# Latest Cougar Management Plan



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I was reading the latest Cougar Management Plan. And read one of the concerns for the future is to educate the hunting public threw hunting groups such as SFW and RMMD. About the "True relationship between cougar and prey populations". 

Can anyone tell me what the message is? 
What is the so called truth that the DWR want to spread?

On another note can anyone tell me about the cougar study going on Monroe. 
What is the objective and any idea on preliminary findings?


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

Well, they have found through the study that there aren't any deer left on Monroe! :rotfl:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I emailed David Stoner who is leading the study on mountain lions out of Utah State and asked him some of the same questions you have. But, having read many of your posts and seeing your inability to listen to what science is telling biologists not only in Utah but across the country and North America, you won't like his answers...

...but here goes: "We began monitoring the lion population on Monroe Mtn in 1996. At that time we estimated ~ 40-45 adult lions living on the unit. In 1997 the state increased harvest permits for several years, which resulted in a population decline to an estimated low of ~ 15 adults in 2002. After this, the state reduced the number of permits from a high of 40 to 5. This regimen lasted 5 years and we monitored an increase in the cougar population back up to pre-treatment levels of ~ 40 adults. Beginning in 2008, permits were doubled to 10 in the hopes of managing cougars at some intermediate level.

As for cougar deer relationships, this is a very difficult question to answer. It is only during the past year that we have initiated an investigation into this aspect of wildlife management. Last winter we deployed 5 GPS collar on adult female cougars. The collars are programmed to take 6fixes /day. With these data we can estimate the species, sex, and age of cougar prey, and therefore annual predation rates, and assess the level of predation that is compensatory vs. additive. In addition, we are going to collar 60 deer on the Monroe unit this winter with the objective of estimating deer survival rates, specifically for adult females. THese two types of data should allow us to get a better handle on the predator-prey relationship on Monroe Mountain.

As for the debate on cougar impacts to prey, this is a complex relationship that is not amenable to simple and broad answers. Generally speaking, ungulate populations in the mountain west are driven by precipitation patterns. Mild, wet winters tend to result in population growth, whereas drought and heavy, cold winters result in diminished reproduction and / or die-offs. These effects are mediated by range conditions and predators. Unboubtedly there are systems where predators are a driving force, but in my opinion this is more likely to be seen in tropical systems where environmental conditions are relatively constant and therefore predator abundance can have a greater impact on prey numbers and behavior. Here, weather is driving the system.

The question of to what extent is cougar predation compensatory or additive will vary greatly in time and space. I cannot tell you what is happening on Monroe specifically or in Utah generally, other than to say that when habitat is good and deer reproduction is high, predation tends to compensatory, and when habitat is poor and reproduction is low, it tends to be additive. However, it is important to note, that when habitat is in poor condition, this is simply another way of saying that the carrying capacity has declined and predation may expedite the matching of deer numbers to the habitat. In other words, an overstocked range is more likely to exhibit a crash and take longer to recover than one in which animal numbers are better matched to carrying capacity. So additive predation may in fact minimize the magnitude of normal annual fluctuations."

A couple of interesting side notes: 1) despite significant declines in the lion population in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the deer population did NOT rebound 2) Deer recruitment levels on Monroe have actually improved/increased at the same time that lion numbers began rebounding after documented reductions.

I would suggest reading this link to find the answer to your question about what the DWR has learned: http://www.createstrat.com/muledeerinth ... ators.html


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

I have listened to Kevin Bunnel speak about the Monroe project, and W2U is correct, the deer did not "rebound" when they wiped the lions out.
But.......we all know it takes twice as long if not more to recover a herd than it does to wipe one out. 
Monroe's deer are in serious trouble for some reason, but i don't think lions are the only factor. Coyotes play more of a role than most people give them credit for, that's a fact. 
Between the predators, hunting pressure, habitat and the lack thereof, moisture.....it's all to blame.
Lions are not just taking deer either, they love elk and they have also played a huge negative part on our extensive ongoing sheep transplants :x


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

The word was that at the last RAC meeting the houndsmen and lion hunters were there in force screaming and ranting that there were no more lions in the state and called for a statewide reduction in tags. Having heard that I also have heard from a couple houndsmen that the theory of there being less cats is hogwash. They are simply getting smarter. The cats are there, they just aren't making stupid mistakes and getting treed. I don't claim to be a cat biologist and all I can go on here is hearsay, but something is defiantly to blame for the diminished deer herds. Who knows how much of it is to blame on the cats... We may never know. I do know this. Cats are to deer as wolves are to elk. you MUST control their numbers if you want a healthy herd of either.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Most cats will kill a deer about every 7 to 10 days. This does add up to quite a few deer taken annually by mountain lions. I have seen where lions will avoid roads because they start to get smarter also.

What is the deer habitat like right now on the Monroe? How many people rip and tear on their 4wheelers during the fawning season? This will cause stress on a doe to where she will leave her fawn.

Maybe a lot of people are harassing the deer down there because they're looking for more One eyed bucks. :lol: :lol:


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I just walked in from putting in my 35th day of lion hunting in this new 2010 year..

The Monroe study is one of the most comprehensive lion studies that ever been
attempted. I am not part of it, but know quite a bit about it. I was on Monroe the
first week of February and am returning there next week for a few days.

In my opinion, this study is going to prove what most hounds men have known
for many years,,lions do eat deer, but they also eat elk, rabbits, turkeys, sheep, and
and do not affect overall deer heard numbers as drastically as most hunter think.


Lions have long taken a bad rap for being the cause of Utah's failing deer heard,,,
AND YES , they are part of the deer problem, but no were near too the extent
most "hoofed" hunters believe. 

Now the wolve issue is a whole different situation, for those of you that think lions
are a problem here in Utah,,,well, I'm afraid we are about to find out first hand what
Idaho, Wyoming and Montana are feeling.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

BUT you do have to admit goofy that the lion population exploded when the DWR starting managing the lion population through LE hunts. This did cause an over-population of lions which in turn was ONE of many causes why deer have declined in certain areas. The harvest objective is helping by getting the lion population at low levels that it should be.

Yes, lions will kill rabbits, turkeys, elk, sheep etc, but I do believe lions kill more deer in the winter and spring more than at any other time of the year.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Harvest objective hunting was implemented in 1997, Utah's lion population has 
steadily decreased every year since then.

And to say lions kill more deer in the spring and winter is simply a false statement.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

no, I believe it's a true statement because lion kills are more abundant at that time of year and deer are vulnerable during winter months and fawns are more vulnerable in the spring. The deer are also all down on the winter range so they are in larger groups.



> Harvest objective hunting was implemented in 1997, Utah's lion population has
> steadily decreased every year since then.


Which is a good thing because the lion population needs to be control. I remember when the Fillmore Oak Creek/Pahvant unit had the harvest objective set at 40 lions and three years straight that unit would close in 2 to 3 weeks. There was a lot of lions to chase with hounds. Houndsmen made some good money.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Goofy, the Fillmore Oakcreek was all the same harvest objective unit. Sorry it was 107 lions killed in 3 years within the 2-3 weeks because the third year they lowered the harvest obj. and they killed 26 lions. They also continued to kill a good number of lions to 2001.

