# Predator control



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Abstract for "Demographic response of mule deer to experimental reduction of coyotes and mountain lions in southeastern Idaho"

Manipulating predator populations is often posed as a solution to depressed ungulate populations. However, predator-prey dynamics are complex and the effect on prey populations is often an interaction of predator life history, climate, prey density, and habitat quality. The effect of predator removal on ungulate and, more specifically, mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) populations has not been adequately investigated at a management scale. We tested the efficacy of removing coyotes (Canis latrans) and mountain lions (Puma concolor) for increasing survival and population growth rate of mule deer in southeastern Idaho, USA, during 1997-2003. We assigned 8 game management units (GMUs) to treatments under a 2?×?2 factorial design (treatments of coyote removal and lion removal) with 2 replicates of each treatment or reference area combination. We used methods typically available to wildlife managers to achieve predator removals and a combination of extensive and intensive monitoring in these 8 GMUs to test the hypothesis that predator removal increased vital rates and population growth rate of mule deer. We determined effects of predator removal on survival and causes of mortality in 2 intensive study sites, one with coyote and mountain lion removal and one without. We also considered the effects of other variables on survival including lagomorph abundance and climatic conditions. In these 2 intensive study areas, we monitored with radiotelemetry 250 neonates, 284 6-month-old fawns, and 521 adult females. At the extensive scale, we monitored mule deer population trend and December fawn ratios with helicopter surveys. Coyote removal decreased neonate mortality only when deer were apparently needed as alternate prey, thus removal was more effective when lagomorph populations were reduced. The best mortality model of mule deer captured at 6 months of age included summer precipitation, winter precipitation, fawn mass, and mountain lion removal. Over-winter mortality of adult female mule deer decreased with removal of mountain lions. Precipitation variables were included in most competing mortality models for all age classes of mule deer. Mountain lion removal increased fawn ratios and our models predicted fawn ratios would increase 6% at average removal rates (3.53/1,000?km2) and 27% at maximum removal rates (14.18/1,000?km2). Across our extensive set of 8 GMUs, coyote removal had no effect on December fawn ratios. We also detected no strong effect of coyote or mountain lion removal alone on mule deer population trend; the best population-growth-rate model included previous year's mountain lion removal and winter severity, yet explained only 27% of the variance in population growth rate. Winter severity in the current and previous winter was the most important influence on mule deer population growth. The lack of response in fawn ratio or mule deer abundance to coyote reduction at this extensive (landscape) scale suggests that decreased neonate mortality due to coyote removal is partially compensatory. Annual removal of coyotes was not an effective method to increase mule deer populations in Idaho because coyote removal increased radiocollared neonate fawn survival only under particular combinations of prey densities and weather conditions, and the increase did not result in population growth. Coyote-removal programs targeted in areas where mortality of mule deer fawns is known to be additive and coyote-removal conditions are successful may influence mule deer population vital rates but likely will not change direction of population trend. Although mountain lion removal increased mule-deer survival and fawn ratios, we were unable to demonstrate significant changes in population trend with mountain lion removal. *In conclusion, benefits of predator removal appear to be marginal and short term in southeastern Idaho and likely will not appreciably change long-term dynamics of mule deer populations in the intermountain west.*

Abstract for "Effects of large-scale removal of coyotes on pronghorn and mule deer productivity and abundance"

We tested the hypothesis that predation by coyotes (Canis latrans) impacts pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) populations. We did so by examining the effects of coyote removal on pronghorn and mule deer populations within 12 large areas (>10,500?km2) located in Wyoming and Utah during 2007 and 2008. Pronghorn productivity (fawn to adult female ratio) and abundance were positively correlated with the number of coyotes removed and removal effort (hours spent hunting coyotes from aircraft) although the correlation between pronghorn productivity and removal effort was not statistically significant (P?=?0.08). Mule deer productivity and abundance were not correlated with either the number of coyotes removed or removal effort. Coyote removal conducted during the winter and spring provided greater benefit than removals conducted during the prior fall or summer. *Our results suggest that coyote removal conducted over large areas increases fawn survival and abundance of pronghorn but not mule deer*


