# Winter Die Off



## Calling all ducks (Apr 22, 2009)

This winter must be having some serious effects on are big game. 

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk


----------



## 7mm Reloaded (Aug 25, 2015)

Why do you think that?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

It is not called winter kill until April, this is summer/fall kill, and it is underway with a vengeance in some places. Many deer went into this winter in poor shape. There are lots of dead deer on many hill sides. Many of them hit the winter range, and then tipped over pretty quick. Many of the carcasses that I was watching are now buried because it just keeps snowing. I can't even get into some of these places without a sled anymore. I almost had to have my car towed by a snow cat last week, and now you can't drive within two miles of that spot. The deer, elk, and moose were already having a hard time there, and that was before 22 more inches of snow.

There are 300 plus elk that should be on the Middle fork WMA in Ogden valley, that are wintering two plus miles to the South, and North West of the WMA instead. There is a reason that the DWR is feeding deer in Bear Lake valley, and hopefully other places soon. There are several groups of people that began feeding in the Ogden Valley two weeks ago, that have reached out to the DWR to get a feeding program going. The DWR has been resistant to this. Myself and others have reached out to MDF and others along the same lines. The response: Chirp, chirp, chirp...........

Come on, it is just deer, this is not rocket science, this is not hard stuff to figure out. Honest to God, I'm trying to be nice, but...........

Things did not start out all that terrible at the beginning of this winter. But then we got the rain, followed by low temps. I watched deer, elk, and moose really shift up their feeding patterns after this, and then they started going for minerals, um....I can't remember which ones though........ I believe some of you know what that means. Here is a bit of a preview of how some of that unfolded: http://rutalocura.com/winter_2016_2017

There has already been a few tons of feed hauled, and I spent the day delivering(to other people) and placing selenium blocks, and magnesium chloride.

Here is the short version of why they need these minerals right now. Most of you already know how they became deficient in them in the first place, so I won't go into that. First we got the rain, and we had the smog. The smog is full of phytotoxic nasties like aldehydes and heavy nitrates. These combined with the ground becoming saturated(anaerobic), we end up with lower mineral concentrations in the natural feed. This is part of what causes the deer to switch up feeding patterns and search. Second, we had cold temps that followed the rain. The cold temps require that the deer, elk, and moose burn more fat and sugars. When this occurs there are byproducts called lipid peroxidation. Minerals are required to protect these animals from the affect of this lipid peroxidation. But, many of these animals are already deficient in these minerals, and feeding on plants that have lowered mineral levels themselves. This then leads to additional mineral deficiencies as the animals use up what minerals they have, to burn what energy they stored, or can get from the plants. At some point when they don't have enough mineral reserves, their own fat and anything else they eat becomes toxic because of the affects of this lipid(fat) and glucose(sugars)peroxidation.

Short term solution: Mineral supplementation along with emergency feeding. The special pellets being used to feed the deer have selenium and magnesium in them, but it is not enough if the animals are already deficient. And the fact that they are going after these minerals months before they usually do, says they are definitely deficient.

This is what I have been warning about for the last 4-5 years.


----------



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

Nice to have you back LT, just wondering, it looks like up north the trend of rain/snow mix is going to continue in the 10 day forecast. At this point what your opinion of percentage the Northern part of the state will lose if this continues?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Nice to have you back LT, just wondering, it looks like up north the trend of rain/snow mix is going to continue in the 10 day forecast. At this point what your opinion of percentage the Northern part of the state will lose if this continues?


Not an easy question to answer, as far as percentages. Many of the first deer to drop were resident deer that summer on these winter ranges. They dropped with the first storms, before it got very bad. So, many of them already had allot of issues, as has been hashed out here before. Others have come in from other ranges and are not in that bad of shape, but I am not seeing any deer that are in what I would call great shape, same with moose, and allot of the elk. Though many elk look to be in pretty decent shape.










It was while watching this bull and about 30 others around the 16th that I noticed feed patterns change up. Elk that were on ridges 700 feet higher than this elk started to dig down into the dirt. They were kicking out trenches. This was on South facing limestone covered ridges at mahogany breaks. At first I thought they were just bedding, but they never bedded in the spots, they just kept their heads in the dirt.

Then I saw the deer go after magnesium on the road a few days later, so I got out the selenium blocks and mag-chloride to verify what was going on.

Most of the elk I have witnessed looked pretty good, until tonight. There were new elk that came in South of the WMA, and they had slumped shoulders, and looked thin. About half the moose have "floppy ears" and are way lower than normal. We have 2 in the foothills above Ogden, which is not normal at all(1000 feet too low). Ogden canyon is lined with them 100'-150' above the canyon bottom.

Beside there being a mixed bag of conditions that the animals are in, the deer and elk are not grouped up good yet. The deer are still all in herds mostly numbering less than 20. The elk have really begun to gather the last few days with one group being just over 100 tonight as it was getting dark. This has been one of the conversations about feeding, "where do we feed?" If there were hundreds in one spot, the normal spots, like in '84, '94, '08, or '11 then it would be a simpler answer, and this would have been recognized earlier as well.

In short, and over generalized terms, we could possibly lose half these deer in some spots.

Another observation made by me and others, is that most deer have dropped their antlers already, with allot of one antlered deer running around at the first of the month. The moose all dropped them the end of Dec. I saw one elk tonight that may have only had one antler as well, which would be way too soon. The below deer is a rare exception to the rule, he is in pretty good shape, and packing both antlers.










This one is only packing one antler, and was in pretty sketchy shape, acting very stressed.









This, unfortunately is a much more common site for mature bucks, both antlers dropped, stressed, and not in fabulous shape. I had this deer marked for death, and was just going to wait him out, but I can't even get into there now because of all the snow we have had the last week. He was one of the first to hit the selenium blocks.









If you click on the pictures in the last link I posted you can enlarge those images. In the pictures of the deer fighting over the salted snow in the road, you can already see ribs showing.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

More reference info: There were feeding studies done in Cache valley(mouth of Blacksmiths fork) between 2001 and 2006. Deer that were receiving supplemental feed were choosing supplemental feed that was amended with copper, over feed that had no copper. In addition to this, they were selectively feeding sagebrush that was 200%+ higher in selenium than non preferred sagebrush. That information can be found here: http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1107&context=etd

The deer in these studies suffered from high roadside mortality as well. I suspect that was because they were being drawn down to the highway for additional minerals as well. This can be a double whammy in winter because of road conditions and the fact that this usually occurs at dusk, or just after.

Which plays out like the two near misses below:


















I had deer that were still going after selenium and mag-chloride last winter while being supplementally fed(trail camera bait) as well. These are but just a few reasons why we know that additional mineral supplementation is required, even when supplemental feed is provided. In the case of the deer wanting copper in the first study, this would make sense given copper's role in glucose metabolism. High energy food like deer pellets is high glucose food after going through a deer's rumen. While selenium plays a more specific role in protecting against lipid peroxidation caused by burning fat.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Also, I just had a question about putting out feed. And we had some guys in the valley that were doing this as well. DO NOT put out those feed blocks that have molasses and corn, and that are all full of sugar. This is not the best thing for healthy deer, and it is a really bad idea for stressed and mineral deficient deer. This will only make things worse. Many feed stores carry specially formulated pellets for deer, this is what you want to feed the deer if you are going to feed them. In lieu of that, should that not be available, goat chow is not a bad substitute.

As for minerals, I put out American Stockman Se-90 blocks, and straight magnesium chloride. The magnesium can be hard to feed this time of year, it works best if you can get it into the soil. Straight out of the bag the stuff is too bitter for the deer to eat. So you have to dig out a spot, and dump the mag onto the surface of the dirt, it will "melt" into the dirt, even in below 0* temps and make it palatable for the deer. The right spot on plowed dirt roads works well for this. Mag is fortunately easy to come by this time of year, Costco has the best prices ~$14 bucks for 50# which will go a long way. The Costco brand is "Magnesium chloride 8300 ice melter".

This is what it looks like, can't be mistaken for anything else. The crystals are randomly shaped on their perimeter, but generally flat in their other axis unlike salt crystals.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

So I just had someone tell me that they spoke with "several" UDWR biologists a few weeks ago. I am being told that these DWR biologists told this individual that Bear Lake was an isolated situation, and that the deer were just fine everywhere else. I was also told that several conservation orgs took this same stance based on what they were told by the DWR, which fits with what this individual was told directly, by both the DWR and these orgs.

To give them the benefit of the doubt on this, if it was say 3 weeks ago, that would be an iffy judgement call, but one I can see being made. Given where we are at right now, that is a completely unacceptable position, that has to change.

People need to start putting some pressure on the DWR and these orgs to reevaluate this position, and get some plans in place and implemented. And further more, if they/we don't actually learn anything this time around, that helps mitigate these situations in the future, and we just keep repeating history, one blind and failed policy after another, I seriously don't see much of a future in hunting as we have known it. Dramatic? Yes, and lets hope it is just overly dramatic on my part, but given what I've been looking at for years now, it does not look very good from my particular vantage point.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Lonetree, I hope your wrong.
From my observation, which honestly has only been from my car and kitchen window. West of I-15 seems to be doing much better than East of that divide.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

I find it amazing that mule deer have been able to survive for so many thousands of years without mans help. And then factor in millions of native Americans who hunted year round with no limits or seasons it truly becomes mind boggling that even a single muley still exists today. Just imagine how many hundreds or thousands of winters much more severe than this year they've managed to survive then thrive


----------



## riptheirlips (Jun 30, 2008)

9 Huuuge elk laying in the field on East side of freeway just past Mountain Green if anyone wants to see some nice elk. Seen them late afternoon yesterday. Herd of domestic cows being fed there the elk are probably helping themselves to a little feed.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

LostLouisianian said:


> I find it amazing that mule deer have been able to survive for so many thousands of years without mans help. And then factor in millions of native Americans who hunted year round with no limits or seasons it truly becomes mind boggling that even a single muley still exists today. Just imagine how many hundreds or thousands of winters much more severe than this year they've managed to survive then thrive


I find it amazing how someone that lies about having a degree in wildlife biology, such as you, does not know **** about wildlife. I'm assuming that armchair is nice and comfy? Of course I mean you, not the suffering chair. Because out here in the real world conditions are not so nice, and maybe you missed the part about how many of these animals have been suffering for years because of man. Mother nature is just here to finish the job.