It still doesnt change the fact that there was a lot of lions


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Here the Monroe Harvest data. The DWR reduced the number of permits almost in half from 1999-2001 and they greatly reduced in 2001-2005.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

This is exactly the point,,,,,,,this year for the entire state HO hunting there
has only been 55 lions harvested...........THE ENTIRE STATE!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> This is exactly the point,,,,,,,this year for the entire state HO hunting there
> has only been 55 lions harvested...........THE ENTIRE STATE!


That is wonderful news which means the lion population is getting at the level that it needs to be.


----------



## Size Matters (Dec 22, 2007)

I agree with coyote slayer he has a lot of good info I think that cougars actually kill more than one per seven to ten days though I think they also hunt for sport from what I have seen not just for food the only good cougar is a dead one as far as the deer population is concerned.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> This is exactly the point,,,,,,,this year for the entire state HO hunting there
> has only been 55 lions harvested...........THE ENTIRE STATE!


Could this be attributed to the difficulty in finding a licensed guide.

I want to go shoot a cat. But I'm finding the difficulty in getting a guide. :?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Could this be attributed to the difficulty in finding a licensed guide.
> 
> I want to go shoot a cat. But I'm finding the difficulty in getting a guide.


Good point! This can also be a good possibly.



> I think they also hunt for sport from what I have seen not just for food the only good cougar is a dead one as far as the deer population is concerned.


I know that when a tom is roaming its territory looking for females then toms will kill a deer and eat the heart and liver, and then he will move on without returning to finish the kill.

Also toms will kill a females kittens. This also helps regulate the lion population.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I ran into a friend from high school at the expo Saturday. he showed me pix of his sons cat that was treed and killed 1/2 mile from the Koosharem Cemetery taken the first part of February and they used one dog to put the cat in the tree. It was a collared cat, and it was the 5th different cat they treed in ONE WEEK with ONE dog. This was a mature cat, almost 8' in length, and it had been hanging near town for a couple of weeks. In fact, another friend (the guy who was selling roasted nuts at the expo) saw it's tracks at his cabin on the north end of town, with signs showing the cat had used the porch for some time.

Cats may not cause declines in deer numbers, but they most certainly, as do ALL mule deer predators, slow the recovery of mule deer numbers. You need to not just count the number of deer a lion actually kills, but also you need to include the number of deer that spend energy escaping lions, as well as coyotes. How one can dismiss an increase in deer predation during winter/spring is mind boggling. Of course there are more deer killed by cats and coyotes during the winter/spring. These are when deer are most vulnerable, thus making them easier to kill.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Just one more thought before I head to the mountain for the day, lions don't kill for
sport as it appears wolves do. In the winter and spring lions eat virtually EVERTHING
they kill,,,They tend to not move quite as much in the deep snow ,and will lay on a
kill until completely consumed before hunting again.

I've been lion hunting for 20 years ans never seen a Tom eat a heart and liver and
not return... Also the new guide laws have only been in effect since Jan.1, not effecting
what has happened harvest wise in the past....

And lions certainly do need to be managed,,,,BUT not eliminated.
Many hounds men enjoy catch and release with friends and family, This opportunity
has been taken away from those sportsmen in many areas....

And the new plan "Is what it is",,,,,good through 2021.
And lion numbers will increase over the next decade.


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

For too many years cougars have been the ugly step child of game management in the state and it's refreshing to see them acknowledged for the important role they play in keeping mule deer herds healthy. Too many hunters in the state think deer and elk should be managed like ranch animals and I just can't agree. I think you have to manage for healthy ecosystems with each animal, no matter how big or small, playing their proper role.......the way god/nature/evolution intended. I predict this is going to increasingly be the future trend in game management.

I thought that was an excellent post by wyomingtoutah BTW.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> *For too many years cougars have been the ugly step child of game management in the state and it's refreshing to see them acknowledged for the important role they play in keeping mule deer herds healthy.* Too many hunters in the state think deer and elk should be managed like ranch animals and I just can't agree. I think you have to manage for healthy ecosystems with each animal, no matter how big or small, playing their proper role.......the way god/nature/evolution intended. I predict this is going to increasingly be the future trend in game management.
> 
> I thought that was an excellent post by wyomingtoutah BTW


The bolded statement is a bunch of hogwash. Lions aren't keeping mule deer herds healthy. I have never seen a lion give a doe some medicine :lol: :lol: :lol: They aren't medicating the deer, but killing the deer.

KevinD you post the same things that environmentals preach......predators only kill the sick,weak or injured. This is a bunch of garbage and you know it.

*Of course, you want more lions because it makes your job easier as a guide when there is more cats to chase. It's good business for you, but it's not good for the deer herds.*


----------



## jsumm_2000 (Sep 18, 2008)

When is Utah going to do what Idaho is doing? Idaho put it to the people and asked"do you want cougars or deer"? The people opted for deer so they put unlimited numbers of tags out. When the deer population came back they brought in lions from other units to slowly bring them back. Utah is always re-inventing the wheel, just steal the **** wheel from other states who manage their animals.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> I've been lion hunting for 20 years ans never seen a Tom eat a heart and liver and
> not return...


Goofy when a tom is looking for females, and he kills a deer along the way then a lot of times he doesnt return because he's not going to go back 10 miles to his kill when he can simply kill another deer.

When game animals are more abundant then predators do participate in sport kills.

It's kind of like when the government has access to a lot of money then they participate in a lot of wasteful spending.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Kevin D said:


> ...the way god/nature/evolution intended. I predict this is going to increasingly be the future trend in game management.


Where to humans fit in this equation? We are here we are more abundant the cougars.
Our effects on nature far outweigh the effect a cougar has. We run livestock, build cabins, ski resorts, reservoirs, and the most of all factors. *WE hunt wildlife.*

If you want it as god intended it. Try Yellowstone or Canada, Alaska, Siberia.

As for Hounds men. I can respect that it is a pass time or business they love. But pretty selfish of them to want large cat pops if it means 2/3 of the traditional deer hunters wont get to hunt or kill a deer.

How many hounds men are in Utah? How many people love to hunt deer and elk just as much as the hounds man like to hassle an look at cats? Seems like we are trading opportunities for few at the expense of 10,000s. :shock: :?

Seems like a no brainer to me. Even if it meant one less cougar= 100 deer over 5 yrs. And let the winter kill those weak/sick animals.

At least with 100 deer 1000s of people would get their nature fix as they went out in the woods. And 20 guys could get a harvest. (that they can eat) And 50 guys or gals and especially kids could get the chance to hunt.