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

You forgot the most important part

*"In conclusion we also found out our bean/corn models for determining mule deer numbers were off. It appears some of the beans and part of the corn we tossed up in the air that was supposed to fall in the hula hoop fell flew into the grass. Thus counting the beans and corn came up short. "The beans represent bucks and the corn represents does." The end!"* *(())*


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> You forgot the most important part
> 
> *"In conclusion we also found out our bean/corn models for determining mule deer numbers were off. It appears some of the beans and part of the corn we tossed up in the air that was supposed to fall in the hula hoop fell flew into the grass. Thus counting the beans and corn came up short. "The beans represent bucks and the corn represents does." The end!"* *(())*


If you knew what that meant, it may or may not mean something. Have you read any of the Colorado studies that show the same thing as the Idaho and Utah studies? They went one step further, and compared habitat improvement, against failed predator control, habitat was the only thing that increased long term deer numbers. Any guesses on what the biggest influences were on habitat?

Nice distraction from the other thread, were you cant answer the simple question of "how fat was the deer you shot last year?"


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

I guess what im trying to tell you is I don't care what a bunch of environmental's try to tell me about wolves, coyotes, cougars and how they don't affect mule deer or elk. 1080 proved all I need to know about growing deer numbers over their capacity. 

Sure I know its only last as long as you keep killing them. Sure I know it only last as long as the deer don't over populate and eat all there food which is what caused the deer to decline in the first place. 

I know better habitat is the only way to grow more deer numbers and make them more permanent. But you will need more of mother natures help on that end. Maybe all this global warming will increase the rain in the summer and allow more desired plants will grow. Maybe it will warm the winters and increase the rain so the deer don't have to eat forbs and then get the runs when they switch to grasses in the spring. Maybe SFW will set fire to more scrub oak and sage brush and turn it to crab grass and thistle. Who knows? Until then I only want to hunt a socially acceptable hunt with the amount of game animals we have. 

I answered your question on how fat the deer I didn't shoot last year was the best I could.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> I guess what im trying to tell you is I don't care what a bunch of environmental's try to tell me about wolves, coyotes, cougars and how they don't affect mule deer or elk. 1080 proved all I need to know about growing deer numbers over their capacity.
> 
> Sure I know its only last as long as you keep killing them. Sure I know it only last as long as the deer don't over populate and eat all there food which is what caused the deer to decline in the first place.
> 
> ...


1080 may have "worked" in the past, but I would argue that successional habitat changes, and weather played a far greater role. The numbers are pretty compelling. If you look at prehistoric drought numbers for Utah, compiled from tree rings, and cross reference that with the occurrence of deer and Bighorn sheep remains in native American archeological sites, there are trends that show up there also. There was limited data, and it was just a quick peek, but the trend lines correlated statistically.

Considering that predators, despite what some people feel, are not the limiting factor for deer right now. I would argue that 1080 would do nothing for deer. I have probably picked apart 200+ coyote scat in the last 2 years, they are just not the magic bullet.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Funny all the coyote scat i find has deer hair in it!

I'm beginning to think you have alternative motives and actually think coyotes, cougars and wolves will sit around all the abandoned camp fires after the big game hunts and sing kumbaya with each other.
[youtube:h48hbhuo]http://www.youtube.com/v/YGU8_9UuSM4?version=3&hl=en_US[/youtube:h48hbhuo]


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

-oOo- You win for tonight im going to bed.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> Funny all the coyote scat i find has deer hair in it!
> 
> I'm beginning to think you have alternative motives and actually think coyotes, cougars and wolves will sit around all the abandoned camp fires after the big game hunts and sing kumbaya with each other.


Have you ever mapped, dated, and quantified "all" those scats that are full of deer hair? Because, across anything more than a small localized sampling, that is statistically impossible. But you could not know that, because you have obviously never done it.

I already know, you know nothing about biology, but much about things you think have a bearing on it.

Don't forget the bears, with out them the operatic versions are just not the same.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> -oOo- You win for tonight im going to bed.


I got three more hours before bedtime, then its up at 8, later this week?


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> Funny all the coyote scat i find has deer hair in it!


So you've never found coyote scat composed entirely of chokecherry pits, grasshopper parts, rodent fur, or even grass stems?? Or is it that you only see what you want to see? Also, what do you suppose the percentage of the deer hair in coyote scat came from predation and which came from scavenging on an already dead deer?? Now that would be a more relevent statistic.