Normally, in the prehistoric times you refer to, the animals would indeed suffer from an event like this. But, they would not already be weakened and dealing with other conditions that compound the existing conditions driving them to death like we are dealing with now. Ignorance, its the worst part about the anti-hunting crowd, and easiest way to spot them.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Lonetree said:


> I find it amazing how someone that lies about having a degree in wildlife biology, such as you, does not know **** about wildlife. I'm assuming that armchair is nice and comfy? Of course I mean you, not the suffering chair. Because out here in the real world conditions are not so nice, and maybe you missed the part about how many of these animals have been suffering for years because of man. Mother nature is just here to finish the job.
> 
> Normally, in the prehistoric times you refer to, the animals would indeed suffer from an event like this. But, they would not already be weakened and dealing with other conditions that compound the existing conditions driving them to death like we are dealing with now. Ignorance, its the worst part about the anti-hunting crowd, and easiest way to spot them.


Isn't it time you quit your immature childish attacks on people's character, reputation and educational background? I am telling you for the last time, get off my @$$ and quit attacking me personally....got it?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

ridgetop said:


> Lonetree, I hope your wrong.
> From my observation, which honestly has only been from my car and kitchen window. West of I-15 seems to be doing much better than East of that divide.


Hoping I'm wrong is probably just blind optimism on my part right now, more of a coping mechanism for what is unfolding.

"Currently, Snowbasin has the biggest base depth of any ski resort in Utah with 142 inches, making it the deepest base the resort has seen in more than 37 years at this point in the season." http://www.ksl.com/?sid=42988019&nid=148&title=photos-the-snow-just-keeps-piling-up-at-snowbasin

The photo below shows Causey reservoir over a week ago. This is the South side of the dam proper. The deer were going after minerals on the road just around the corner from here. This was before we got 3 more feet of snow. You can not even drive up to the spill way anymore, the road is only plowed to just short of the turn off to Memorial park.










I plan to go check things out to the West next. Snow depth is not the whole picture, but certainly a very big part of it. Those rains that saturated the soil are one of the biggest problems. These are the same conditions that led to the Stansbury die off. The difference being there was not the snow pack for the Stansbury event, just the soil saturation. The early onset of laminitis is timed about right as well. I figured that the Stansbury die off really got under way around this time last year, based in part on how far those hooves had gone by the time I got to see them.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

LostLouisianian said:


> Isn't it time you quit your immature childish attacks on people's character, reputation and educational background? I am telling you for the last time, get off my @$$ and quit attacking me personally....got it?


Act like a grown up, and I will reciprocate. I'm not the one that claims to have a degree in wildlife biology, and then spouts stupid **** like a random word generator with tourettes.......Capish? I'm just pointing out the details, if you don't like that, don't provide them.


----------



## Trooper (Oct 18, 2007)

LostLouisianian said:


> I find it amazing that mule deer have been able to survive for so many thousands of years without mans help. And then factor in millions of native Americans who hunted year round with no limits or seasons it truly becomes mind boggling that even a single muley still exists today. Just imagine how many hundreds or thousands of winters much more severe than this year they've managed to survive then thrive


LL: I bet you'd be surprised but I actually found this statement to be super upsetting. Please tell me that you were just joking. You can see the difference between pre-1849 and today, right? Think hard... what has changed?


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Trooper said:


> LL: I bet you'd be surprised but I actually found this statement to be super upsetting. Please tell me that you were just joking. You can see the difference between pre-1849 and today, right? Think hard... what has changed?


Instead of criticizing why don't you point out what is factually wrong about my statement?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

LostLouisianian said:


> I find it amazing that mule deer have been able to survive for so many thousands of years without mans help. And then factor in millions of native Americans who hunted year round with no limits or seasons it truly becomes mind boggling that even a single muley still exists today. Just imagine how many hundreds or thousands of winters much more severe than this year they've managed to survive then thrive


I'll start with this point. You don't have to look any further than the archeological record. With Megafauna present, mule deer hunting by aboriginal peoples did not even register. As we see the climate change and we see things get drier, and we see the fauna get smaller, we see that mule deer were not the preferred food. Depending on the region, Bison and Big horn sheep were #1 on the menu, and there were hundreds of thousands of them, a true cornucopia. Only in some locations are mule deer truly represented in the miden piles of Native Americans, and this was of course second to sheep, and regional.

But I'm all ears for LL's response on the other changes.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Stop it you two, you're both on the same side


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Lewis and Clark were the first to document mule deer, they clearly stated they were very uncommon to find back then.

Genetic testing has verified Mule deer are hybrids from Whitetails and Blacktails interbreeding, and while a cool animal for sure, they are not the most hearty of deer species.


-DallanC


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

BPturkeys said:


> Stop it you two, you're both on the same side


I will begrudgingly have to agree with you. This has been part of my point for years, not that I have made a priority of communicating that very well. This being a fact though, means that as hunters, we are ALL going to suffer the ramifications of this winter, along with the wildlife.

Which brings me to my tipping point, where my belligerence shines through like a drunkard with a megaphone in an emergency. WE have brought much of this upon ourselves. And until we figure out that we need to change what, and how we go about wildlife "management", we are going to continue to suffer, me, you, and every other hunter. Which is why I get so upset when I see some people hold up the specter that got us here in the first place.

In the mean time, we need a plan for what we need to do about the current conditions.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

DallanC said:


> Lewis and Clark were the first to document mule deer, they clearly stated they were very uncommon to find back then.
> 
> Genetic testing has verified Mule deer are hybrids from Whitetails and Blacktails interbreeding, and while a cool animal for sure, they are not the most hearty of deer species.
> 
> -DallanC


And yet more false claims that get us to where we are at right now, low tag numbers, and deer going into winters in poor condition. Lewis and Clark skirted mule deer country, they did not pass through it. Secondly, mule deer are more hearty than just about any other deer species. Whitetails(except cous) won't last two seasons at 10,000', or in the West Desert, same goes for Black tails. Mule deer span the same habitat as antelope, elk, big horn sheep, and mountain goats, yeah they sound like a bunch of pussies, right?. And the whole hybrid thing is a bit of an over simplification.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

So, bigger question, where is the UDWR on this, and where are our sportsman's orgs on this? That is emergency feeding, and my request for additional mineral supplementation to go along with it. I'm still hearing crickets....well, I mean I would, but they are under 142" of snow. 

Maybe more like the awe inspiring deafening silence of huge snow flakes falling in almost white out conditions where snowshoe hare and grouse break occasionally, making for the best days of winter, except that the snow is too deep to get that ridge, because it won't stop snowing, and your shotgun is least of the worries that hare and the rest of the wildlife have.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Lonetree said:


> Lewis and Clark skirted mule deer country, they did not pass through it.


Oh really, I always thought Idaho, Montana, Washington etc all had mule deer, silly me.










Sure looks like the crossed through a whole lot of virgin mule deer territory










Quick, someone ask Karl how that ignore feature thingy works...

-DallanC


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Oh, you're right, the deer will be just fine this winter then...........

And if I am reading that right, then anywhere in the Western half of Nebraska is a mule deer paradise then, right?

Dallan, maybe you would like to share your plan for winter feeding with the group? Run all the side distractions you want, that is all you are capable of.

Remind me again, how much time did Lewis and Clark spend studying mule deer in the West?


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Lonetree said:


> Oh, your right, the deer will be fine this winter then...........


No, they are screwed. I posted as such not long ago when Goofy jumped in with a single picture of deer doing "fine". Deer where I live are struggling hard right now, most are down in town being hit by cars.

-DallanC


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

DallanC,

That was just his passive-aggressive way of not admitting he was wrong, but continuing in a circular argument. Something he's prone to do, which completely discredits his statements when he is right. 

He could have just said, "You're right Dallan. Your statement was more accurate than mine" and then moved back to his warnings about deer health. But alas, he's Lonetree. He is completely incapable of doing such. Which again, discredits everything he says. Unfortunately.


----------



## 7mm Reloaded (Aug 25, 2015)

:closed_2::amen:


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Vanilla said:


> DallanC,
> 
> That was just his passive-aggressive way of not admitting he was wrong, but continuing in a circular argument. Something he's prone to do, which completely discredits his statements when he is right.
> 
> He could have just said, "You're right Dallan. Your statement was more accurate than mine" and then moved back to his warnings about deer health. But alas, he's Lonetree. He is completely incapable of doing such. Which again, discredits everything he says. Unfortunately.


If it makes you feel better, Lewis and Clark passed straight through some of the very best mule deer country that God placed on this Earth, that's why they did not see very many..........

Don't hate the messenger, I'm not the one that has been setting the deer and hunters up to fail for years, nor am I the one that is not willing to help the situation as it exists right now.

What is your plan, after spending the last few years studying the situation???????

Edit: If it discredits everything I say, right? Then my concerns about the health of the deer are unfounded, correct??? We don't need to do anything, everything is just fine, Option 2 and Don Peay will save us, just like he did in '94?????


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

BPturkeys said:


> Stop it you two, you're both on the same side


Says the guy that seems to be one of the bigger culprits at piping up unnecessarily.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

colorcountrygunner said:


> Says the guy that seems to be one of the bigger culprits at piping up unnecessarily.


Funny post, given you did not touch the subject matter either. But seriously, what are your thoughts on the actual subject?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

And again, where is the leadership on this issue?????


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

I think that mother nature has +80% influence on herds. All of the planning, budgets, control methods humans can use, are completely irrelevant when mother nature throws a big nasty winter in the mix. 

Carrying Capacity goes right out the window when you start getting 3-4ft of snow on their wintering grounds.

Feeding can help small visible groups of animals, but honestly its a small fraction of the total state population. Sure not every animal needs to be fed, but people fixate on the poor deer outside their window, when 1000x as many out of view starve to death.

We shot 3 mule deer this past fall, all 3 had noticeably less fat than previous years.


-DallanC


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

Lonetree said:


> Funny post, given you did not touch the subject matter either. But seriously, what are your thoughts on the actual subject?


I don't care to discuss it with you, Lonetree. You can't even have a civil debate without manstruating all over everybody. I'll leave you to be snarky and petty with someone else.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

colorcountrygunner said:


> I don't care to discuss it with you, Lonetree. You can't even have a civil debate without manstruating all over everybody. I'll leave you to be snarky and petty with someone else.


