# interesting article



## swbuckmaster

I think this one is a great read and actually think its what happened to our deer in Utah. It almost follows word for word what happened in the areas Im familiar with.

http://www.aonmag.com/article.php?id=2452&cid=158


----------



## goofy elk

YES!! Quote from study:

"A decade ago, you’d have been scoffed at for saying coyotes kill a significant number of fawns in the Southeast, but it’s a fact backed by the latest research. Now, there is growing evidence coyotes are actually limiting deer populations. Even more shocking is that fawn-eating coyotes, when combined with overharvest of female deer, may be causing a deer-management black hole called a predator pit.

In the predator-pit scenario, if a deer population is reduced past a certain point by hunter harvest, it will then get hammered even more by coyotes to a point the population is so low the coyotes won’t let the deer herd recover."

There was/is units in Utah with this same thing happening...IMO....


----------



## swbuckmaster

Utah slammed the does in my early years of hunting. Then we were hit with a bad winter that nocked them back again. Cars are still killing does and the predators may very well be keeping them at a lower threshold.

Some of the areas in this state have had 15 years of habitate improvements and the deer are still not improving like they should. 

Maybe the sfw gunning projects will nock the coyotes back enough for the recuritment to rebound in an up swing cycle


----------



## goofy elk

^^^^^^^ ALREADY SEEING IT !!!!!! ^^^^^^^^^^

Areas I frequint all winter long, were years past, I comonly found fawns
killed by coyotes, This year, VERY few !!!!

Favorable winter too !!!!!!

Deer herds on several units I'm watching are in GREAT shape!

Best numbers I've seen in YEARS!!!!

The most encouraging sign I've witnessed,
Places were deer did well pre 1992, that have been absent of deer herd for years,
NOW SHOWING SIGNS OF RECOVERY !!!!!!!
So awesome to see deer coming back in areas were there hasn't been deer for years....


----------



## Longgun

Great news on your sightings Goof. 

Now pray we can get a few more years of the same strung together, then we'll really have something again.


----------



## Lonetree

Seriously, get back to me in 5 years when your ignorant, ideological lack of understanding, for the world you live in, continues to fail you, and your children. It is because of retards that believe in coyote/deer predation, and the tooth fairy, that we can not get anything done about deer declines. So if the problem is predation, why have moose and bighorn sheep numbers followed the exact same pattern of decline for the last 30 years, across the West, regardless of "management"? Is it the coyotes eating all the moose? 

Yes, right now in Utah, deer are on the upswing. This is no where close to reversing the post '92 declines. And in other parts of the West, you know, those places that manage better than Utah, the deer are starting down a path to another post '84 type decline, and it has nothing to do with coyote predation. The herds in Utah were improving prior to the implementation of the coyote bounty, there is no connection, except for your love of anti hunters like SFW.

Even if you could show, that coyote predation were additive to a deer herd. All you have done is exposed a bigger problem of herd health. Healthy deer herds are quite resistant to coyote predation. If you have high coyote predation, you have an underlying problem, of disease, and ecology destruction, not a predation problem.

Regardless of some article about white tailed deer in the South, coyote predation has been shown to be compensatory in the West, with regard to mule deer, in large contemporary studies. 

Focusing on what you want it to be, while ignoring the larger truth at hand, just makes you part of the problem of wildlife declines, and the anti hunter regime that whores your ignorance to the masses, for their benefit, while chipping away at our hunting tradition and heritage.


----------



## goofy elk

Lonetree---- You live in a DARK, dark, world dude!!!!!!!

I've got WMA's , wintering grounds I've watched EVERY year for 35+
years now---------Got a pretty good idea of trends on those units.....

Been watching those deer and elk herds almost daily all winter...
( 5 out of every 7 days, OF EVERY WEEK.... I'm on a mountain somewere )


Several time over the last few week I've seen 700 to a thousand deer in
a single day......Fawns looks in best possible condtion--HIGH numbers!

YES this is happening in part to a VERY favorable winter!!!!!

BUT, I WILL TELL YOU WITH 100% CERTAINTY,,,,,
Preditor fawn kills are WAAAAAAAAY down from what I've found in years past...

100% related to coyote removal----------------END OF STORY DUDE!