Sorry SW, but you seem to accuse the "environmentalist" authors of the study of bad science, but aren't you doing the same thing in dismissing any findings that doesn't support your predetermined conclusion??


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

I have never seen berries or choke cherries on the front. Dont see many grasshoppers either. Never see jack rabbits or cotton tails. On a rare occasion you might find one of the hairs that turn white in winter. 

So id say there diet is mainly deer! Whats so hard to believe about that. I don't care if there eating road kill, stillborn's or actual live deer. I'm not lying about deer hair I find in the poop. Its always in it. Same with the lion poop i find. I also never seen lion poop with berries in it. 

Kevin maybe you think there isn't lions on the front. Maybe you think the lions that are on the front don't eat deer and also sing kumbaya with the deer as well. I don't need you or lone tree to convince me they don't eat deer.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

While I have a few minutes.

Poop quiz: How full of hair are the "lion" scat you find?

BTW Cotton tails have been booming on the front for 4 years, basically peaked last year, may be in a crash now. You did not see any? Then again, you think that deer lose weight from summer to fall.

Snow shoe hares are the lagomorphs that you would see on the front, that turn white. And don't forget the black rabbits.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> While I have a few minutes.
> 
> Poop quiz: How full of hair are the "lion" scat you find? Dude I know my poop. The poop is about the size of a dog, has rounded ends and in segments. Its doesnt have much hair in it but the hair it has is deer. Deer hair is very recognizable! Its longer then rabbit. I would think if they were eating cotton tails there poop would have loads of hair and small bones. Nope! The coyote poop I see has more hair in then the lion poop ive found. It always has deer hair in it though.
> 
> ...


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

So lone tree do I know my "s**t or what?"

most of the poop I find is along ridges or near the bottom of cliffs. I sometimes find it near a kill on top of small dirt/grass piles.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

You seem to know your lion ****, I will give you that, and I am honestly impressed. Given what you have thrown out on everything else. Although some of what you describe could also be bobcat.

When coyotes are feeding on gut piles and good meat, its just like with lions, very little hair, they can be picky. Lots of hair IME has been associated with scavenging carcasses, not the act of predation. Why does this matter? It matters because, yes, coyotes eat deer, but what does that really tell us? Does it mean that they are killing all the deer? Or does it mean they are eating well because there are deer carcasses' to scavenge? Deer hair in coyote scat means just that, deer hair in coyote scat. It is still statistically impossible to find coyote scat, where 100% of them have deer hair. Coyotes are omnivores, and will eat almost anything that is edible, lots of bugs, fruits, berries, plant matter, etc. If you had every really analyzed a large number of them, over a large area, and long period of time, you would have seen this.

Cotton tails have been booming all over Northern Utah for several years now. Anywhere between about 4000 and 6500 feet. This is what is starting to bring the bobcat numbers back up. I don't know where you have been, but the rabbits have been thick.

You said if you shoot a deer on the opener of the bow season it is fat, but that they are skinny in the fall. First off, this is nothing more than your perception of how you think things work. Deer are putting on weight, from summer into the fall, not the other way around. Secondly, not every deer gets pressure in Utah, there are plenty that see no pressure, or very little, for a few days if they do. This argument just does not hold water in the grand scheme of things. The deer I harvested last year had ZERO hunting pressure until I ran into him during the rifle season. Yet there are other deer on this same unit that got a whole lot of pressure from archery hunters, muzzy hunters, and rifle hunters, yet they were every bit as healthy as the deer that had zero pressure. Your theory can not be proven, it is flat wrong.

Your perception, is just that, your perception. It has been said that perception is reality, and unfortunately that seems to be the problem with many hunters, wildlife "management" and wildlife biology. Perceived realities sometimes end up trumping actual reality, and it is to our own detriment as hunters, that we allow this to occur.

Snow shoe hares boom and bust sporadically, and usually very locally. I have never seen a black rabbit either, but 
I have talked to people that have, and sightings can be found as far back as the 1830s.