:mrgreen:


----------



## Bdaddy (Jan 26, 2017)

Don't blast the new guy, Ive been reading posts on this forum for years and want to thank you all for lots of good information and entertainment. 

lonetree, although I have no doubt that nutrition is part of the reason that the deer and elk are wintering in different locations than they would normally be. Don't you think that the late cow hunts have put the hurt on the animals in the middle fork area? 
Ive lived in that area my hole life and never seen the animals being pushed around as much as I have the last five years. Combined with all the new homes on the winter range they have no place to go to get away from the pressure.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

DallanC said:


> I think that mother nature has +80% influence on herds. All of the planning, budgets, control methods humans can use, are completely irrelevant when mother nature throws a big nasty winter in the mix.
> 
> Carrying Capacity goes right out the window when you start getting 3-4ft of snow on their wintering grounds.
> 
> ...


Yes, most of the deer had noticeably less fat than in previous years. In 2012 herd health peaked, and has been declining since then.

We can pretend that no one read anything I have written since that time, but the fact still remains, these deer headed into this winter in less than ideal condition, and we will see bigger losses because of it. Couple that with option 2 that leaves us with fewer does, and rebuilding the herds will take longer, especially if we then focus on buck to doe ratios instead of actually growing the herds. We are already suffering a lack of mature herd matriarchs, which is a big reason why these deer are not grouped up like they should be. Everyone thinks that old dry does are good for nothing wastes of feed, but I beg to differ.

So if it is all nature, which we know that it is not, unless we want to be completely dishonest here, then we should do nothing, no feeding, no supplementation, and then reap the massive tag losses as well, followed by the next 10 years of suppressed herds and tag numbers after that? Because that is where we are at, if we don't feed, and then follow up with modification to prevent the severity of these events in the future.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Bdaddy said:


> Don't blast the new guy, Ive been reading posts on this forum for years and want to thank you all for lots of good information and entertainment.
> 
> lonetree, although I have no doubt that nutrition is part of the reason that the deer and elk are wintering in different locations than they would normally be. Don't you think that the late cow hunts have put the hurt on the animals in the middle fork area?
> Ive lived in that area my hole life and never seen the animals being pushed around as much as I have the last five years. Combined with all the new homes on the winter range they have no place to go to get away from the pressure.


I would blame snow depth mostly for the reason we see the elk in other places, and the timing of when they came in. The elk went straight South to the most Southerly slopes all along 39, not just The middle fork proper. These hillsides had the least snow. Nutrition is secondary to this with the elk. It is not just the Middle fork, hit most elk winter ranges, they are not where you would expect them. They were way lower above Causey as well, with no hunting pressure.

I'm not saying the new homes, and everything is not part of our winter range problem, it is, but you can winter deer in a parking lot with next to no food, if they come in off the summer and fall ranges in good shape. Same goes for the elk and moose as well. Winter ranges maintain animals. If they are required to build animals, which is what is being required of them right now, because the animals are in poor shape, then we are asking too much of the winter range. Like I said, all we need are parking lots, as long as the animals come in in good shape, which they did not, which is why we need supplemental feeding and minerals to get the ones that can make it, through this winter.

Edit: Specific example of elk being in places other than expected: There are two bulls(of about 15) wintering on elk ridge right above the Browning scout camp. These were the elk digging in the dirt. One of them has a white ear tag from Hardware ranch, and another appears to have a yellow one. Now I don't know where these elk summered, and we have seen several ear tagged elk South of 39 in recent years, but we know where they have wintered in the past. I would blame these elk ending up where they are on how these storms have played out, not that they went to those ridges to eat dirt. And that after ending up on those wind blown, South facing ridges with less snow than other places, they then also ended up feeling the strain of not getting the minerals they needed in the feed available. This would be because they could have been in marginal shape, and the saturated ground conditions were further lowering mineral content in the available feed, causing them to dig in the dirt to get minerals. If these elk were in top shape, and maybe they are(they were a long ways out), then the lack of minerals and nutrition will be a minor issue for them. But if they are poor to marginal in health, this will be the death nail for them, along with all the other issues they face. The big thing being we have a role in many of the things driving down these animals health, and we have the ability to mitigate some of those conditions right now, at least in some places.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

How do you know bearings need grease?

Additional feeding has begun: http://www.ksl.com/?sid=42991541&ni...-poachers-while-feeding-deer-in-harsh-weather

Mark my words, we are not doing enough on the mineral side. If you feed without additional supplementation you run the risk of making things worse in some of these cases.

That was quite the 180* turn around by the UDWR, "the deer are fine" to multi county feeding in around two weeks! Impressive!! And while I'm thankful to see this, I still think we are missing the boat. This takes care of part of the problem when it comes to feeding. And then we are still going to have the next 10 years of consequences continue to play out, that brought us here.

So we know where the UDWR is on this now, how about the orgs??? You know the wildlife ones.

BTW, we were all over Weber county yesterday dropping salt, feed, and mag, We never saw anyone from DWR.


----------



## muleydeermaniac (Jan 17, 2008)

Here is my two cents....My family has land in Morgan that is wintering range for deer and elk only come in on heavy years. And rarely do we ever see a moose in there. I will be up there again Saturday and will take pics with my new spotting scope so I don't disturb them as much as possible. The deer are hurting more than they were in 2011. There are at least a hundred elk down in there and I have seen 11 moose. Sometimes I think the land is where deer come to die. Last year there were only 12 dead deer on the property. Three from being stuck and starving down in a ravine. It was a doe and two fawns. In 2011 there were 79 dead dear 3 dead elk and two dead moose. And this is on a total of 700 acres. I am fearful this spring when I go out and shed hunt and do my yearly counts. I may put in for deer in that area and only let my son take one if he draws. I am no biologist I just know that property and deer habits and what to expect after winter die off. Seeing the animals in there this year in these numbers scares me as to what I will find come April.

Brandon


----------



## Bdaddy (Jan 26, 2017)

There are a few elk on the north end of the valley (which is very odd) prior to this last storm. They were walking on top of the snow. They couldn't dig down to get to grass. I'm sure that this last storm was a nail in the coffin for them. I guess I just figured that they wandered due to pressure in the usual winter grounds as well as the search for food. 
where did they start feeding?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Bdaddy said:


> There are a few elk on the north end of the valley (which is very odd) prior to this last storm. They were walking on top of the snow. They couldn't dig down to get to grass. I'm sure that this last storm was a nail in the coffin for them. I guess I just figured that they wandered due to pressure in the usual winter grounds as well as the search for food.
> where did they start feeding?


There are two places in Weber county with sled tracks that were not ours, one is the Middle fork WMA. I won't disclose the other spot. But we never saw DWR, or other people. So until I see it with my own two eyes in Weber county, I'll take it as a promise that it is going to happen.

Were those elk in the North Fork area? The moose looked bad over there.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

muleydeermaniac said:


> Here is my two cents....My family has land in Morgan that is wintering range for deer and elk only come in on heavy years. And rarely do we ever see a moose in there. I will be up there again Saturday and will take pics with my new spotting scope so I don't disturb them as much as possible. The deer are hurting more than they were in 2011. There are at least a hundred elk down in there and I have seen 11 moose. Sometimes I think the land is where deer come to die. Last year there were only 12 dead deer on the property. Three from being stuck and starving down in a ravine. It was a doe and two fawns. In 2011 there were 79 dead dear 3 dead elk and two dead moose. And this is on a total of 700 acres. I am fearful this spring when I go out and shed hunt and do my yearly counts. I may put in for deer in that area and only let my son take one if he draws. I am no biologist I just know that property and deer habits and what to expect after winter die off. Seeing the animals in there this year in these numbers scares me as to what I will find come April.
> 
> Brandon


You are seeing what everyone else, that has been out and paying attention has seen, you don't need to be a biologist to figure it out, this is all very plain as day if you have seen it.

Have you thought about supplemental feeding, or providing access for others to do so?


----------



## Bdaddy (Jan 26, 2017)

yes north fork area, the elk looked good but the moose and deer look sorry. All but the deer have been coming to the haystack at night. I hope they make it.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Bdaddy said:


> yes north fork area, the elk looked good but the moose and deer look sorry. All but the deer have been coming to the haystack at night. I hope they make it.


It takes allot to get the deer an the hay, and it is a really bad sign once in begins. If the moose are on hay, that is not good, because the deer can't be that far behind. If you can spare it, thanks for feeding the elk though.


----------



## muleydeermaniac (Jan 17, 2008)

Lonetree said:


> You are seeing what everyone else, that has been out and paying attention has seen, you don't need to be a biologist to figure it out, this is all very plain as day if you have seen it.
> 
> Have you thought about supplemental feeding, or providing access for others to do so?


I have looked into ordering the same feed that the MDF uses out of Idaho I just have to wait for payday next week. You get a discount if you buy a pallet worth and I can send it to my work and save on shipping since it is dock to dock. I have also spoken to the DNR about letting them in there to feed and they just ran around my concerns without giving it any thought. So I will head to Costco to buy the Magnesium as well and look for the Stockman Blocks. I have also thought about snow shoeing in and making regular trails for the animals to use instead of pushing snow with their chests. And I yelled at an idiot that let his two dogs chase some deer down by the gate and haven't seen the dog around since.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

muleydeermaniac said:


> I have looked into ordering the same feed that the MDF uses out of Idaho I just have to wait for payday next week. You get a discount if you buy a pallet worth and I can send it to my work and save on shipping since it is dock to dock. I have also spoken to the DNR about letting them in there to feed and they just ran around my concerns without giving it any thought. So I will head to Costco to buy the Magnesium as well and look for the Stockman Blocks. I have also thought about snow shoeing in and making regular trails for the animals to use instead of pushing snow with their chests. And I yelled at an idiot that let his two dogs chase some deer down by the gate and haven't seen the dog around since.


Excellent!! If you can't find Se-90 blocks, or mag-chloride, I'm still sitting on a few blocks and bags, and I will gladly deliver them, I am up and down the Wasatch Front and Back regularly.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Like MM mentioned, this is much worse than 2011. And another difference is that in 2011 the deer were in good shape. 