62 yrs and many of them spent on Monroe. Never seen a cat in my whole life. Heck yes I would trade.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

ALL predators, on occasion, will "thrill kill", mountain lions included. How someone who has hunted them for 20 years doesn't know that is strange to say the least. My cousins and I used to get calls to take out 'rogue' cats and bears that were guilty of thrill killing. Although this was back in the late 80's/early 90's, I highly doubt cats have changed that much. We caught and killed a male lion once that had killed over THIRTY sheep in one night, and he hadn't eaten a bite of a single sheep.

As for BradN saying they are 'needed' to keep our deer herds healthy, while I agree they shouldn't be exterminated, I disagree strongly they are 'needed' to keep balance. Next your going to tell us that wolves are 'needed' as well I suppose. :roll:


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I am aware of what is called a thrill kill,,and yes,, it happens occasionally. More common
would be a female teaching her young how to hunt..And I'm not saying a Tom would not
kill a deer and eat the heat and liver and not return. But I do know this, In all the years
I've chased cats and observed 100s of lion kills, I've never seen this happen. These 
situations are rare at best and to use them as examples are not true to every day habits.

The lion studies that have been made, and the ones that are ongoing are going to reveal
scientific facts that will undo untrue myths about lion behavior that have been circulated
for years.........

Once again, I'm ALL FOR hunting lions! but not in a manner that encourages wiping out
every living cat. I spend just as much time every year on the deer and elk hunts as well.
And again, The new cougar management plan is a done deal, With SFWs support.
This was a major mile stone and took a lot of work from dedicated individuals that
have spent a lifetime learning and understanding lions.


----------



## ramrod (Apr 15, 2008)

I talked to a biologist many years ago. We told me when he looks at an area he starts by looking at insects, mice and goes up from there because in his words if there are no insects nothing else will thrive in the area. This has me wondering if we should try managing our small game better. More rabbits more food for lions and other predators


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Cats may not cause declines in deer numbers, but they most certainly, as do ALL mule deer predators, slow the recovery of mule deer numbers.


This is NOT necessarily true..."Wildlife professionals determined that reducing the number of predators in an area may help deer populations if: - Predator management occurs when the deer population is lower than the ability of the habitat to support it.

- Predation is identified as a factor that is limiting the ability of the deer population to grow.

- The predator population is reduced enough to yield results.

- Reduction in predators occurs just before reproduction of predators or prey.

- Reduction in predators occurs on a scale of less than 250 square miles.

They also determined that predator management did not successfully improve mule deer populations when:

- Mule deer populations were at or near habitat carrying capacity.

- Predation was not a key factor limiting the ability of the deer population to grow.

- Reduction of predators did not reduce predator populations to a significant degree.

- Reduction of predators occurs on large-scale areas."


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

W2U, What is your take on Global Warming? 

Is it having an effect on our deer herd?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I thought this was a thread on mountain lions and their effect on mule deer? Now, you want to make a global warming argument?

Fine with me...I am on the same side as the American Fisheries Society, American Fly Fishing Trade Association, American Sportfishing Association, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Berkley Conservation Institute, Campfire Club, Dallas Safari Club, Ducks Unlimited, Houston Safari Club, Izaak Walton League of America, Mule Deer Foundation, National Trappers Association, National Wildlife Federation, Pheasants Forever, Quality Deer Management Association, The Wildlife Society, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Trout Unlimited, Wildlife Forever, and the Wildlife Management Institute. All of these groups are targeting global warming as a threat to wildlife...including mule deer.

Interestingly enough and probably not coincidentally, global warming could impact elk positively as well...Dr. Valerius Geist said, "Elk are likely to benefit significantly from global warming in North America due to the increase in shrub and grass cover that will follow the more frequent forest fires. Moreover, they will have more habitat at both higher elevations and higher latitudes, as large expanses of alpine turn into subalpine so greatly favored by elk. Cold boreal forests, currently shunned by elk, are expected to turn into elk-friendly deciduous forest, grassy slopes and meadows. Since elk are very adaptable and highly mobile, they will survive great changes in their surroundings, as long as they can be protected from excessive mortality due to man or predators. However, elk are likely to lose some habitats they currently occupy due to excessive drying and lack of water—like areas in California and Arizona. But on average, this loss would be minuscule in comparison to the expansion of their habitat in the Rockies and northern Canada and Alaska."


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> W2U, What is your take on Global Warming?
> 
> Is it having an effect on our deer herd?


I believe that he would need to hear Pro's statement first and then be on the complete opposit! :mrgreen:

(just funnin' with ya W2U)


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

So called 'scientists' that have endorsed man-made global warming, or climate change as they now call it, is why I am skeptical of studies about other issues including lion impacts on deer. The 'scientific' community has now been exposed as not always being scientific, that is the only good thing I see coming from the climate change farce.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Some reading material:
http://cf.nwf.org/globalwarming/pdfs/fuelingthefire.pdf
http://www.tu.org/sites/www.tu.org/file ... .FINAL.pdf
http://www.targetglobalwarming.org/2008poll
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/ ... mate-bill/
http://www.argusleader.com/article/2010 ... 01/2170311


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Some reading material:
> http://cf.nwf.org/globalwarming/pdfs/fuelingthefire.pdf
> http://www.tu.org/sites/www.tu.org/file ... .FINAL.pdf
> http://www.targetglobalwarming.org/2008poll
> ...


I will gladly expose global warming and the farce it is to you, here or elsewhere. But, not in this thread. Start another thread on it and how GW supposedly endangers wildlife, and I will gladly expose the junk science that makes such claims! Are you game?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

So, what you are saying is that you disagree with most hunters, fishermen, and every single wildlife conservation group I can even think of? :roll: Sorry, Pro, but you will NEVER convince me that the changes we are experiencing are not a very serious threat to our wildlife! On this thread nor in any other...


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > Some reading material:
> ...


I'm on it. :shock:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

-/|\- 8)

All your links are OLD. Have you been hiding in your bunker and not seen all the PROOF that most of the 'science' used to propagate fears in people (including hunters/fishermen) was skewed or flat out made up?

How 'scientific' is it to be close-minded and state that there is no way you could be swayed to change your opinions? Being close-minded is the exact opposite of being scientific. That partly explains why so many lemmings who have drank from the GW ewer of kool-aid claim to be 'scientific' or believers of 'science' when in truth they are close-minded.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

:roll: 

Sorry, Pro...but you cannot change my mind on the FACT that decreases in stream flows, increases in temperatures, decreases in precipitation in the west, earlier snow melts, etc are NOT going to have negative effects on wildlife. And, NO, my links are NOT old.

My question to you is this...what bad could/would come from efforts to curb global warming? In other words, why would you ever fight the steps conservation organizations are taking to protect wildlife from climate change? For example, what bad will come from protecting diversity of native species, restoring natural ranges of native species, protecting headwaters and other sources of cold water, restoring riparian habitats, minimizing existing sources of pollution, minimizing overgrazing, limiting introductions of non-native species, monitoring and evaluating habitats, placing limits on pollution, reducing our nation's dependency on fossil fuels and developing renewable energy sources, and promoting strong wildlife stewardship?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> -/|\- 8)
> 
> How 'scientific' is it to be close-minded and state that there is no way you could be swayed to change your opinions? Being close-minded is the exact opposite of being scientific..