----------



## Lonetree

goofy elk said:


> Lonetree---- You live in a DARK, dark, world dude!!!!!!!
> 
> I've got WMA's , wintering grounds I've watched EVERY year for 35+
> years now---------Got a pretty good idea of trends on those units.....
> 
> Been watching those deer and elk herds almost daily all winter...
> ( 5 out of every 7 days, OF EVERY WEEK.... I'm on a mountain somewere )
> 
> Several time over the last few week I've seen 700 to a thousand deer in
> a single day......Fawns looks in best possible condtion--HIGH numbers!
> 
> YES this is happening in part to a VERY favorable winter!!!!!
> 
> BUT, I WILL TELL YOU WITH 100% CERTAINTY,,,,,
> Preditor fawn kills are WAAAAAAAAY down from what I've found in years past...
> 
> 100% related to coyote removal----------------END OF STORY DUDE!


All that means is that you are seeing healthy deer. Observation is just seeing things, and correlation is not causation. That's the problem with simpletons, "seeing is believing".


----------



## Lonetree

From the article:

"We're _guessing_ at this point - _trying_ to make an educated _guess_ - at what is going on and why. This predator-pit model really describes, _I think_, what we're _seeing_,"

It is nothing but unfounded, unscientific, CONJECTURE. Just like all the localized, anecdotal stories that everyone here uses to support their inability, or lack of will, to apply critical thinking to the world we live in. This ideological bend, does nothing to reverse the long term tend of wildlife declines, and loss of hunting, in only furthers it.


----------



## goonsquad

Lonetree, 
Maybe I missed it but I haven't seen your opinion on what is causing the problems with the herds, nor how to solve it. Can you enlighten me?


----------



## Lonetree

goonsquad said:


> Lonetree,
> Maybe I missed it but I haven't seen your opinion on what is causing the problems with the herds, nor how to solve it. Can you enlighten me?


I might read the title for you, but I won't open the book. What the **** is your solution?


----------



## wyoming2utah

goofy elk said:


> .....Fawns looks in best possible condtion--HIGH numbers!
> 
> YES this is happening in part to a VERY favorable winter!!!!!
> 
> BUT, I WILL TELL YOU WITH 100% CERTAINTY,,,,,
> Preditor fawn kills are WAAAAAAAAY down from what I've found in years past...


So, in one sentence you are telling me that the fawns look in the best possible condition that they could be in and in the next you are saying that predator fawn kills are "WAAAAAAAY down" from what you have seen in year's past?

Have you ever seen a child or maybe even you, yourself, played with a connect the dots coloring book? If you haven't, you really need to try because you should be connecting the dots right about now in terms of fawn condition and predation. Everything I have ever read about predation states that predation is low when health of prey is high and vice versa&#8230;

&#8230;but I doubt you will ever make that connection.

But, let me entertain you a minute with another thought: IF coyote predation is a limiting factor and IF coyote's are taking a big bite out of the fawn population and thus limiting herd production of deer, why don't we just reintroduce a bunch of wolves to Utah? After all, what we have learned about wolves so far is this: 1) wolves and coyotes don't mingle together much--the wolves end up reducing the coyote population 2) Wolves primary prey is elk 2) areas where wolves have virtually eliminated coyotes have seen major upticks in fawn production in antelope and reduced predation.Correlation? Maybe. I don't know. But, if wolves can eliminate coyotes and eliminate predation on fawns and if wolves staple diet is elk, couldn't we help our deer herds by bringing in wolves?


----------



## silentstalker

Interesting write up. There is no doubt that predation plays a factor in herd sustainability and growth. I think there are other factors as well. Most of which we can not control. Mild winters are definitely helping! As far as I am concerned I hope we continue to keep predators in check and hope the current studies shed more light on what will help the herds grow.

Moose and sheep seem to be struggling with disease and parasites more than anything else. Thats a whole different discussion.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Here are two more interesting articles:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-petersen/the-mule-deer-wars_b_2302555.html

http://wyofile.com/patrick_dawson/yellowstone-pronghorn-find-sanctuary-in-the-shadow-of-the-wolf/


----------



## Lonetree

silentstalker said:


> Interesting write up. There is no doubt that predation plays a factor in herd sustainability and growth. I think there are other factors as well. Most of which we can not control. Mild winters are definitely helping! As far as I am concerned I hope we continue to keep predators in check and hope the current studies shed more light on what will help the herds grow.
> 
> Moose and sheep seem to be struggling with disease and parasites more than anything else. Thats a whole different discussion.


No, it is the same discussion, their numbers have risen and fallen in sync, across the West, driven by declines since 1984. The same things driving sheep declines in Wyoming, have been shown to drive deer declines in California, and it has nothing to do with predators. Many of the factors driving these declines are not "out of our control", we just refuse to address the larger ecological collapse, while burying our heads in the sand, _hoping_ for better. This ideology is one of fatalism, and intellectual self slavery. You think more of it is better, look at what the last 20 years of it have brought you as a hunter.