The winter itself is shaping up to look very much like '94. And the animals are already in the same poor condition they were in back then, with the buck to doe ratios right on par as well, the DWR likes to brag about this latter fact. 

I don't want this to be an "I told you so" moment on my part, I take absolutely no joy in watching this build up and play out as it has. What I ultimately want to come out of this, is the hard lessons that we need to learn to bring about abundant wildlife, and prosperous hunting. People can zing me all day long for being an *******, I am, no questions asked. But if someone does not step up and start doing what needs to be done, to turn the tides of repeated declines and reduced hunting, we are all going to be stuck listening to me rant, and I, more than anyone does not want that. To put it simply, we don't have any credible leadership on wildlife, that has to change. Like I said, you can kill the messenger, and discount everything I have said for the last 6 years here, it unfortunately won't change the reality of where we are right now, and where that is going to take us.

We need some serious changes made going into the future, we had allot more deer that could buffer loses in '94, we don't have that this time around. I'm not willing to wait another 20 years to see the trend line just start to tick back up again.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Where are the sfws, bow hunters of utah, utah bowmen association, mule deer foundation, rocky Mountain Elk Foundation on this? They took or raised money with our tags. Why are they not putting some of it back into feed for a hard winter?



Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> Where are the sfws, bow hunters of utah, utah bowmen association, mule deer foundation, rocky Mountain Elk Foundation on this? They took or raised money with our tags. Why are they not putting some of it back into feed for a hard winter?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


Not sure what they are involved with but a lot of those groups are mentioned here.

https://wildlife.utah.gov/wildlife-news/1982-dwr-biologists-feed-deer-in-new-areas.html


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

swbuckmaster said:


> Where are the sfws, bow hunters of utah, utah bowmen association, mule deer foundation, rocky Mountain Elk Foundation on this? They took or raised money with our tags. Why are they not putting some of it back into feed for a hard winter?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


RMEF, SFW, and MDF have been purchasing the specially formulated deer pellets and sending them to the DWR, as well as having volunteers assist in administering the feed.

Funny how LT mentioned how you can buy deer feed at the county feed stores but per the DWR those are not the proper pellets for mule deer and should NOT be used to feed wintering deer. I believe the ones being used by the DWR and conservation groups are a formula developed by University of Montana specifically for mule deer, as opposed to the ones at the feed store for use in deer farming (usually whitetail, fallow, or axis deer).

But the DWR is also of the opinion that most of the deer in the state went into winter in "excellent condition", and in my experience the bio's at the state are pretty sharp--but the political management tends to ignore the science. But if LT thinks that "many" deer were in "poor shape" going into the winter in post #3, "not many deer that are in...great shape" in #5, then [sarcasm] the DWR _MUST_ be wrong[/sarcasm] However, based on what I saw in November around Panguitch, those were some seriously FAT deer as were the ones my family shot and butchered this year. Hopefully the winter kill isn't too extreme, but only time will tell.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I spent today looking at the Lasson draw and Spencer Fork WMAs.

This last series of storms definitely added snow to central Utah.
Here is what it looked like today.

Lasson Draw elk, still quite high. All in all, not that bad.
I saw several groups similar to these.










Here is what the deer are dealing with at elevations underneath the elk, in the cedars.










On the Spencer Fork side of Hwy 89, On the NE slopes, the snow is deeper.










Heres some deer a couple hundred yards from those elk.










I've seen these areas worse,
sounds like a dry stretch coming for at least a week.
Cold next couple of days but then the inversion sets in.
This usually means warm day time temps in this area.
I expect to see a complete melted off on south slopes by Monday.....I'l be out again.8)


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

100 head of elk spilling down onto highway 39, several miles from where they usually winter. The string stretches the entire picture. They never headed back up after coming into the fields last night. They want to cross 39, where they are going to go is anyone's guess. 









The deer started to go after hay tonight as well.









"Many" of those 100 elk are not in very good condition. They are coming down to where it is knee deep on the Southern exposures. 









I've been posting pictures for years, that show that in many places of Northern Utah, the deer, elk, and moose are in terrible shape. It is not like I just started saying this now because it is convenient, or because I just noticed. For any of you that have not been out, covering miles for the last few weeks, I don't think you can appreciate how bad it is in many places. As for the DWR and the deer being in excellent shape, again I have been posting pictures for years that say otherwise. Is every deer in bad shape? No, but way too many of them have been declining in health for years now. If these deer were in such great shape, they would not need supplemental feed, so I guess it depends on which DWR story you want to believe.

Magpies digging for a carcass after the last dump.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Here is a South West exposure in the cedars. It is chest deep for the deer. The deer on the right is actually walking on top of the snow. They can do this for short distances on some exposures, then they drop in chest deep. 









The two deer on the right are pushing snow with their necks. It is up to their withers, and this is a semi South facing slope. Most of them are standing in their beds, they have not really gone very far from here for two days.


----------



## OriginalOscar (Sep 5, 2016)

colorcountrygunner said:


> I don't care to discuss it with you, Lonetree. You can't even have a civil debate without manstruating all over everybody. I'll leave you to be snarky and petty with someone else.


Wise move. He's a idiot

Spent the day in Park City and looped out the back route. It's deep and where they've cut you can see the frozen layers. Hopefully we'll get a solid melt very soon.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

OriginalOscar said:


> Wise move. He's a idiot
> 
> Spent the day in Park City and looped out the back route. It's deep and where they've cut you can see the frozen layers. Hopefully we'll get a solid melt very soon.


That's a compliment coming from you.  Technically that would be idiot savant, as the idiosyncrasies are not anomalously isolated, but rather they are neurally paired. I'm guessing, just a guess, but I'm guessing that being average and normal must suck?

Melt offs this time of year, with this heavy snow pack, only make things worse. It just makes for more ice that the animals can't dig through. We need consolidation, which has the functional affect of lowering the depth of snow, along with sublimation to loosen up the snow pack itself, so the animals can dig easier, and move through the snow easier. We are going to see more cold, which is a double edged sword. The animals have to burn more energy to keep warm, but it keeps new snows light, and can have the affect of loosening the existing wet snow pack. These last few storms put down powder, not the best powder, but pretty dry, this helps with the sublimation of those heavier wet layers that were already laid down, which is helping them both walk and dig through it in some places better than before.

There is no way we will see enough extended highs to get melt offs, verses additional freeze driven consolidation, with this much snow. And if we get the fog/smog again, like we had in '84 and '94, things may get even worse. I don't have the full picture yet, but the results of these fog driven weather patterns have historically been very bad. They are a big part of what kicked this all off two weeks ago, after the rains.


----------



## riptheirlips (Jun 30, 2008)

muleydeermaniac said:


> I have looked into ordering the same feed that the MDF uses out of Idaho I just have to wait for payday next week. You get a discount if you buy a pallet worth and I can send it to my work and save on shipping since it is dock to dock. I have also spoken to the DNR about letting them in there to feed and they just ran around my concerns without giving it any thought. So I will head to Costco to buy the Magnesium as well and look for the Stockman Blocks. I have also thought about snow shoeing in and making regular trails for the animals to use instead of pushing snow with their chests. And I yelled at an idiot that let his two dogs chase some deer down by the gate and haven't seen the dog around since.


How much is a ton of the feed you are ordering? I would be willing to give you some money to order more feed. I make it to Morgan area pretty regular so I could get you some money.


----------



## muleydeermaniac (Jan 17, 2008)

Lonetree said:


> Excellent!! If you can't find Se-90 blocks, or mag-chloride, I'm still sitting on a few blocks and bags, and I will gladly deliver them, I am up and down the Wasatch Front and Back regularly.


Thanks! I am heading to a few different stores today to see if they have what I want and need. I will let you know...


----------



## muleydeermaniac (Jan 17, 2008)

riptheirlips said:


> How much is a ton of the feed you are ordering? I would be willing to give you some money to order more feed. I make it to Morgan area pretty regular so I could get you some money.


That would be awesome. It is $320 per ton. They are making it right now to keep up with orders and I have ordered 2 tons of it to start. They come in 50lb bags.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

I have been getting some more questions, some about a paper I referenced, so here are the pertinent parts of said paper, so you don't have to read all 205 pages.

Here is the paper: http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1107&context=etd

Here is the beginning of the abstract: "Though mineral deficiencies may increase seasonally with reduced quality and quantity of winter forage, and may limit wildlife production more than protein and energy deficiencies, most winter-feeding programs address only the latter. We assessed the mineral status of mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) during a winter-feeding program in Utah. We found that both serum and liver samples of fed deer were marginal to low in Se, Zn, and Cu. We also found that fed deer selected forages high in selenium (Se), zinc(Zn) and copper (Cu). When we offered fed deer on winter range a choice between Cu-amended and plain ration, they selected a diet of 42% Cu-amended ration. During spring, they did not decrease intake of the Cu-amended ration as quickly as the plain ration (F3, 67 =5.02, P < 0.003). The efficacy of mule deer winter-feeding programs may increase if site-specific feed rations were formulated to rectify low levels of minerals in mule deer."

The feed does need to be site specific if free feeding of minerals is offered, if they need it they will take it, if they don't, they won't. Simple as that.

After formulating feed to address the copper deficiencies the deer were still preferentially feeding on high copper and selenium content feed, which means supplemented feed is not enough: "Preferred sagebrush contained 70% more Zn, 65% more Cu and 190% more Se than non-referred sagebrush."

This is during mild winters, with deer that are not overly stressed, AND that are getting supplemental feed.

So for those that don't want to listen or believe anything I say, because it is all discredited, listen to someone that got their PHD working on this issue right here in Utah, on the ground, doing actual wildlife biology.

The DWR is fully aware of this work, I have spoke at length with several active and retire DWR biologists about this work, the DWR oversaw this study. It was also funded and supported in part by Sportsmen's orgs, so basically we as hunters paid for it. So what do we get for our $$$$ and what was learned with it???? More of the same failed way of doing things, like the last 20 years, that have brought us to this point in time.

If the sportsmen's orgs were actually serious about doing something for the deer this winter, here is everything you need to know about how to make the absolute best of winter feeding, and increase survival, as well as spring recruitment.

Here is the results for selenium supplemented deer come spring: https://deerlab.org/Publ/pdfs/23.pdf "Selenium supplements increased preweaning fawn survival from 0.32 fawns/females to 0.83 fawns/females." That is 200% increase in survival.