How scientific would it be to say that fish can survive just fine without water? Maybe you could be swayed to think otherwise, but I can't....that's the argument you are trying to make!


----------



## killdeer (Dec 9, 2009)

I really enjoy the discussion on the many topics posted here. I believe there is "some" really good thinking that takes place (that that I mostly agree with). I have developed a healthy respect for the thoughts and reason displayed by proutdoors, peterson, and others. However, Pro keeps me thinking: is he choosing to take a side of an issue just to debate or does he truly have such diversity in his beliefs? So I ask: Pro, is there any global warming? Has there been anything that could be considered climate change?


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> > *For too many years cougars have been the ugly step child of game management in the state and it's refreshing to see them acknowledged for the important role they play in keeping mule deer herds healthy.* Too many hunters in the state think deer and elk should be managed like ranch animals and I just can't agree. I think you have to manage for healthy ecosystems with each animal, no matter how big or small, playing their proper role.......the way god/nature/evolution intended. I predict this is going to increasingly be the future trend in game management.
> >
> > I thought that was an excellent post by wyomingtoutah BTW
> 
> ...


Remember coyoteslayer, the whole rationale we as hunters use to justify our hunts is *that it keeps the game herds healthy* by keeping their populations in check with availible habitat. Are you saying that is this argument is hogwash too? It is the same **** argument! Cmon now, let's be consistant.

As to the part where I said lions kill only the sick and weakened, where did this come from??? I never said that. I don't mind an honest debate here on these forums but if you're going to quote me I insist on accuracy. That also goes for your statement that as a guide I only want to make things easier for my clients. Sorry coyoteslayer, but I don't do the guide thing.......nor have I in almost two decades.

Let's drop all the straw man arguments shall we?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

killdeer said:


> However, Pro keeps me thinking: is he choosing to take a side of an issue just to debate or does he truly have such diversity in his beliefs? So I ask: Pro, is there any global warming? Has there been anything that could be considered climate change?


I like making people think, but I do NOT take a side unless I believe it.

All the credible data I have ciphered through says the earth has NOT had warming since 1995, with an actual cooling trend that some of the same scientists who were warning us of warming now say we are headed for 20-30 years of cooling. The earth has gone through cycles since it's inception, so I think it shows an incredible amount of human arrogance to think mankind has 'evolved' to such an advanced state that they can control the climate, or even predict what the climate will be 1-1000 years from now. Way to many variables to say man is the cause of any measurable climate change. I am of the strong belief that man-made global warming, now called climate change, is the biggest hoax in human history. And the people behind the curtain controlling the strings of the puppets are smart, but evil people who know exactly what they are doing, which is not in any of our best interests.


----------



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

> In addition, we are going to collar 60 deer on the Monroe unit this winter with the objective of estimating deer survival rates, specifically for adult females. THese two types of data should allow us to get a better handle on the predator-prey relationship on Monroe Mountain.


Yep, and that collering is what I blame for killing "my old buck" , he was in one of the herds they chased around with their helicopter and shooting guns, and after that day I never saw him again until last week when I found him dead.

I will comment on Lions on Monroe and the deer herd. First the lions, I know a few people who hunt lions pretty extensively, and I know for a fact there are plenty of the suckers roaming around Monroe mountain, and the DWR has not collared half as many as there are. This year while shed hunting I've come across more lion tracks than I every have, big, small, and in-between I've seen 4 different tracks in the last week.

As for the deer population on Monroe, before I was just whining about the quality and amount of bucks I saw, now I must say this winter I have seen very few does compared to the amount I normally have seen. I have saw less does this year than I every have before. Monroe mountains problems have nothing to do with cougars, in fact in the last 2 years I've came across 5 fresh lion kills, even jumped one off one, and every single on has been a cow elk. No the problem with Monroe mountains deer herd is too many trails (low and high), little regulation by DWR (keeping people on designated trails, or trails period), overharvest, too many depredation doe tags given out, and to much pressure with to easy access during the hunts. Roads need to be shut down (low and high), depredation doe tags need to be cut, the unit needs to be turned LE, and heavier enforcement of wildlife laws need to be incremented and then the herd will rebound even with the cougars (which are a natural part of the environment) still there, but for that to happen the DWR would have to give a sh*** about Monroe mountain's deer herd, and that just won't ever happen, along with most of the state.


----------



## Petersen (Sep 7, 2007)

As often happens, I think I'm going to both agree and disagree with Pro on the global warming issue.

It's hard to argue with satellite photos that show huge summer expanses of open water in the Arctic Ocean that never used to be there (at least since we've been keep track). On the other hand, as Pro mentioned, the variables in all of this are enormous, and I don't think anyone has a good grasp of the complexity of the planet's climate. Predicting the weather a week in advance is nearly impossible because of the cumulative effect of variables that become increasing complex to the point of near chaos within even that short time frame. Making bold predictions about the weather five, ten or fifty years into the future seems a bit presumptuous.

I'll disagree, however, that it's a hoax. At least I wouldn't use that word. A hoax is easily perpetrated by an individual or even a small handful of people. A hoax involving tens of thousands of scientists, though, seems a bit more like a mass conspiracy, and the dynamics of mass conspiracies make them all but impossible. Instead, I'd liken the whole thing to the mass hysteria over say, Y2K or nuclear reactors or, closer to home, chronic wasting disease or whirling disease — all very legitimate problems that were possibly a bit overstated by some overly excited people and then blown out of proportion by a public always queuing up for the next pending disaster. I'm going to stay skeptical on global warming, but keep an open mind that we just might be growing oranges instead of apples in northern Utah sometime down the road.

Besides, I have it on good authority that the Earth will be hit by an asteroid soon and that all the cougars, deer and elk on Monroe Mountain will be blown to smitherines, so none of this matters. :wink:


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

I like how people say it's arrogant to think man can effect climate change..I think its arrogance to think all the chemicals and pollutants in the air don't have an effect..Global warming enthusiasts and its extremes might not be accurate and maybe this is a cycle that happens so many thousands of years..who knows.. All I do know is that the more chemicals and pollutants we keep out of the air is a good thing right?? so lets do all we can to keep the air and environment as clean as possible.. Remember scouting and leaving a place cleaner than when you found it?? thats all I'm sayin..


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Excellent, I hope some of you got the point of why I asked W2U what he thought of global warming. And if he would blame that too on a reason the deer herd sucks. Well I wasn't disappointed not only did he sight several so called sportsmen groups he went further to mention the *ELK* may very well benefit from global warming. Thank you W2U.