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> Kevin maybe you think there isn't lions on the front. Maybe you think the lions that are on the front don't eat deer and also sing kumbaya with the deer as well. I don't need you or lone tree to convince me they don't eat deer.


SW, if you are going to quote me or paraphrase an argument of mine feel free. However I insist on accuracy if you do. If that is your perception then you are clearly mistaken. Let's keep it honest shall we??


----------



## grizzly (Jun 3, 2012)

Please see the study by Knowlton and Stoddart. It is from 1992-1996, and is credited to Utah State University. On page 102 and 103 it states:

"The high incidence of deer in the coyote diet during June and July coincides with the fawning and early postnatal period and suggests this may be a vulnerable period for deer and a period of particular interest for assessing the impact of coyotes on deer demography. Comparing fetal counts with doe-fawn ratios between 1962-1979 suggests a mean survival rate of 34 percent during the first year of life (Kie and White 1985). Two sources of information indicate most fawn deaths occur in the first 3 weeks of life. First, 95 percent of 174 fawns found dead were less than 3 weeks of age at death. Second, minimum survival estimates determined from sightings of tagged fawns indicated only 25 percent were known to be alive after 3 weeks of age (Knowlton 1964, 1976). Subsequent radio-telemetry studies by Cook et al. (1971) demonstrated over 50 percent of the neonatal mortality involved fawns killed by coyotes. This suggests that in the absence of sport hunting, coyote predation on fawns was a major mortality factor and potential constraint on the deer population."

-------------

I don't think predators are the be-all, end-all for mule deer. I understand the relation to the banning of 1080 and the demise of mule deer population. What I am not sure of is whether that demise is causal or corollary or coincidental. I do believe the increase in elk population gets some blame as they out-compete mule deer for prime fawning grounds (the few remaining aspen groves). I also believe habitat is major factor. I don't necessarily believe it is "habitat acres" that we need as much as we need improved habitat quality. I believe fire suppression, which really started as part of the New Deal, is probably the number one contributor to the poor habitat. Historically, Native Americans burned their grounds every few years. They chose to burn this ground after the leaves had fallen in October. This prevented massive fires and the spread of unwanted grasses. It promoted shrub/aspen growth like we no longer see today.

I also believe that increased buck:doe ratio will help overall deer herds, here is how... It allows for quicker and more succinct breeding period which results in a smaller time period of fawning the following summer. The reason this is crucial to fawn survival is coyote predation on mule deer is almost entirely limited to the first 3 weeks of a fawn's life. If all fawns are born in a 3 week period, a higher percentage of these fawns survive than if the fawning period is spread out to 6-9 weeks with the delayed breeding of 2nd cycle does. 

This is the same premise that schools of fish and flocks of birds use. Group all the prey in one spot and a larger percentage of them survive the slaughter that they can't avoid alone.

This program has the additional positive side-effect of having more fawns born early in the summer allowing them to have the best chance possible at surviving their first winter.

I know that bucks don't give birth to fawns, but they do breed does.

I have read most studies widely available on mule deer. I have spent days at hunting camps discussing this with professors in the Wildlife department at USU, these are the opinions I have formed. Take them for what they are worth.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

grizzly said:


> Please see the study by Knowlton and Stoddart. It is from 1992-1996, and is credited to Utah State University. On page 102 and 103 it states:
> 
> "The high incidence of deer in the coyote diet during June and July coincides with the fawning and early postnatal period and suggests this may be a vulnerable period for deer and a period of particular interest for assessing the impact of coyotes on deer demography. Comparing fetal counts with doe-fawn ratios between 1962-1979 suggests a mean survival rate of 34 percent during the first year of life (Kie and White 1985). Two sources of information indicate most fawn deaths occur in the first 3 weeks of life. First, 95 percent of 174 fawns found dead were less than 3 weeks of age at death. Second, minimum survival estimates determined from sightings of tagged fawns indicated only 25 percent were known to be alive after 3 weeks of age (Knowlton 1964, 1976). Subsequent radio-telemetry studies by Cook et al. (1971) demonstrated over 50 percent of the neonatal mortality involved fawns killed by coyotes. This suggests that in the absence of sport hunting, coyote predation on fawns was a major mortality factor and potential constraint on the deer population."
> 
> ...