Like I said, you don't have to believe anything I say. But what you can not do is discredit the work that these people have done on the subject, or the checked and reviewed results of that work. That is of course unless you want to see the deer fail, and you want to see tags cut, which I will contend is exactly what some in the DWR and sportsmen's orgs want. My proof: their refusal to pursue any other course than the failed ones we have been on for decades. That is what they thrive on, the failure of our wildlife and hunting. Parse it how ever you like, those are the real world consequences and results of the current policies.

No one is willing to move the needle on mule deer or any other wildlife for that matter. The DWR and sportsmens orgs exist solely to take our money and provide only the most minimal in return, it is simply theft by any metric. By all means, prove me wrong, but I don't think any of them have the cajones to challenge the shakiest of current conventional anti-wisdom.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

muleydeermaniac said:


> That would be awesome. It is $320 per ton. They are making it right now to keep up with orders and I have ordered 2 tons of it to start. They come in 50lb bags.


I have $100 for you, and will help haul, etc.


----------



## muleydeermaniac (Jan 17, 2008)

Lonetree said:


> I have $100 for you, and will help haul, etc.


That's awesome thank you! The first pallet will be here sometime next week and the second pallet will be here about a week after that.


----------



## riptheirlips (Jun 30, 2008)

muleydeermaniac said:


> That would be awesome. It is $320 per ton. They are making it right now to keep up with orders and I have ordered 2 tons of it to start. They come in 50lb bags.


Does Walton Feed in Cache Junction have any mineral blocks or sacks of minerals that work. I know they make a lot of mineral blocks for cattle.

I will send you a PM, PM sent.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Lonetree,

I don't think anybody believes minerals have little to no effect on deer/elk/chupacabras/etc. But where you get dismissed is with your vigorous assertions that mineral XYZ is the silver bullet, the end-all be-all miracle cure for <insert malady here>.

The study you pulled quotes from the abstract by Chris Petersen is curious in that it's conclusions of the effects on winter feeding programs on net survival are....inconclusive as vehicle collision increases more than offset observed reductions in malnourishment mortalities. Pg 48. Additionally, the preferred browse sage with the elevated Se, Mo, Zn, and Cu levels was in the habitat availability and there was only a 42% use of the Cu fortified feed. The study observed that there were some select deer that routinely preferred the fortified pellets, and a similar number that avoided them but doesn't provide any support for the hypothesis that this could be due to individual differing needs. Pgs 104 - 107.

"The cause of mortality was determined for 43 of the 53 (81%) radio-collared does (Table 2-1) and did not differ for fed and non-fed does" pg 42. AKA, there was no statistically significant difference in the % of deer hit by cars, dead by malnutrition, predation, etc. between the deer with supplemented feeding and those without. Perhaps this is why the DWR isn't jumping on your snake-oil bandwagon that the minerals are THE primary savior? It was a great study, and a fascinating read though so thanks for putting that on my radar, but it really just underscores the minimal effect we as humans can have in the face of mother nature.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

johnnycake said:


> Lonetree,
> 
> I don't think anybody believes minerals have little to no effect on deer/elk/chupacabras/etc. But where you get dismissed is with your vigorous assertions that mineral XYZ is the silver bullet, the end-all be-all miracle cure for <insert malady here>.
> 
> ...


They selected a 42% copper amended diet OVER an un-amended diet, and then sought out more copper as well. Additionally, every deer will have different needs, which is why you should supplement minerals separate from feed. The study suggest this as well. This is also the norm in agriculture for the same reasons, any 4H kid knows this.

Mineral deficiencies vastly increase vehicle mortality, I have covered this extensively, this is how we uncovered the link to magnesium. I have personally visited the study site at the mouth of Black Smiths fork canyon, and spoke with someone involved in the study(quite coincidentally). And as stated in the study, the site is in close proximity to the highway, and in many cases forced deer to cross the highway to access the feeding site. And speaking of talking to people involved in studies, I have been in communication with people that authored some of the reference information in this paper, and they concur with my assessment. One of those studies even started out chasing down magnesium deficiencies 20 years ago, only take a twist into other minerals and issues. For you cattle guys, the magnesium issue is very much the same as grass Tetany, and as you know we should not see that until spring.

You can cast shade my way all day long, you won't get anywhere. The bigger question, is what is driving these mineral cycles, and since you seem to think you can pace me on any of this, start explaining, why don't you? Because you don't get it, mineral deficiencies are a symptom of a larger problem, and sometimes a short term fix for those larger problems.

Why don't you get your wallet and boots out instead of impeding the progress of conservation efforts?


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

> They selected a 42% copper amended diet OVER an un-amended diet, and then sought out more copper as well. Additionally, every deer will have different needs, which is why you should supplement minerals separate from feed. The study suggest this as well. This is also the norm in agriculture for the same reasons, any 4H kid knows this.


That is not what the study says at all. It says the composition of the two types of supplemental pellets consumed by the deer are 42% Cu fortified, 58% non fortified. But by all means, don't let the facts get in your way. If you read the study and comprehended it the way you are asserting, that might be why you are frustrated with biologists at the DWR who ignore you and don't see the conclusions you see in various studies. By all means, stay involved in trying to help--just don't do things that are going to hurt (like telling people here to go buy the deer pellets at the county feed store or to use goat feed instead--great way to kill mule deer).

And LT, I respect your passion but when you are asserting things that are just unfounded and presenting it as though from a position of authority you can lead people to rely on your representations--which can cause harm to wildlife and financial harm to individuals. Not everybody who reads this is going to take the time to read these studies, nor do they all have the background to be able to read academic publishings. Others still might read the study and think it says 42% more Cu pellets were consumed than regular pellets when in fact the study says no such thing. I had some time to read it, have a strong background in statistics and academic writing, and was genuinely curious to see if you were telling the facts correctly this time. But what I found was a 5 year study that was unable to conclude the things you are claiming it asserted as causes leading to winter kill mortality reduction. Shocker.

So to those who didn't read the study, I posted up the page citations for you to look at the chunks in a more manageable fashion so you can come to an informed decision on LT's assertions.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

johnnycake said:


> That is not what the study says at all. It says the composition of the two types of supplemental pellets consumed by the deer are 42% Cu fortified, 58% non fortified. But by all means, don't let the facts get in your way. If you read the study and comprehended it the way you are asserting, that might be why you are frustrated with biologists at the DWR who ignore you and don't see the conclusions you see in various studies. By all means, stay involved in trying to help--just don't do things that are going to hurt (like telling people here to go buy the deer pellets at the county feed store or to use goat feed instead--great way to kill mule deer).
> 
> And LT, I respect your passion but when you are asserting things that are just unfounded and presenting it as though from a position of authority you can lead people to rely on your representations--which can cause harm to wildlife and financial harm to individuals. Not everybody who reads this is going to take the time to read these studies, nor do they all have the background to be able to read academic publishings. Others still might read the study and think it says 42% more Cu pellets were consumed than regular pellets when in fact the study says no such thing. I had some time to read it, have a strong background in statistics and academic writing, and was genuinely curious to see if you were telling the facts correctly this time. But what I found was a 5 year study that was unable to conclude the things you are claiming it asserted as causes leading to winter kill mortality reduction. Shocker.
> 
> So to those who didn't read the study, I posted up the page citations for you to look at the chunks in a more manageable fashion so you can come to an informed decision on LT's assertions.


The study also says they fed alfalfa hay, and corn, but you are concerned about people buying deer feed at the the feed store.......

I may not have communicated a few points clearly enough for you, but that does not mean you know the subject matter in depth, or have done the years and miles of field work, or worked with actual biologists on anything real world. You are an internet warrior, the vary thing you are attempting to accuse me of being, which is why you always have some small tangent argument, but can't do the big picture.

That burning sensation, like long slow pissing, drunk......with gonorrhea, it is trying to tell you something, that pain is how most intelligent people learn. You can't overcome your own hubris, and I bet it will cost you dearly in your profession.

And lets just be clear, Johnny cites the DWR, saying that the deer are in excellent shape(because their word is of course better than mine), and also concludes based on his reading that winter feeding will do no good, even though the all knowing DWR is doing just that.....winter feeding....deer that are in excellent shape, because it will do no good. Yet he also asserts that I am "confusing people". Or more likely he just can't help himself.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

I posted a second study.....start......


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

And when you get done there, here are some more studies that support what I am saying. https://deerlab.org/othercervids.html https://deerlab.org/othertopics.html

And if your German is any good, you can call this guy as well............since your issue is obviously with me, not actual conservation efforts.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Your reading comprehension skills once again reiterate my point. You claim the feeding with mineral supplementation is essential and crucial to increased survival from winter, citing a good study to back you up. The study in fact makes no such conclusion because vehicular mortality increases off set any decrease in malnourishment mortality. I say we have a minimal capacity for over coming mother nature and you take it to mean I'm saying any feeding effort is useless.

I cite the DWRs position that going into this winter deer were in excellent shape, you have your differing view, and then you take my pointing out that the usu study was inconclusive to be the same as me saying it is useless. Then somehow as your perceived coup de grace we have your attempt to say the DWRs use of a feeding program is a manifestation that they were lying about the conditions of the deer before winter. But none of this is surprising. I'm done feeding this troll until he comes back as his alter ego with some nonsense about ethics, philosophy, and how anything less than 485 grains in a minimum .400 caliber is unethical to shoot jackrabbits.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

:grin: I'm still waiting for your rebuttal to the second study that clearly shows increases in deer from mineral supplementation. Not every supplementation site has high vehicle mortality. Should I bring out the multiyear study on supplemental feeding year round that also supports my position that supplemental nutritional feeding increases deer numbers?

Our conversation has nothing to do with deer, or conservation, you could care less for either, its about your problem with me, and that burning sensation. Philosophy: If I said the sky was blue, you would attempt to find some technicality to say it was red, it is that simple, speaking of trolling.......


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Lonetree said:


> If I said the sky was blue, you would attempt to find some technicality to say it was red, it is that simple, speaking of trolling.......












