical_ reference_ data. This is priceless......

Being a student of Deming's work WRT manufacturing engineering, tooling and processes, you would do good to study the man's work. It revolves around......well, reference.......Thanks for making my night :mrgreen:


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

Lonetree, just an idea but maybe A) there's better places for your Copper-Selenium argument besides this site if you want anything done about it, and B) you wouldn't sound so much like Al Gore giving a presentation about Manbearpig if you didn't get on every discussion that's even remotely related and make it into a personal argument with LL.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Jedidiah said:


> Lonetree, just an idea but maybe A) there's better places for your Copper-Selenium argument besides this site if you want anything done about it, and B) you wouldn't sound so much like Al Gore giving a presentation about Manbearpig if you didn't get on every discussion that's even remotely related and make it into a personal argument with LL.


No one has to read it, many don't actually care about conservation or what makes for good hunting, that's fine, but maybe they should go elsewhere. The subject matter is Utah wildlife hunting related, and this is a _hunting_ site titled _Utah_ _Wildlife_ Network.

I don't start anything with Lost, he comes at me every time, and then just like you is full of nothing but hot air.

Want to add anything substantive about cold or deer?.....maybe hunting?


----------