Just like global warming is abstract with a million factors. Habitat loss has been sold to sportsman as the god or devil of wildlife management. Deer herd down? Habitat. Elk herd up? Habitat. Could you pick a more mysterious factor? Its well known you can hire a study done to come up with just about any finding you want. It may very well be possible that Utah's habitat could not support deer herds of the 50s and 60s. I do believe that it could be somewhere in the middle. If managed as such.

So what has the State and conservation groups gained from going with this habitat issue?
1. More fees 
2. An end all excuse to poor management
3. Federal funding
4. Less hunter management.
5. A poor hunting outlook (for the sportsman groups)
6. Donations, donations, donations state and private alike
7. A partnership with the cattlemen and FS and BLM

Now I believe the predation issue is huge factor. But with this mentality that habitat loss and deer being not hardy. Takes away from the priority to manage them. As a deer man I can only hope now for cats to be recognized as a major factor on elk. On Monroe I used to see deer bones by the 100s in the 80s and 90s now the deer are all gone and my guess would be the cats starved themselves out or started on the elk. Has that been found in the study on Monroe?

What happened to Monroe's elk herd in the late 1999 threw 2001. :shock: Nearly cut in half. Was that the cats? That was about the bottoming out of Monroe's deer herd IMO.


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

There are other players in this game. Don't forget that anti-hunters support large predator populations to decrease hunting. Worked with wolves.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Petersen said:


> I'll disagree, however, that it's a hoax. At least I wouldn't use that word. A hoax is easily perpetrated by an individual or even a small handful of people. A hoax involving tens of thousands of scientists, though, seems a bit more like a mass conspiracy, and the dynamics of mass conspiracies make them all but impossible. Instead, I'd liken the whole thing to the mass hysteria over say, Y2K or nuclear reactors or, closer to home, chronic wasting disease or whirling disease - all very legitimate problems that were possibly a bit overstated by some overly excited people and then blown out of proportion by a public always queuing up for the next pending disaster. I'm going to stay skeptical on global warming, but keep an open mind that we just might be growing oranges instead of apples in northern Utah sometime down the road.


Let's be clear, it has been blown out of proportion by 'scientists' and 'journalists'. That is why I think it is far more than just hysteria. When you have scientists willing to LIE and make up data, when you have most of the mainstream media not do any fact checking and ramping up the fear, when you have progressive politicians who jump on it to advance their progressive agendas, I call that a scam/hoax or even much worse.



Petersen said:


> Besides, I have it on good authority that the Earth will be hit by an asteroid soon and that all the cougars, deer and elk on Monroe Mountain will be blown to smithereens, so none of this matters. :wink:


That will take care of the wolves as well. On the flip side, maybe it will restore 'nature' and T-Rex might make a comeback.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

hey Pro, just a couple questions, comments:

1. forget the media, and all the store-bought scientists with their manipulated date. Have you experienced any local climate changes on your own? I have. I recall when we had to snowmobile from the highway to get to Fish Lake over New Year's weekend. We had to do it every year, and every year there was plenty of snow for the trip. It's been a long time since we've had that much snow at Fish Lake for New Year's weekend.


2. Is it man-caused? Obviously, the Earth has been going through cycles for millions of years, and will continue to go through cycles for a few more million. However, it is ludicrous to think that the smog of the Salt Lake Valley in winter - the worst smog in the country - is a natural phenomenon. It is certainly "man-caused". And, it certainly has effects on local temperatures. Do you believe this, or is this something made-up by so-called 'scientists'?

3. Do you believe that large cities, with all their concrete and asphalt, increase the local temperatures of urban areas? Is it a scientific fact that all that concrete absorbs and radiates energy / heat? Is this man-caused, or a natural part of the Earth's cycle?

4. How about all the people that have moved to Utah from So. Cal? Isn't that evidence enough that our great state is slowly warming?

Man certainly has an effect on our environment. Why are people so scared to admit to it, and attempt to do some things to help reduce our footprint? There is no denying that climate change is real. There is no denying that global climate change is a part of the Earth's natural cycle. There is also no denying that man plays a significant part in local climate changes. 

I'm not saying that we shouldn't be drilling for oil in the US. I'm not saying that Al Gore is right. I'm not saying that the Sea Shepperd should be endorsed for their actions. But to flat out deny climate change is happening is kind of like peeing into the wind. It truly shows your intelligence level.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

Wow, I was going to share some lion experiences, but it's gotten to the point that my boots aren't tall enough O-|-O


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I would like to read some cougar experiences.  

I still haven't gotten the answer to my original post.

What is the message about "the true relationship between cougar and prey"?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> My question to you is this...what bad could/would come from efforts to curb global warming? In other words, why would you ever fight the steps conservation organizations are taking to protect wildlife from climate change? For example, what bad will come from protecting diversity of native species, restoring natural ranges of native species, protecting headwaters and other sources of cold water, restoring riparian habitats, minimizing existing sources of pollution, minimizing overgrazing, limiting introductions of non-native species, monitoring and evaluating habitats, placing limits on pollution, reducing our nation's dependency on fossil fuels and developing renewable energy sources, and promoting strong wildlife stewardship?


I'm still waiting for some of you naysayers to answer me this....what negative effects would any conservation or hunting group have on our wildlife by doing these things?



utahgolf said:


> I like how people say it's arrogant to think man can effect climate change..I think its arrogance to think all the chemicals and pollutants in the air don't have an effect..Global warming enthusiasts and its extremes might not be accurate and maybe this is a cycle that happens so many thousands of years..who knows.. All I do know is that the more chemicals and pollutants we keep out of the air is a good thing right?? so lets do all we can to keep the air and environment as clean as possible.. Remember scouting and leaving a place cleaner than when you found it?? thats all I'm sayin..


My very point...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> What is the message about "the true relationship between cougar and prey"?


You don't like the answer because it doesn't jive with your ignorant opinion....

...you will never understand additive and compensatory predation and will, therefore, never understand even the slightest bit about this true relationship!


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Iron Bear said:


> 1. More fees
> 2. An end all excuse to poor management
> 3. Federal funding
> 4. Less hunter management.
> ...


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> Iron Bear said:
> 
> 
> > What is the message about "the true relationship between cougar and prey"?
> ...


Nope I believe in animal husbandry. Just as you can raise domesticated animals in the wild. You can cultivate wildlife in several directions. I don't believe mother nature controls all. I do believe man can and should mitigate natural predation in cases of deer, elk, moose,, sheep ect. We can fill that niche in Utah. We have before and look at what it was. Deer was one of Utah's largest industries. Many rural towns depended on the deer hunt.

Were there is a will there is a way.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

This may have already been asked, but is it prudent or sound biology to reduce the natural numbers of one species to increase another, just because it is more appealing for humans to hunt the latter?