-DallanC


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Pretty sure this is what my sky looked like last night:


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Dallan, thanks for making my point, played perfectly. Johnny, now go buy a rabbit, and do a 4H project. When you get your first ribbon, come back and talk to me about animal nutrition. Because there are 12 year old little girls that know more about this subject than you do........I can reel out line all day if you are really up to it...........Or go advanced and start on that second study that shows 200%+ increases in deer after selenium supplementation.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

LT, once again you reveal your weaknesses of reading comprehension and logical extension. The Se study is about post weaning fawn survival in blacktail deer and not related to winter supplemental feeding of mule deer at all. #byefelicia


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

They were selenium supplemented for multiple seasons, including winter, you did not read it, it's over your head. I am proposing selenium supplementation as well as feeding. Go get that first ribbon.

Oh, and this one shows improvements in sick bighorn sheep that were supplemented with selenium: http://media.nwsgc.org/proceedings/NWSGC-2002/2002-Hnilicka%20et%20al.pdf

And this one shows increases in mule deer in Colorado that were supplementaly fed. Vehicle mortality is not taken into consideration, so the increases could have been bigger :grin: https://www.researchgate.net/public...rition_on_Mule_Deer_Population_Rate_of_Change


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Lonetree said:


> Dallan, thanks for making my point, played perfectly.


No you missed the point. You talk in absolutes when its just not true. Sure the sky is blue... alot. But its also black, grey, and many other colors in between. Context matters. If you said "the sky is blue right now" then sure, you are correct. Minerals are important to deer, but that importance varies over time due to other conditions, some of which are more important at specific times.

As for where we are right now, if I read what both sides are saying properly, we just need to air drop icemelt across the mountains. This would melt the snow down a bit for the deer, and replace missing minerals in the soil. But, its just not feasible.

-DallanC


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

DallanC said:


> -DallanC


I don't care who you are, that right there was funny !!!!!!!!!-O\\__--O\\__--O\\__-


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

johnnycake said:


> Pretty sure this is what my sky looked like last night:


I seen plenty skies like that in Louisiana...around the toxic radioactive waste dump near Livingston LA... *OOO**OOO**OOO*


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

DallanC said:


> No you missed the point. You talk in absolutes when its just not true. Sure the sky is blue... alot. But its also black, grey, and many other colors in between. Context matters. If you said "the sky is blue right now" then sure, you are correct. Minerals are important to deer, but that importance varies over time due to other conditions, some of which are more important at specific times.
> 
> As for where we are right now, if I read what both sides are saying properly, we just need to air drop icemelt across the mountains. This would melt the snow down a bit for the deer, and replace missing minerals in the soil. But, its just not feasible.
> 
> -DallanC


I'm not the one, not getting the context, I wrote it. If some people could stay on topic, you might get it too.

We are seeing the deer, elk, and moose go after minerals they usually don't need until spring. They are also in need of supplemental feeding, even though it won't do any good(according to Johnny's reading comprehension). There is plenty of science on the subject that says mineral supplementation along with feeding will help this situation. But we have a lawyer, with "reading comprehension skills" that says otherwise.

It is simple, right now, and beginning about two weeks ago, there became a need for mineral supplementation, just like there became a need for protein and energy supplementation.

In summary, I am advocating for both, as this is what is needed, based on what these animals are going after feed wise, none of this is hard stuff.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Top of the Page!

Definition of inconclusive
: leading to no conclusion or definite result <inconclusive evidence> <an inconclusive argument>
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inconclusive


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Wow! Not even "alternative facts". Johnny just can't decide........

But he is right, about one thing.









Do you know why you won't find me arguing with Johnny about the structure and details of tort claims? Because not only do I not have that burning sensation, I've never needed antibiotics. But I do enjoying buying him drinks. Here is to another round, I think we should selenium salt his rim so it goes down, err...uh you know, maybe it will be easier on him......

Now the DWR is feeding based on "inconclusive" evidence, he is a funny guy....


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

LT - at the end of the day, what is your objective? Do you want everyone in the world to accept your research as the gold standard and the wildlife agencies to change their management, including food/supplements, based off your research? Are you looking for a noble prize? Your response should probably only take three or four sentences in total - please just answer the questions. 

I've dealt with a fair amount of researchers over my life, and the majority have one thing in common - they all get off when people tell them how incredibly smart they are - it appears more and more than you are one of these types.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

CPAjeff said:


> LT - at the end of the day, what is your objective? Do you want everyone in the world to accept your research as the gold standard and the wildlife agencies to change their management, including food/supplements, based off your research? Are you looking for a noble prize? Your response should probably only take three or four sentences in total - please just answer the questions.
> 
> I've dealt with a fair amount of researchers over my life, and the majority have one thing in common - they all get off when people tell them how incredibly smart they are - it appears more and more than you are one of these types.


I already stated what I want, more deer, and more deer tags. This can only be accomplished with sound scientific management, which has not been in practice for decades. Leopold already proved you could bring back the deer, but we refuse to follow the sound principals he laid out to accomplish this. I say "we", because I was on that other side at one point myself. The DWR and orgs can completely disregard "my" research, that's fine, but their continued course of choosing to ignore volumes of other researchers, and their peer reviewed science, says quite simply, the establishment does not want to grow wildlife or hunters, and I contend money is the reason why. The establishment has banked on the declines of wildlife and hunters for 20 years now.

The researchers you know, probably went to college, and never accomplished anything. I get plenty of attention, and get my ego stroked for my accomplishments and intelligence in other circles, where I am more publicly known. There are much better ways to be told how smart one is, that should be painfully clear to anyone, that this is not why I do this. My intelligence is established, if I wanted to have my ego stroked for it here, I would be talking about far different subjects. You clearly don't know me, "this" is not about me, but rather my message, the wildlife, and how that plays out for us as hunters, the ones that want wildlife to hunt.

Sorry if this was too long, I can get it for you on MP3 if that is easier.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Ya know, one thing that continually confuses me about mule deer. On one hand we're told that they're so smart that they can self diagnose themselves and know what trace elements their bodies are lacking then pick that exact block out of a group of lick blocks with that needy specific trace element and then on the other hand they're too stupid to come down out of the mountains when the snow starts getting deep and head to areas where the snow is minimal and the food is plentiful and will just stay put and starve to death. I'm going to have to think that out.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

LostLouisianian said:


> Ya know, one thing that continually confuses me about mule deer. On one hand we're told that they're so smart that they can self diagnose themselves and know what trace elements their bodies are lacking then pick that exact block out of a group of lick blocks with that needy specific trace element and then on the other hand they're too stupid to come down out of the mountains when the snow starts getting deep and head to areas where the snow is minimal and the food is plentiful and will just stay put and starve to death. I'm going to have to think that out.


You need to watch more deer. Example: Today the deer moved more distance overall than they have in a week. And in many cases they were moving up the mountain. This is two fold, any further down puts them in conflict with people, dogs, cars, etc. If they are not city deer, this will be avoided. And in several of these cases they had been sitting on spots they had come way down onto a week ago. A week ago they were digging balsam root and other things before the snow pack got too deep. With some consolidation, and clear skies, they are moving UP to better feed, or at least available feed. 300 feet above where they had been, actually has less snow than the valley floors, you need angle this time of year to exploit solar gain. Much of that gain had already occurred, but the deer were hunkered down in deeper snow, down lower, on better feed, that became unavailable. As soon as conditions permitted, they moved up, and they moved out with improved feeding patterns. this is wio-bio 101

If you are insinuating that animals can't pick out minerals, then you will have to discount hundreds of years of the scientifically accepted fact of sodium thirst, also known as hyponatremia when extreme. If that is the case, you will need to start with the Greeks and go from there. And then explain away why we get thirsty when our sodium level drops. This is bio 101 as well.

Utahgolf can sort of explain this sodium thing to you.


----------



## APD (Nov 16, 2008)

LostLouisianian said:


> Ya know, one thing that continually confuses me about mule deer. On one hand we're told that they're so smart that they can self diagnose themselves and know what trace elements their bodies are lacking then pick that exact block out of a group of lick blocks with that needy specific trace element and then on the other hand they're too stupid to come down out of the mountains when the snow starts getting deep and head to areas where the snow is minimal and the food is plentiful and will just stay put and starve to death. I'm going to have to think that out.


we just need to get some idaho snowmobilers to come down here and fly out those high country mule deer.

http://kron4.com/2017/01/25/video-horse-rescued-from-snow-in-idaho/


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

APD said:


> we just need to get some idaho snowmobilers to come down here and fly out those high country mule deer.
> 
> http://kron4.com/2017/01/25/video-horse-rescued-from-snow-in-idaho/


At least they fed the horse, and supplemented it's Na


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Along the lines of hyponatremia is where we are probably missing some other pieces to some other parts of this picture. It is not at first patently clear that a need for water, is the result of a sodium deficiency. It starts to get a little complicated, especially if you were coming at it for the first time. A thirst for water, is driven by low Na, and there is evidence that this holds true for Mg as well. I can tell you right down to an epigenetic level why animals thirst for selenium and copper, but the mag is not as clear, at least not as clear as the Se and Cu. And if multiple researches have been on the edge of the magnesium thirst, or sub-hypomagnesemia issue for 20 years, but nothing has been done, or followed though on, what else are we missing? And why are we not looking? It is clear that repeating the same old studies, over and over again, in hopes of different results, has not brought us any enlightenment, or deer, or tags, for decades now. All of this is like a three legged stool, or fire triangle, heat, fuel, and oxygen. Knock out one, and the fire goes out, because the other two can't support themselves. Given what the current scientific literature tells us, reduced nutritional condition is one of the legs of the wildlife suppression triangle. Find the other two, and you have it solved. But the 20 other issues that are currently proposed as being drivers of our declines, are clearly only contributing factors, as we can knock anyone of them out, and not see the trend line tick up, only nutrition has been shown to do that. And no it is not as simple as throwing salt blocks, or feeding year round, these deficiencies are driven by other factors, herbicide use, pollution, etc. but supplementation does work for short term aid of these symptoms. And no it has nothing to do with soil selenium levels 200 years ago either. But there are sure fire ways to determine if any of them are part of the suppression triangle, knock one out and see if the stool tips over. And for those that are going to jump straight to the predation bit, it's not part of the triangle, it may be contributing at some point, but it is not part of the triangle, just like the winter range argument. Yes, we need it, and yes we have lost lots of it, but we are not just maintaining deer on lost winter ranges where houses are, we are growing them there. Not that every winter range is created equally. 