The studies I posted are newer studies, and only a few, that have come to similar conclusions. These studies are looking specifically at whether coyote removal, would, or could, increase mule deer numbers over the long term. Coyote removal was not shown to increase mule deer numbers. In side by side studies, predator removal verses habitat improvement, habitat is the only thing that has been shown to increase deer in the long term. Yeah, coyotes eat deer, and if they were a limiting factor, then large scale removal would be warranted. But there is nothing to demonstrate that predation is the limiting factor for mule deer across the West. So why spend $50 on a coyote bounty, when you could buy 30,000 bitterbrush seeds for the same price.

"This suggests that in the absence of sport hunting, coyote predation on fawns was a major mortality factor and potential constraint on the deer population." We do not, or have we ever had an absence of sport hunting. And if predation of a species is high, it could mean an overabundance of predators, or a weak prey base. Removal of predators when you have a weak prey base, especially from disease, could actually cause further declines.

Elk competition, sure, but mule deer numbers rise and fall across the west, in areas with, and with out elk. I don't think it is the direct competition, rather conditions that favor elk, do not favor deer.

Fire suppression, yes, but.....there are millions of acres of mule deer habitat, where fire would have no beneficial affects for mule deer. And in these areas, as well as areas where fire could produce benefits for deer, you see similar trends.

Buck to doe ratios, I'm not seeing it. Grouping, and timing make a lot of sense with elk, because they tend to calf communally for protection, but not mule deer. I am not saying that fawns should be spread to far in the spring, that is not good, whether it be a cause or a side effect. Besides, having higher buck to doe ratios is completely irrelevant and separate from the environmental and biological triggers that bring on the rut. Much like with fish, birds, or anything else, its about temperature, and light, and snow, etc. A higher buck to doe ratio can not synchronize the rut, that is just not possible. And it is the does going into estrus that dictate actual breeding, so having enough bucks on had when this happens is required, but, you can grow overall deer numbers with low buck to doe ratios.

I am glad to see you engaged, keep it up.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Doesn't low buck numbers eventually result in lower selenium levels in soils?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> Doesn't low buck numbers eventually result in lower selenium levels in soils?


Its almost funny, I half laughed, but that might not have been at the joke, I'm not sure.


----------



## grizzly (Jun 3, 2012)

Lonetree, please understand that what ANYBODY thinks about this subject is purely theoretical. You have your theories, and so do others, and so do I.

Be careful about making declarative statements such as, "A higher buck to doe ratio CAN NOT synchronize the rut, that is JUST NOT POSSIBLE". You may not buy into the theory, but there are bona fide wildlife biologists that do believe it. They have reason to have those theories and theirs are certainly at least as relevant as yours.

Take a look at the tone of my post, it is filled with terms such as "I believe" "I think" and "my opinion". Clearly this tone allows other opinions as well, and respects them. Please do others the same courtesy.

One more thing, don't get hung up on which study is newer. All that matters is which study is most correct (something that we don't know yet). Do some research on the authors of this paper and you will find literally hundreds of thousands of results on Google. These people spent decades studying predators/prey and their affects on the landscape. They are the preeminent voices on the subject. Another thing to consider is that they were in the field during the parts of the modern collapse of mule deer herds. They may have insight that current biologists don't have. Wisdom, perhaps? Just because you don't agree with somebody, doesn't mean they are wrong.

But I'm glad to see you are engaged, keep it up.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

grizzly said:


> Lonetree, please understand that what ANYBODY thinks about this subject is purely theoretical. You have your theories, and so do others, and so do I.
> 
> Be careful about making declarative statements such as, "A higher buck to doe ratio CAN NOT synchronize the rut, that is JUST NOT POSSIBLE". You may not buy into the theory, but there are bona fide wildlife biologists that do believe it. They have reason to have those theories and theirs are certainly at least as relevant as yours.
> 
> ...