----------



## tuffluckdriller (May 27, 2009)

w2u, 

With fossil fuel ABOUNDING in the state, why should we not use them? They are there to use, just as animals are there to use...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

PBH said:


> hey Pro, just a couple questions, comments:
> 
> 1. forget the media, and all the store-bought scientists with their manipulated date. Have you experienced any local climate changes on your own? I have. I recall when we had to snowmobile from the highway to get to Fish Lake over New Year's weekend. We had to do it every year, and every year there was plenty of snow for the trip. It's been a long time since we've had that much snow at Fish Lake for New Year's weekend. I can answer this with one sentence: Never in the history of earth has the climate NOT changed.
> 
> ...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> This may have already been asked, but is it prudent or sound biology to reduce the natural numbers of one species to increase another, just because it is more appealing for humans to hunt the latter?


I don't know if it is "prudent or sound biologically", but it IS natural for one predator to reduce the competition of other predators of the same food source. have you seen what wolves do to coyotes, or what mature toms do to young toms when they cross paths, or what hyenas do to a lone lion? Man IS part of nature!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> My question to you is this...what bad could/would come from efforts to curb global warming? In other words, why would you ever fight the steps conservation organizations are taking to protect wildlife from climate change? For example, what bad will come from protecting diversity of native species, restoring natural ranges of native species, protecting headwaters and other sources of cold water, restoring riparian habitats, minimizing existing sources of pollution, minimizing overgrazing, limiting introductions of non-native species, monitoring and evaluating habitats, placing limits on pollution, reducing our nation's dependency on fossil fuels and developing renewable energy sources, and promoting strong wildlife stewardship?


I am with you on all put the part I underlined. This is where I get off the train. The rest is common sense and good stewardship that have NOTHING to do with global warming or climate change cause by man.



utahgolf said:


> I like how people say it's arrogant to think man can effect climate change..I think its arrogance to think all the chemicals and pollutants in the air don't have an effect..Global warming enthusiasts and its extremes might not be accurate and maybe this is a cycle that happens so many thousands of years..who knows.. All I do know is that the more chemicals and pollutants we keep out of the air is a good thing right?? so lets do all we can to keep the air and environment as clean as possible.. Remember scouting and leaving a place cleaner than when you found it?? thats all I'm sayin..


Having an effect is not the same as being the cause. I am all for common sense and stewardship of our surroundings, but that is NOT what the Fool-Aid crowd is calling for. The end does NOT justify the means, I'm saying that just because the environment can be improved by listening to the scare mongers like Al Gore doesn't mean his cause is worthy or honorable in any way.


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

killdeer said:


> I really enjoy the discussion on the many topics posted here. I believe there is "some" really good thinking that takes place (that that I mostly agree with). I have developed a healthy respect for the thoughts and reason displayed by proutdoors, peterson, and others. However, *Pro keeps me thinking: is he choosing to take a side of an issue just to debate or does he truly have such diversity in his beliefs? * So I ask: Pro, is there any global warming? Has there been anything that could be considered climate change?


 -/O_- Just kidding PRO. For a non-scientist he does stay informed on things. Forgive me for butting in on PRO's question but the answer is yes and yes. What is debatable is what does that mean? What is the cause? and What are the consequences, if any?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

8)


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

tuffluckdriller said:


> w2u,
> 
> With fossil fuel ABOUNDING in the state, why should we not use them? They are there to use, just as animals are there to use...


I never said we shouldn't. But, I do believe we should be seeking to find the cheapest, cleanest, and most renewable energy sources out there.

There are a lot reasons for concern about more drilling and increased oil and gas development projects.... research in Western Wyoming has shown that natural gas development has had negative impacts on mule deer, for example. Research shows that natural gas wells placed in mule deer habitat has pushed deer into smaller areas during critical winter times even when habitat conditions near the drilling sites were more favorable. Dislocating these deer at such critical times could undoubtedly affect the deer recruitment and winter survival rates...
....also, oil and gas drilling have major impacts on an areas water. Some coal drilling forces companies to pump tons of water from coal aquifers reducing fresh water availability in springs, streams, and shallow aquifers. This loss of water undoubtedly affects not only agricultural uses but damages fisheries and regional ecosystems....
...this doesn't even include documented declines of grouse in Wyoming caused by drilling and oil and gas development. So, yeah...great, we have loads of fossil fuels in Utah that we could use. But, to think that we should just use them because they are there is very short sighted and doesn't take into account what kind of detrimental impacts that drilling for them could have.
If we choose to go after and utilize our resources, we better first make sure that the impacts are going to be minimal...or non-existent.

...Personally, I don't think it matters whether global changes in climate and weather are man caused or not. To me what matters is that we COULD be causing these changes and that we COULD be better stewards of our natural resources. AND, if there are things we can do to reduce the effects of our drier climate, smaller snowpacks, and increased pollution, then why shouldn't we?

Pro and others keep saying that the earth's climate has changed since the very beginning of time...and, he is right. But, does that mean we should just throw our hands up in the air and say that change is inevitable and there is nothing we can do to reduce the negative effects that these changes may cause? My word, does it really matter who or what is causing us to lose alpine tundra and mountain habitats? Does it really matter who or what is causing the loss of waterfowl habitat and riparian areas? What about the loss of trout habitat or coldwater fish habitat? Loss of sagebrush habitat? Increases in pinion juniper habitat (which reduces mule deer forage)? The bottom line is that these changes affect the wildlife we love...and they are real! The point is that we can be a part of nature and improve our wildlife habitat....why shouldn't we?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I am with you on all put the part I underlined. This is where I get off the train. The rest is common sense and good stewardship that have NOTHING to do with global warming or climate change cause by man.


So, you disagree with these findings:
http://www.trib.com/news/state-and-regi ... 2d0d4.html

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewc ... t=usblmpub

http://www.oilandgasbmps.org/resources/wildlife.php

http://www.createstrat.com/muledeerinth ... pment.html


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Pro and others keep saying that the earth's climate has changed since the very beginning of time...and, he is right. But, does that mean we should just throw our hands up in the air and say that change is inevitable and there is nothing we can do to reduce the negative effects that these changes may cause? My word, does it really matter who or what is causing us to lose alpine tundra and mountain habitats? Does it really matter who or what is causing the loss of waterfowl habitat and riparian areas? What about the loss of trout habitat or coldwater fish habitat? Loss of sagebrush habitat? Increases in pinion juniper habitat (which reduces mule deer forage)? The bottom line is that these changes affect the wildlife we love...and they are real! The point is that we can be a part of nature and improve our wildlife habitat....why shouldn't we?


That's a pretty high horse you ride there cowboy. :? Who said we should "just throw our hands up in the air and do nothing"? It sure wasn't/isn't me. Yes, it DOES matter who/what is the cause of climate change. If you can't/WON'T identify the cause(s) how can you fix the problems from the cause? That MUST be the first step to any real solution, anything else is just "feel good" nonsense that MIGHT help, but it MIGHT hurt, the things you/I claim to be concerned about. Knee jerk science is not wise, and if you can't/won't/haven't identified the cause(s) you are just as likely to magnify the woes as you are to reduce them.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > I am with you on all put the part I underlined. This is where I get off the train. The rest is common sense and good stewardship that have NOTHING to do with global warming or climate change cause by man.
> ...