So is it just selenium? Of course not. But that vital trace element, along with others, is a huge part of one of the legs of that triangle that has kept wildlife and tags suppressed since before I was even born. And disliking me, is not going to change those facts, or that reality. It will only work to keep us on the same path we have been on, reinforcing the legs of that triangle. Not that anyone has to like me either. Just know that discrediting wildlife science, solely because of your personal feelings for me, is certainly not going to move conservation, wildlife, or hunting any further along. Disliking me is the appropriate response, discounting science is what got us here in the first place.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Alright Lonetree, because I'm bored, I'll play. In a hypothetical world, I become governor tomorrow. Of course, I will be looking for a new director for the DWR, and I just employed you for the job. I want to know three things:

1- What will you do today to help the ungulate herds in Utah during this harsh winter?

2- What is your short term, say 1-5 year plan to grow ungulate herds in Utah. 

3- What is your long term plan for the same?

If you tell me simply to not do what we've been doing, you're fired. I want to know what YOU would do, not what mistakes others have made. Let's hear the plan.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Lonetree said:


> I already stated what I want, more deer, and more deer tags. Well that is a great ambition - seriously.This can only be accomplished with sound scientific management, which has not been in practice for decades. Leopold already proved you could bring back the deer, but we refuse to follow the sound principals he laid out to accomplish this. I say "we", because I was on that other side at one point myself. The DWR and orgs can completely disregard "my" research, that's fine, but their continued course of choosing to ignore volumes of other researchers, and their peer reviewed science, says quite simply, the establishment does not want to grow wildlife or hunters, and I contend money is the reason why. The establishment has banked on the declines of wildlife and hunters for 20 years now. The problem with this statement, while I agree, is that there really is not a thing you, I, or groups can do about this - the expo bid process and who was given the contract should have added to the "perfectly clear" bottle of what our state thinks of sound reasoning.
> 
> The researchers you know, probably went to college, and never accomplished anythingYes, they did go to college - places like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and other top tier schools. While, in your eyes, they may not have accomplished much, they have brought knowledge and change to the financial reporting world that helps limit the debacles of Enron, WorldCom, Health South and others. This may not be as earth shattering as mineral deficiencies, but does play a vital role in investments and retirement - you know people's money that without, they have a hard time getting by with the bare essentials.. I get plenty of attention, and get my ego stroked for my accomplishments and intelligence in other circles, where I am more publicly known. There are much better ways to be told how smart one is, that should be painfully clear to anyone, that this is not why I do this. My intelligence is established, if I wanted to have my ego stroked for it here, I would be talking about far different subjects. You clearly don't know me, "this" is not about me, but rather my message, the wildlife, and how that plays out for us as hunters, the ones that want wildlife to hunt.You are right, I don't know you. What's your first and last name so I can see some of the other work you have produced? I do think your research is interesting and would like to learn more about your findings.
> 
> Sorry if this was too long, I can get it for you on MP3 if that is easier.No need for the MP3, hooked on phonics worked for me. Johnnycake - did you see that rhyme??


See red.


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

Now I must put on my moderator hat. It hurts, messes up my hair, and gives me a headache. 
Lonetree, I really don't care how smart you are, your credentials, or if you really know everything you claim to know. Your personal attacks do not help your cause, or your standing on this forum. They are a violation of the rules. Please do not continue with them. Everyone else please give it a rest. All of the petty bullstuff is giving me a headache. Thanks for your help.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

I miss Karl


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Vanilla said:


> Alright Lonetree, because I'm bored, I'll play. In a hypothetical world, I become governor tomorrow. Of course, I will be looking for a new director for the DWR, and I just employed you for the job. I want to know three things:
> 
> 1- What will you do today to help the ungulate herds in Utah during this harsh winter?
> 
> ...


1-Expanded winter feeding. Add mineral supplementation, and plant college kids on the feeding stations to collect data. A note on winter feeding: I was against it before I was for it. It is recorded here years ago. We want to be in a situation ultimately where you would only ever need to feed in a catastrophic '83/'84 winter situation. But, given the current conditions, both weather and animals, we need to supplement, if we want to see better survival coming out of this winter. And we do this, knowing that we are going to pursue other venues as we come out of this winter.

People can say deer went into this winter in great shape, and in some places I'm sure they did, I have seen some of these deer. But I have lots and lots of pictures that say the deer in many areas have been in terrible shape for years. You guys don't make testicle jokes because I post pictures of perfect deer junk......

2-multipronged approach. For expediency sake I would target the areas that I could exert the most control over. As a state agency, there are of course limits to what can be accomplished. Given what I current know about the situation, and wanting to learn more, I would look at every plan to increase deer, as opportunity to study the affects of said efforts. This would mean that we would do nothing to attempt to raise numbers in some places, as a means of a study control.

I would repeat Fluecks selenium supplementation study using selenium boluses, as there are many researchers that have been dying to do this since it was first done. Anything that can show a 200%+ increase in numbers, is worth pursuing further. I would concurrently cease all possible mass herbicide uses in some of these study areas as well, while continuing as normal in other areas, again, as a control. I would also work in Cu, Zn, and Mg on some of these as well to find out what has the most influence.

We all know that the moose are being "studied" because they are mineral deficient, and in decline. But what have we learned from our Utah study???? We need other components to the way in which we conduct these studies. Data is awesome, observation is a foundation, but modification is how you exert change. Because if we are studying declines, or mineral deficiencies, we need to look for how to implement the modification, this is how it was done 30 years ago, like in Flueck's Black tail deer study. Do we conduct predation studies based solely upon observation, no!, most start with a modification component, because you are looking to affect a change.

Keep in mind, nutritional deficiencies, whether they be protein, energy, or mineral, are only symptoms to the bigger issues that drive them. But in the same way that Leopold said that the cow, plow, and axe could fix the damage that they had originally wreaked on wildlife, biochemistry can do the same in this century as well.

Lower buck to doe ratios. Deer tags will get cut regardless, but we want to grow the herds, not just the buck to doe ratios. The faster you add total numbers of deer, the faster you can add tags. This has the dual role of building in buffering capacity for hard winter like this. These high buck numbers are not going to do us any good come this spring. Too many does, oh well, I know, no one wants a doe tag right????

Hire organic hippy farmers to work on advanced natural ecological restoration of winter ranges. Seriously, I know a guy who is working with a researcher in BC, where they can't get trees to grow after extensive forestry practices(including herbicide use). They are using bioremediation methods, mushrooms, mineral fertilizers, etc. to restore what are essentially tree plantations. They are have good success growing trees, where conventional methods have failed. And a byproduct of this has been increased wildlife.

Shocker: Continue deer transplants, at least in the short term, where they can add to specific efforts to rebuild, given the current potential for huge losses.

3-Continue to look outside the current paradigm. The short term becomes the long term, that is where you cut your teeth, and find out what works, and what doesn't. If the research says it grow animals, as the science clearly says that nutrition(and its drivers) does. That is where you continue to put effort and money. As "hidden" as some of the things like herbicide use are, I would anticipate that we will find many more surprises. But to echo what you did not want to hear, our current ROI is abysmal.

Along those ROI lines, orgs as well as the division get some independent oversight, meant to bring about some responsibility _and_ accountability. To the surprise of some, I could be just fine with the money situation surrounding some orgs, tags sales, etc. As long as the average hunter and wildlife were actually benefiting from this arrangement as is intended. The concern is there is no accountability, and I don't just mean on a financial basis. They say that information is power, but technically power is responsibility, and that responsibility is work coupled with accountability. So if we start with the information of a 30 year backlog of science and wildlife declines and suppression. We are looking at a huge amount of responsibility and work. Given that there has become a venue to profit from these declines, and avoid that responsibility, it becomes a powerful force to avoid certain information that brings with it accountability upon it's receipt. That is not an easy hurdle, maybe the hardest one here, but we have to get past that. There is a far greater long term reward, in doing so, besides the moral obligation. Which all brings me to 4, which I added.

4-I don't necessarily want the job, but I would certainly help.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Jeff, the people you are referring to are obviously brilliant, though I don't know them or the details. They may well deserve a great amount of notoriety for their intelligence, or they may well need their ego stroked, because those accomplishments are not enough, I don't know. 

I have done much greater things in life than wildlife science. Do I want to leave my mark? sure I do, everyone wants credit for their accomplishments. But that is not the ultimate goal here, this is not my red corvette, gold chain, or big tires on my truck. Nor is any of this simple, and easy. I hope that I can use my intelligence, and unusual view of the world to bear on these issues, with results that carry beyond myself. Sure, in the beginning at it's core, it all starts with my selfish thinking, this is all about me, I want deer, and I want to hunt plentiful deer, fish, and wildlife in general. So it is not as if I have nothing to gain in this effort either, I have much to gain, including any gratification I may get from such an accomplishment, but that accomplishment should be all the gratification I need, and it is most certainly not the end goal. That end goal would be the wildlife, which I, as well as everyone else here, has a vested interest in.


----------



## Viper1zer0 (Sep 16, 2015)

These guys seem ok (2days ago)


----------



## riptheirlips (Jun 30, 2008)

Viper1zer0 said:


> These guys seem ok (2days ago)


 Was that the feeding area on Deseret???


----------



## Charina (Aug 16, 2011)

LostLouisianian said:


> Ya know, one thing that continually confuses me about mule deer. On one hand we're told that they're so smart that they can self diagnose themselves and know what trace elements their bodies are lacking then pick that exact block out of a group of lick blocks with that needy specific trace element and then on the other hand they're too stupid to come down out of the mountains when the snow starts getting deep and head to areas where the snow is minimal and the food is plentiful and will just stay put and starve to death. I'm going to have to think that out.


You've never had one of those insatiable cravings where you keep returning to your fridge and cupboards to eat this, that, and more, but feel unsatisfied? Why do you habitually return to those locations when your body is craving something else? Why didn't you instead head for a never before visited restaurant that would have satisfied your craving even though you couldn't cognitively put your finger on what it was you body wanted? Or am I the only one whose ever experienced that aside from pregnant women?