"This suggests that in the absence of sport hunting, coyote predation on fawns was a major mortality factor and _*potential*_ constraint on the deer population." There never has, nor will there ever be an absence of coyote sport hunting. This study looks at fawn predation, yes coyotes eat deer fawns. The study does not demonstrate, or test, if coyote removal will increase deer numbers. Nor does it attempt to test if coyote predation on fawns_ is _ a limiting factor. It only shows, and quite well, that it _could_ be a "potential constraint". The _later_ studies have the benefit of taking into consideration previous works such as the study you posted. Just like your study references prior work. The later studies actually test the hypothesis, that coyote removal can increase deer numbers. After actual testing of the hypothesis, it was shown that coyote removal does NOT increase mule deer numbers. These are not the only contemporary studies to demonstrate this.

"A higher buck to doe ratio CAN NOT synchronize the rut, that is JUST NOT POSSIBLE" +2 This is so fundamental, I do not know how you can even attempt to challenge it. What ever it is you are trying to explain there, I do not think you understand what you were told. That is like saying you can bring on a cutthroat spawn, if you just have more male fish. Yeah, that's right, water turbidity, flows, light, and temperature have nothing to do with it. Just add more male fish. It is hard to be courteous with theories like that, there is no biological basis for it. For that to work, having more bucks per does would have to have the effect of inducing estrus, which it does not. Estrus is brought on by other biological and environmental factors, such as temperature, light, age, etc. At least my "crazy" theories have actual data, and a decade of field work under them.

I do not care if they are bona fide biologists or professors, our former director of the DWR was a "bona fide biologist". I have worked with wildlife biologists from California, to Montana, Washington to Wyoming, and Canada. Like any other profession, there is a wide range of skill, knowledge, and competence. I do not have a high school diploma, and I had my first mechanical/manufacturing engineering job at 19. Everyone that I was up against had a sheep skin, and the two previous hires, both papered, could not do the job. I do work for engineers today, that have twice as many years of college, as I have years of high school, and yes, they hire me to get the job done.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

grizzly said:


> I also believe that increased buck:doe ratio will help overall deer herds, here is how... It allows for quicker and more succinct breeding period which results in a smaller time period of fawning the following summer. The reason this is crucial to fawn survival is coyote predation on mule deer is almost entirely limited to the first 3 weeks of a fawn's life. If all fawns are born in a 3 week period, a higher percentage of these fawns survive than if the fawning period is spread out to 6-9 weeks with the delayed breeding of 2nd cycle does..


More opinion on this though and some analysis by Colorado biologists on what is happening in their state:

"Although not designed as a density dependence experiment, circumstantial evidence from our study indicates that a result of limiting deer license numbers in Colorado was the replacement of fawn mule deer with adult males. If this is the biological process occurring, careful monitoring should continue into the future to confirm that the balance currently achieved is stable. These results also provide evidence that hunter assumptions connecting low adult male/adult female ratios with inadequate breeding potential and subsequently low pregnancy rates were not accurate. In response to trends in fawn/adult female ratios we observed, further declines in fawn/adult female ratios would be indicative of declining recruitment and over a period of time would lead to an older herd age structure....

...Given these trends, from a populaton dynamics and herd health standpoint, a refinement of the harvest management objective in the form of increased harvest of adult males may need to occur."

http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1002/jwmg.168

My personal opinion is that the increased buck numbers in Colorado since they started limiting licenses just over 10 years ago is at least partially to blame for their deer herd being cut in half over the same time period....


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

W2U your article only applies if the area is at carrying capacity.

Just saying


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Maybe....but then "the area" being discussed is the state of Colorado. And, not coincidentally, Nevada biologists are seeing and documenting the same scenario playing out--increased buck/doe ratios are leading to lower fawn recruitment levels. I am betting that Utah would/will see the same results...

....and, if Utah's habitat is like Colorado and Nevada, all the predator control in the world--including your prized 1080--won't bring the deer back (interestingly, that is also what the studies that Lonetree referenced are saying too). And, like I have said over and over and over....I believe our habitat is at carrying capacity and our biologists must think we are near that too; otherwise, why all of the money spent on habitat? I think much of what Lonetree has been talking about is habitat limitations and how they apply to the mule deer herd.