Nope, I just don't think it is as cut and dry as you make it out to be. We can use fossil fuels wisely, thus reducing the impacts doing so has on the environment and wildlife. And guess what, we ARE doing that more and more every day. We extract fossil fuels cleaner and more efficient than in the past, and we will continue to get better at it. Ironically, those 'renewable' energy sources you try and say are better have proven to have as bad, or worse, effects on wildlife as the evil fossil fuels. :shock:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> That's a pretty high horse you ride there cowboy. :? Who said we should "just throw our hands up in the air and do nothing"? It sure wasn't/isn't me. Yes, it DOES matter who/what is the cause of climate change. If you can't/WON'T identify the cause(s) how can you fix the problems from the cause? That MUST be the first step to any real solution, anything else is just "feel good" nonsense that MIGHT help, but it MIGHT hurt, the things you/I claim to be concerned about. Knee jerk science is not wise, and if you can't/won't/haven't identified the cause(s) you are just as likely to magnify the woes as you are to reduce them.


So, we shouldn't complete dixie harrow projects to reduce pinion juniper advances to help mule deer forage thrive? You act like we shouldn't look to curb declines in habitat that scientists including the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies--the professional ungulate managers--are claiming is climate change caused? Get real Pro....it only matters if WE are the cause. You are acting like the work done to curb global changes are knee-jerk...BS!

Pro, you remind of the addicts on the A&E show Intervention...you are in a major state of denial!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > That's a pretty high horse you ride there cowboy. :? Who said we should "just throw our hands up in the air and do nothing"? It sure wasn't/isn't me. Yes, it DOES matter who/what is the cause of climate change. If you can't/WON'T identify the cause(s) how can you fix the problems from the cause? That MUST be the first step to any real solution, anything else is just "feel good" nonsense that MIGHT help, but it MIGHT hurt, the things you/I claim to be concerned about. Knee jerk science is not wise, and if you can't/won't/haven't identified the cause(s) you are just as likely to magnify the woes as you are to reduce them.
> ...


Talk about being in denial. You know **** well I have helped on many of these projects that you try and spin that I am against. Dixie harrow projects have NOTHING to do with man made climate change, NOTHING. They are knee jerk, since those who were supposed 'peer reviewed scientists' are now being exposed as hacks and LIARS, yet you stay in denial and say the debate is over. The science that you, Al Gore, and sadly many in the wildlife management arena used has been proven to by sketchy at best, flat out wrong in many instances. One of us needs an intervention without a doubt, but it's you for being addicted to the Kool-Aid of man made climate change.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> This may have already been asked, but is it prudent or sound biology to reduce the natural numbers of one species to increase another, just because it is more appealing for humans to hunt the latter?


I guess that depends on what you want to manage for. We already have that going on in Utah today. Are you in favor of a healthy Grizzly bear population in Utah or wolves?

Do you control rodents at your house with rattle snakes? No you have better methods to keep the balance. And being an arrogant human you use them.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Dixie harrow projects have NOTHING to do with man made climate change, NOTHING. They are knee jerk, since those who were supposed 'peer reviewed scientists' are now being exposed as hacks and LIARS, yet you stay in denial and say the debate is over. The science that you, Al Gore, and sadly many in the wildlife management arena used has been proven to by sketchy at best, flat out wrong in many instances. One of us needs an intervention without a doubt, but it's you for being addicted to the Kool-Aid of man made climate change.


 :roll: :roll: :roll: 
The truth, Pro, is that you are somehow in the belief that "climate change" is a left-wing liberal threat to your Republican and conservative ideals. But, what you don't get is that it isn't. In fact, it is a threat to your lifestyle as a hunter and outdoorsman. That is why so many hunters and fishermen across the country are joining forces with conservation groups and the AFWA to fight it...it is also why the AFWA just recently (January 2010) released their 42 page recommendation to fish and wildlife agencies on how to fight climate change).

...the truth is that you can't step away from your politics for a minute and recognize, as most sportsmen have, the need to look closely at our outdoor neighborhoods and recognize the negative effects our actions are having on wildlife. Sadly, you look at things like the smog in SLC as a natural phenomena and not man caused...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> We extract fossil fuels cleaner and more efficient than in the past, and we will continue to get better at it. Ironically, those 'renewable' energy sources you try and say are better have proven to have as bad, or worse, effects on wildlife as the evil fossil fuels. :shock:


Yeah...and while we CONTINUE to get better, we CONTINUE to impact wildlife--like mule deer-negatively albeit less and less. So, what you are saying is that it is ok to have a negative impact on wildlife as long as we lessen that negative impact over time? Are you serious?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> :roll: :roll: :roll:
> The truth, Pro, is that you are somehow in the belief that "climate change" is a left-wing liberal threat to your Republican and conservative ideals. But, what you don't get is that it isn't. In fact, it is a threat to your lifestyle as a hunter and outdoorsman. That is why so many hunters and fishermen across the country are joining forces with conservation groups and the AFWA to fight it...it is also why the AFWA just recently (January 2010) released their 42 page recommendation to fish and wildlife agencies on how to fight climate change).
> 
> ...the truth is that you can't step away from your politics for a minute and recognize, as most sportsmen have, the need to look closely at our outdoor neighborhoods and recognize the negative effects our actions are having on wildlife. Sadly, you look at things like the smog in SLC as a natural phenomena and not man caused...


Nothing but hyperbole!
It's not a "left-wing liberal threat', but it is a progressive/socialism threat that surfaced right after the Soviet Union collapsed. Do a little research on the pioneers of the environmental movement, then get back to me. Climate change, if cause by nature, can't be changed by man. That is why it is crucial to KNOW the cause of climate change. The AFWA is no smarter than the ICCP that they got their data from. Sadly, the ICCP has been exposed as bogus and of having cooked the books (pun intended).

The truth is, everything you support is based on YOUR political beliefs, you're just in denial.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > We extract fossil fuels cleaner and more efficient than in the past, and we will continue to get better at it. Ironically, those 'renewable' energy sources you try and say are better have proven to have as bad, or worse, effects on wildlife as the evil fossil fuels. :shock:
> ...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> It's not a "left-wing liberal threat', but it is a progressive/socialism threat that surfaced right after the Soviet Union collapsed. Do a little research on the pioneers of the environmental movement, then get back to me. Climate change, if cause by nature, can't be changed by man. That is why it is crucial to KNOW the cause of climate change. The AFWA is no smarter than the ICCP that they got their data from. Sadly, the ICCP has been exposed as bogus and of having cooked the books (pun intended).


Ohhh...so, it's them **** socialists, I see. :roll: Do you really think that the only source of information regarding climate change is from the ICCP? What about the CCSP? Or, the IPCC (are you sure it was the ICCP you are referring too?)The NCARC? The NSF? Are they the evil stepchildren of socialism too? So, all scientists who have found evidence of climate change are frauds? They are pushing us into some kind of marxist socialism?