----------



## Charina (Aug 16, 2011)

Lonetree said:


> 1-Expanded winter feeding. Add mineral supplementation, and plant college kids on the feeding stations to collect data.
> 
> 2-multipronged approach. For expediency sake I would target the areas that I could exert the most control over. As a state agency, there are of course limits to what can be accomplished. Given what I current know about the situation, and wanting to learn more, I would look at every plan to increase deer, as opportunity to study the affects of said efforts. This would mean that we would do nothing to attempt to raise numbers in some places, as a means of a study control.
> 
> I would repeat Fluecks selenium supplementation study using selenium boluses,


So, herbicide reduction and supplement induction. And a lot more study. Seems there are to few answers and to many unknowns to be able to so firmly say current policy (aside from rampant herbicide use) is failed policy and there are not other unknown factors at play.


----------



## Viper1zer0 (Sep 16, 2015)

North slope near I 80


----------



## Viper1zer0 (Sep 16, 2015)

There's 600 vow and calf bed near there as well


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Viper1zer0 said:


> North slope near I 80


Those CWMUs around I-80 in Echo canyon definitely have some good elk herds!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Charina said:


> So, herbicide reduction and supplement induction. And a lot more study. Seems there are to few answers and to many unknowns to be able to so firmly say current policy (aside from rampant herbicide use) is failed policy and there are not other unknown factors at play.


The numbers say otherwise. Deer have been down for 40 years, they held emergency meetings about it 40 years ago. Since that time the trend line has stayed pointed down, along with tag numbers. The decline of American hunters follows this same trend, and is driven by reduced deer and deer tags. That trend is headed down some more, and it is being helped down by current policy, specifically Option 2, which will it make it harder to increase herd size after this next sharper down turn.

Back to my fire triangle analogy. Only two things have been shown to increase the trend line, supplemental feed, and mineral supplementation. Nothing else has been able to change that line in the same kinds of time frames, either onset, or duration of increase. Concurrent with these 40 years of declines, we see mineral deficiencies everywhere, in all big game species, across the West. These are both associated with the declines we see, and the only things that have been proven to change the course of those declines.

Retroactively you can go back and identify herbicide use that correlates with these declines and mineral deficiencies. In my own studies of deer that thirst for several minerals, and that exhibit birth defects, I have documented massive amounts of herbicide use. Additionally, I have identified the genes responsible for many of these birth defects and malformations, along with the upstream genes that are influenced by specific herbicides. Some of the central genes in all of this are DIO genes, these are also selenoprotiens, meaning they are made up of selenium. You disrupt these genes, you see illness, malformations, and guess what? mineral deficiencies, which cause these animals to thirst for selenium.

Examples: The earlier study of winter feeding of mineral deficient deer here in Utah I referenced. Those deer frequented a highway that is sprayed with herbicides, and there are many more instances of mass herbicide use on their summer and winter range. Another example is the study of mineral deficient moose, they are studying two areas here in Utah. The area with the higher mortality, and more severe mineral deficiencies, has moose closely associated with, and frequenting a highway that is sprayed with herbicides. They of course have higher vehicle mortality as well. I have documented deer and moose eating herbicide treated vegetation all over Northern Utah.

You hit the nail on the head with pregnancy cravings.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Viper1zer0 said:


> These guys seem ok (2days ago)


Allot of elk, in many places will fair much better than the moose and deer. I would say it would be very locationally dependent. I see relatively low numbers of elk visit my selenium and magnesium licks. None in some areas.

But there is no doubt, there are more than has been seen in allot of years, grouped up on lower winter ranges. I just had someone tell me there are a few elk above North Ogden. I have not seen that in 20 years.


----------



## OriginalOscar (Sep 5, 2016)

Lonetree said:


> Allot of elk, in many places will fair much better than the moose and deer. I would say it would be very locationally dependent. I see relatively low numbers of elk visit my selenium and magnesium licks. None in some areas.
> 
> But there is no doubt, there are more than has been seen in allot of years, grouped up on lower winter ranges. I just had someone tell me there are a few elk above North Ogden. I have not seen that in 20 years.


You are very smart. Glad you are here. Thank you


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

OriginalOscar said:


> You are very smart. Glad you are here. Thank you


It stings doesn't it?

Do you have pictures, context, or anything else to share?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Where is Iron Bear when you need him? I love the fact that guys like him are rooting for deer, and hunters. We might not agree on almost everything, but at least you can respect where he is coming from.


----------



## OriginalOscar (Sep 5, 2016)

Lonetree said:


> It stings doesn't it?
> 
> Do you have pictures, context, or anything else to share?


That was sincere. I'm hoping you publish a book or get your own TV show. You and that hyper ginger from Hooked on Utah would be a dream team.

Troy Rushton


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

OriginalOscar said:


> That was sincere. I'm hoping you publish a book or get your own TV show. You and that hyper ginger from Hooked on Utah would be a dream team.
> 
> Troy Rushton


Well given past statements, you are obviously sincere about the TV show....


----------



## OriginalOscar (Sep 5, 2016)

Lonetree said:


> Well given past statements, you are obviously sincere about the TV show....


You are so awesome. So glad you share your wisdom and insight.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

:mrgreen: 50mg of antibiotics will clear that right up.....


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Truer words were never spoken


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Except for these


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

LostLouisianian said:


> Except for these
> 
> View attachment 104610


I already described the process for growing more deer. LL are you a manufacturing engineer now too? Because that is what Deming is all about, manufacturing engineering, something I have been actively employed as, for almost 20 years. I got my first engineering job at 19 with a firearms manufacture reproducing classic Browning designs.

Here is the data that supports the call for a process change. These conclusions were reached by using Deming principals that control "bottle necking", by employing statistical process analysis. Being an engineer by profession, these methods were employed via my own comfort with the system, verses traditional wildlife field tech.

We will layout the data for a very specific case, to explain the full data set used, that brought us to the conclusions about the current faulty process, and a need for it's change. This is based on the fact that current metrics are not being input into the current equations used to develop the current process, which results in a loss in production of deer, through both the current process itself, and outside factors not being equated into the current production model.

The case: Declined deer in Northern California.

The quantified Data: Based on study these deer were determined to have a selenium deficiency. With this information a study was devised to attempt to modify this situation and exert change, further figure out what was driving these declines in numbers, mitigate this bottle neck, and increase production. several hundred of these deer were given selenium boluses orally, to supplement their selenium levels. The results of which were a 260% increase in fecundity. ie. the population(production) increased dramatically in response to this supplementation. This quantified data can be found here: https://deerlab.org/Publ/pdfs/23.pdf If anyone with wildlife credentials would like further information I can help to put you in touch with researchers on this study.

The original study mentioned intensive forestry use of large portions of the study site, which included these deer's summer range. A retrospective look at the site and it's history showed a history of herbicide use(several), and testing of herbicides. This was mostly based around the introduction of a chemical thinning program that was introduced to the study area approximately 14 years prior to this study of these selenium deficient deer. One of the many herbicides use in the study area was Silvasar 510. The quantified data showing this use is available here: https://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_rn224/psw_rn224.pdf

Silvasar is a cacodylic acid, an arsenical compound that is toxic and possesses teratogenic properties. It is known to induce birth defects, including cleft palate which has been documented in herbicide affected deer. The data referencing(quantified with refference) the teratogenic affects is available here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cacodylic_acid

Cleft palate in a fawn born in a high herbicide use area. This fawn also had an under bite, and disrupted hair follicle growth both indicators of Foxe1 disruption. And while this deer mas male, he only barely was..... To quantify this compare to oner that is noraml, aka not cleft.









Arsenical compounds exert an epigenetic influence on mammals, that starts with the knock out of Gli2. This Gli2 knockout then has a down stream affect on several other genes including Shh, Ptch, Gli1, and ultimately Dio genes which are selenoproteins. The disruption of selenoprotiens will induce selenium deficiencies. The quantified data for arsenical compounds and their genetic disruption: http://www.pnas.org/content/107/30/13432.full

The genetic influences of arsenical compounds have very similar epigenetic influences as other herbicides. The quantified(start here:http://seek.princeton.edu/) data looks like this:









Selenium supplementation has the ability to mitigate and even reverse the negative affects of arsenical compounds. Here is the quantified data for how this plays out in laboratory rats: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23800687 In the very same way that selenium supplementation improved the condition of declined deer in California that were exposed to herbicides, including arsenical ones, selenium supplementation had similar mitigating affects on As exposed lab rats.

If you apply Deming's statistical process control(SPC) to the available data, and field check it to current conditions, it becomes very difficult to conclude anything else from the available data. Until someone can provide data, and test it with modification, there is no other model to account for the widespread mineral deficiencies associated with wildlife declines. This leaves LL correct in that he has nothing but an invalid, data less opinion on the subject, much like our policy makers that are helping to drive deer production down through faulty processes. Deming's SPC principals, when applied to the data, bear this out clearly. Which is why I am proposing the process modifications for increased production that I am, followed by better SPC in the future, to reduce these bottlenecks on deer production.

Another quick example of these influences on declines. At the beginning of this study: http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1107&context=etd( it has some more quantified data)that demonstrated mineral deficiencies in Utah deer(deer that frequented herbicide sprayed areas), the state population was entering decline statewide. Much of the region wide declines, that involve mineral deficiencies as well, are driven by budgets for herbicide use, which is why we see the broader regional affects, with localized specificity.

Some people are no more engineers than they are wildlife biologists, despite quoting them.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Quantification is the key to improvement. You haven't quantified anything


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

LostLouisianian said:


> Quantification is the key to improvement. You haven't quantified anything


So in your data less response, you are claiming that a measured 260% increase in production is not "quantified"? Or that mineral levels measured below mean averages, are not "quantified"? Or that the implementation of thinning programs that increased herbicide use from 0 use, to testing, to preferred use status, are not "quantified". Or that the affects of these herbicides on mammal genetics and before mentioned mineral status is not "quantified"? Or that 40 years of measured deer declines, deer tag declines, and hunter declines, are not "quantified"?

It is all fully quantified.

You know what else can be quantified? Your knowledge on this subject. I collect measuring equipment(It's a Deming thing), and I just received a new ruler("the rule to ruler them all"). We can hold it up to your posts and measure exactly how much data, process explanation, and quantification you have been able to provide on any of this. It measures exactly as "half blond".


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

You just have to take it personal, and make it personal. Now it's time for a break. Nothing personal.


----------