Also, what the study is showing/suggesting (and I know you haven't read it because I only posted a link to its abstract)...is that it is dangerous to carry high buck numbers in your herd because--even if your population is below carrying capacity--the number of older bucks being carried in your population becomes exceptionally vulnerable during extreme weather patterns (remember carrying capacity changes and is not a stable or quantifiable number). "As adult male/female ratios increased beyond previously observed levels, interest in density-dependent relationships among adult males has become a topic of interest. It is commonly speculated that survival of adult male deer is particularly sensitive to stochastic, extreme weather events and disease...if older age males are indeed more vulnerable, as this portion of Colorado's deer herds grow, Colorado's deer population may become increasingly vulnerable to extreme events."


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> W2U your article only applies if the area is at carrying capacity.
> 
> Just saying


No, but a higher buck to doe ratio_ could _have the effect of creating an artificially low carrying capacity though. Carry capacity is nothing more than a ceiling or a point where a populations numbers plateau out. This can be the result of many things, limited habitat, flat fawn recruitment, a high buck to doe ratio, etc.

Keep believing the BS that is being propagated on this by the Option WTF? proponents, keep being a slave to some one else's agenda because they are telling you what you think you want hear, ie. more bucks, less hunters. You are the perfect prey for such predators, weak, and unable to defend your self from their attempts to feed on you. Have fun feeding some one else, I choose to feed myself. Servo


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> swbuckmaster said:
> 
> 
> > W2U your article only applies if the area is at carrying capacity.
> ...


limited habitat is what i was saying when I was talking about carrying capacity. Limited habitat can be caused from many things. Fawn recruitment could be predators or other things. Its highly unlikely its male bucks killing there young. Also our high under 10 bucks to 100 doe ratios we have on some of our general units wont play into this BS biology you speak of. If it were a factor the deer born to all these does would more then likely die in the winter because there wont be anything for them to eat.

So im not buying this BS bucks dont have fawns crap. Or the theory of having a 18-20 buck ratio will kill our herds off. Especially if the biologist say we are under carrying capacity and want to raise our deer numbers.

w2u
were not talking about raising the general units age structure really past 2 years of age so its unlikely those deer are going to be affected like you say by weather extremes. Sure if you are talking about old rutted out deer with missing teeth it would or could be a problem. This is general deer with low buck doe ratios. They seriously could have done the same effect with 3 point or better. This would have killed all those old bucks you dont want in the herd taking up space and food out of the fawns little mouths and left a bunch for blasting the next year.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> w2u
> were not talking about raising the general units age structure really past 2 years of age so its unlikely those deer are going to be affected like you say by weather extremes. Sure if you are talking about old rutted out deer with missing teeth it would or could be a problem. This is general deer with low buck doe ratios. They seriously could have done the same effect with 3 point or better. This would have killed all those old bucks you dont want in the herd taking up space and food out of the fawns little mouths and left a bunch for blasting the next year.


I don't have a problem with ratios around 18-20....never have. What I am against is ratios climbing up around 40/100. Too me, that is dangerously high. And, I do believe that once ratios get below 10, we should take measures to bring it up (even if the population is climbing....if not for herd health, definitely for social reasons.).


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > swbuckmaster said:
> ...


Wow! now you are all about the habitat. But bucks still have fawns. :roll:

No one is saying bucks will kill their young, the studies suggest they may displace them though. If you want to strap your argument to carrying capacity, then you agree with science, at least at that level. And if we are under carrying capacity, then higher buck to doe ratios are still not going to grow more deer. You are not getting the big picture of all of this. You keep factoring in things that are completely irrelevant to the biological health of growing deer.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> swbuckmaster said:
> 
> 
> > Lonetree said:
> ...


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

No, you don't get it. You keep bring things into your argument, that are irrelevant, and have nothing to with growing deer herds. Your hung on the short term act of shooting a deer, rather than the long term legacy of growing and shooting multiple deer. That is the problem.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> No, you don't get it. You keep bring things into your argument, that are irrelevant, and have nothing to with growing deer herds. Your hung on the short term act of shooting a deer, rather than the long term legacy of growing and shooting multiple deer. That is the problem.


What you don't like is that im using your same crap your preaching back at you. Its the same thing Packout was doing to you. Science is 2+2=4 It goes both ways 
And no you don't have a clue what im about. Not a sniff! You can go preach your 10 and under buck does to some one that gives a crap. I'm glad they went to 18-20 per 100. I hope the whole state would go to 18-20 per 100!! I wish if they wanted to see some horns they would slash the rifle hunts to heck and give unlimited archery tags state wide. it would give you opportunity and quality. Its a win win!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > No, you don't get it. You keep bring things into your argument, that are irrelevant, and have nothing to with growing deer herds. Your hung on the short term act of shooting a deer, rather than the long term legacy of growing and shooting multiple deer. That is the problem.
> ...