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I was confused at first but now I get it. The *Politics* board has been closed. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh well continue on.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > This may have already been asked, but is it prudent or sound biology to reduce the natural numbers of one species to increase another, just because it is more appealing for humans to hunt the latter?
> ...


I have an idea that humans might be as much a part of nature, as a tumor is a part of a woman's breast.


> *Iron Bear wrote"*
> 
> Are you in favor of a healthy Grizzly bear population in Utah or wolves?


Yes.


> Do you control rodents at your house with rattle snakes? No you have better methods to keep the balance. And being an arrogant human you use them.


No, but It isn't for balance, it's because I have an aversion to the plague.

I also have and idea that keeping critters out of my yard to avoid sickness and death is hardly a comparison to changing the dynamics of nature for pleasure.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

No room for rodents in your natural world utopia? :shock: 

No room for predators in mine.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I won't speak for anyone else, but I don't always consider choosing to breath "Utopia".


----------



## tuffluckdriller (May 27, 2009)

Wow....

So these so-called scientists that are predicting that we--man--are causing a global climate change are so sure of themselves that they can tell us what the weather is going to do in 20-50 years because of this so-called man-made global climate change, right?

Can these same scientists tell me, to the nearest one hundredth of a degree, what the temperature will be on my front doorstep at 4:23 p.m. in two days? If their models are so blasted accurate, why not? How about the relative humidity at that time? How about accurately, within a tenth of a degree, tell me what the temperature will be every hour for the next week?

But wait, I'll change things on them by riding my bike to work! I can change the climate! I know I can if I just concentrate really hard!!!! Wait a minute, no I can't. I'm just a puny human. 

In fact, if I could change it, or even if the entire country could, then who was it that ordered that hurricane in Louisiana? Or the one that hit in Texas? How about the fruit freeze last year in Florida? Puny man can't change the climate. What a boneheaded idea. OBVIOUSLY we can decimate an animal herd. It's blooming OBVIOUS that we can pollute and ruin things in an area. But we are NOT capable of changing the CLIMATE!! That's such an asinine idea!

It's OBVIOUS that we need to be good stewards of our resources. Why do you think they've come up with directional drilling? It's also OBVIOUS that these one-sided eco scientists are not trying to practice sound science. If their model is so accurate for years to come, then we'd have the news forecasting our weather for the entire winter before summer was over. Then we could plan our water usage around how much snow the weather shows we'll get for the year. But they can't and don't. They're lucky to be accurate for a couple of days. And even then, it's still just an educated GUESS!

Man, this thread needs to be deleted. Not just locked...delete the dumb thing.


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

tuffluckdriller said:


> Wow....
> 
> So these so-called scientists that are predicting that we--man--are causing a global climate change are so sure of themselves that they can tell us what the weather is going to do in 20-50 years because of this so-called man-made global climate change, right?
> 
> ...


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Here's an update on the actual topic....
There are now 20 lions collared on Monroe,,,,,And 1-I is spot on, the majority of cats there
are living on a elk diet,,,,,not deer.....

Global warming uh? well I do know this much, The earth has been going through these
cycles since the beginning of time.........

The only legitimate argument here is the possibility all the emissions and crap is
speeding up the cycles..


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> 1. I can answer this with one sentence: Never in the history of earth has the climate NOT changed.
> 
> 2. How can it be "obviously man caused" if climate change has ALWAYS occurred? *Smog *in the Salt Lake valley has NOTHING to do with ice caps melting in the Alps. Funny, just this week they are saying that the fog in the San Fran Bay area is disappearing, and they are trying to blame it on man made climate change. Odd, just a couple of years ago the SAME people said man made climate change was going to cause an increase in fog in the Bay area. :roll:
> 
> ...


good grief Pro! Let's try to stay on topic. I try to keep things local and you want to talk about ice caps in the Alps??

1. Good comment.

2. Please don't confuse SMOG with FOG. Smog is: A noxious mixture of particulates and gases that is the result of urban air pollution. Smog is not natural. Smog is man-mad. Fog, on the other hand, is natural. Fog is: droplets of water vapor suspended in the air near the ground. Now, forget about San Fran and whatever _those_ people are saying. What can WE do about the SMOG problem in Salt Lake? Isn't that issue affecting that environment?

3. Good first sentence. I don't recall any active volcanoes in Utah, although Yellowstone is close enough to hamper our outdoor activities when she blows. No where has either W2U nor myself EVER claimed man to be the "main cause of 'climate change'". I agree. That would be absurd. However, why are you so afraid of making some changes in man's ways that DO affect our environment and climate?

4. No. I'm not serious. It was a joke. You take yourself, and others, FAR, FAR, FAR too serious. Please, pull your panties out of your ass and relax a little bit. Your going to have a heart attack one of these days, and I'm going to feel really bad because I'll feel partially responsible for it.

5. Glad to see you're willing to make some changes. See, we really can see eye-to-eye.

6. Re-read that statement Pro. It wasn't directed towards you. Remember, I was calling out those who deny climate change is happening. You have told us numerous times that you KNOW climate is happening, and has been for a very long time. Again, take a moment to pull the panties out of your ass. Calm down. Let that heart rest. I think you have too much stress in your life. You need an outlet. Maybe you should go fishing? I'll take you, just let me know when you want to go.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

PBH said:


> good grief Pro! Let's try to stay on topic. I try to keep things local and you want to talk about ice caps in the Alps?? You can't stay 'local' when you are talking climate change that affects wildlife. If what you and your brother say is true, what happens in Utah MUST affect the Alps and Kenya as well. And, the topic is actually, "Latest Cougar Management Plan", not how the end is coming from smog.
> 
> 1. Good comment.
> 
> ...


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Pro -- Kenya, the Alps, Copenhagen.......come on Pro. Get back to Utah for a few minutes...

Me serious? I've never been serious in my entire life. Why start now, on this thread, with this topic?

hispanics migrating to Utah from So. Cal because of increased temps -- and you think I'm serious?! You a funny guy  !



Confucius said:


> Never argue with a fool...he may be doing the same thing.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> Here's an update on the actual topic....
> There are now 20 lions collared on Monroe,,,,,And 1-I is spot on, the majority of cats there
> are living on a elk diet,,,,,not deer.....


That must be a result of a lack of deer. 
So let me get this straight. We are protecting a species that has diminished the deer and now are starting on elk. So that we can have a false sense that things are natural. And a few hunters get to chase a lion and even fewer get to harvest.

Seems like a continuation of giving the upper hand to a special interest group to the demise of the majority of hunters. The first trade was deer for elk now its elk for lions.

I don't see were lions are any different than wolves. Other than cats are so discrete.

20 loins collared on Monroe. :shock: Surly they don't have them all collared. That's as many as 1000 deer a yr. Maybe more. Include coyotes. And that must double the hunters impact on the herd.

Why this isn't addressed from a big game hunters standpoint. I will never understand. And we spend millions a yr on habitat projects. That are largely unproven and will take decades to see results if we do.


----------