We all know, Option WTF? is not about holding 18-20 to 100. You are still stuck on horns, and short term BS that do not grow our deer herd. You do not know what you are talking about, period. Funny how no one could there predator arguments up, so they went supporting Option WTF?, that is desperate to say the least.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Reality check
We aint going to fertilize the mountains
We aint going to fix acid rain with the amount of people that live in this world.
We aint going to control when it rains
There aint enough selenium factory's to dump selenium all over the hills. 
We aint going to control the cheat grass
We aint going back like it was pre car in my lifetime
We aint going to control the dust bowls or where the dust bowls are dumped
ect ect ect









All we can do is make do with what we have. Try and improve what we have and deal with the rest and leave the acts of god for him to work out.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

o i know I know im only about horns right


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> Reality check
> We aint going to fertilize the mountains
> We aint going to fix acid rain with the amount of people that live in this world.
> We aint going to control when it rains
> ...


funniest post I have read all year!!!! Hands down... :lol: selenium factories... I think Lonetree has some sound scientific knowledge but I can't stop laughing at the list of "we aints"


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

That's the spirit!, its that kind of, "nothing we can do, this is too big, we'll just have to accept what ever is perpetrated upon us", attitude, that founded this country, and laid the foundation for the NAMWC. I mean that is the same great attitude that Teddy Roosevelt had when he just accepted that there was nothing that could be done to bring North American Game animals back from the brink. 

And what do you know about can or can't be done, you don't even understand the concept. That is the first step, before you can start throwing out "solutions".......well......maybe not in this state though. 

Care to make a bet about this fall?


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

Lonetree, what do you suggest? I agree that predator control is not the underlying factor to our deer numbers. I love killling coyotes no matter what. But what would be the most effective measure to take to increase population?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Care to make a bet about what this fall?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Nambaster said:


> Lonetree, what do you suggest? I agree that predator control is not the underlying factor to our deer numbers. I love killling coyotes no matter what. But what would be the most effective measure to take to increase population?


Understand the declines. The better you understand the causes, the better equipped you are to deal with, and try to mitigate those causes. It is big, this is not a just a Utah problem.

I like shooting coyotes too, that and trapping, is what I lived for as a teenager. But as a solution to the deer declines, like you said, no.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> Care to make a bet about what this fall?


 :roll: If the Packers will make it to the playoffs.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

I don't care about the packers! How about ill bet you this fall the venison in my poo will have corn in it.


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> Nambaster said:
> 
> 
> > Lonetree, what do you suggest? I agree that predator control is not the underlying factor to our deer numbers. I love killling coyotes no matter what. But what would be the most effective measure to take to increase population?
> ...


So you and Swbuckmaster have been back and forth on this post and the other post with no agenda to push? Seems like we just need to get out and do some hunting... Cabin fever is really starting to set in... I just want a healthy heard to hunt.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Nambaster said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > Nambaster said:
> ...


Been hunting, no cabin fever here. But, I do need to wet a line.

Agreed on healthy herds.

The opposing agendas being pushed, are how we get to healthy herds to hunt. The current broken system that manages everything but healthy growth, or my argument that we need to take a few steps back, look at the big picture, and think about this differently. We have reduced hunters, both 2 and 4 legged, for 20 years, populations never sustained an upward trend because of this. So should we pile on with more of the same? Or should we try to understand and find actual solutions?


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

Here is a another question that I have. How do you keep animals from herding together in the winter? It seems that in winter areas where animals are herded together in large numbers I observe animals that expire due to disease with plenty of body fat on them in the winter. Is there something that goes around that gets spread? I think that managing forage and range trends would go a long ways. There are definitely solutions other than predator management. This one example might hit home for 1-eye but I have seen over a 1000 deer herded up in Sevier County in the glory days and I wonder if that lead to the great demise that has occured down there... 

As far as cabin fever goes next week I get to get out...


----------