----------



## goonsquad

Lonetree said:


> I might read the title for you, but I won't open the book. What the **** is your solution?


Really? I asked you an upfront question because I'm interested in your view and you want to go down this road...?

Ok... 
GFY, buddy.


----------



## Lonetree

wyoming2utah said:


> Here are two more interesting articles:
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-petersen/the-mule-deer-wars_b_2302555.html
> 
> http://wyofile.com/patrick_dawson/yellowstone-pronghorn-find-sanctuary-in-the-shadow-of-the-wolf/


Good stuff, anything from Petersen is worth reading, all of his books are well worth the read. Petersen, and much of the BHA approach is very valid, but I still think it is missing the bigger picture to a certain degree.

Antelope are probably the only species where contemporary studies do show coyote predation to be additive. And yet we had antelope numbers rise prior to the coyote bounty, with some decline after the bounty was introduced.

PM sent.


----------



## Lonetree

goonsquad said:


> Really? I asked you an upfront question because I'm interested in your view and you want to go down this road...?
> 
> Ok...
> GFY, buddy.


If you have been on here since 2010, you have not paid attention. If you need to be spoon fed, that's not what I do. You can find plenty of that else where. They will even let you pay them for the "service".

Right back at you.


----------



## silentstalker

What I see is an upswing in deer based mostly on mild winters. Those same mild winters are not helping the sheep or moose? My buddies moose off the wasatch had arterial worms so thick its hard to imagine blood flow. Biologists are studying them right now and they told us it was killing our moose as they mature.

Are you suggesting a similar condition on our mule deer? If so, what parasite or disease?


----------



## Old Fudd

Have the solution for people who have a solution,, Stop the Gun Hunt And the muzzy hunts for 3 years., Ya want to see the heard explode? Randy People Who Get It Get It,, Them That Don't NEVER WILL..


----------



## DallanC

oldfudd said:


> Have the solution for people who have a solution,, Stop the Gun Hunt And the muzzy hunts for 3 years., Ya want to see the heard explode? Randy People Who Get It Get It,, Them That Don't NEVER WILL..


Again, if that were true we'd have exploding deer populations in our national parks where hunting is not allowed. Must be some other reason keeping deer herds from exploding...

-DallanC


----------



## Dahlmer

oldfudd said:


> Have the solution for people who have a solution,, Stop the Gun Hunt And the muzzy hunts for 3 years., Ya want to see the heard explode? Randy People Who Get It Get It,, Them That Don't NEVER WILL..


Yes, this is a brilliant solution! :shock: In fact, why don't we just take this to its logical conclusion and reduce the number of tags by 50% again, because last time deer numbers immediately rebounded. We could compensate for the lost revenue by raising tag prices by 500% and create a new mule deer stamp that would cost $50 annually. The procedes could then be used to fund more psuedo science. Furthermore, we could reinstitute more hunter management practices that have been tried on and off for the past three decades with spectacular success.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Dahlmer said:


> Yes, this is a brilliant solution! :shock: In fact, why don't we just take this to its logical conclusion and reduce the number of tags by 50% again, because last time deer numbers immediately rebounded. We could compensate for the lost revenue by raising tag prices by 500% and create a new mule deer stamp that would cost $50 annually. The procedes could then be used to fund more psuedo science. Furthermore, we could reinstitute more hunter management practices that have been tried on and off for the past three decades with spectacular success.


C'mon, Man, get your head out of the sand! Look at what has happened on the Henry's! As soon as they stopped giving all them dang tags out, big bucks were everywhere an now it is the premiere mule deer hunting unit!

Well, what can I say? People Who Get It Get It,, Them That Don't NEVER WILL&#8230;.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

All of the criticisms of the failed attempts and poor management coupled with zero viable solutions. No matter how much reading and research a person does on this forum, the most concrete thing they are going to find is comments about what hasn't worked. They will be drowned with studies of what is wrong that end with conclusions that lack viable answers.

It would be very refreshing to see some answers to the problems but the fact is those that criticize are no further from the failed attempts than those that they criticize for failing.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Mr Muleskinner said:


> All of the criticisms of the failed attempts and poor management coupled with zero viable solutions. No matter how much reading and research a person does on this forum, the most concrete thing they are going to find is comments about what hasn't worked. They will be drowned with studies of what is wrong that end with conclusions that lack viable answers.
> 
> It would be very refreshing to see some answers to the problems but the fact is those that criticize are no further from the failed attempts than those that they criticize for failing.


And why is that? Could it be that we rehash what hasn't worked over and over again because people bring up failed management practices as viable solutions? Also, FWIW, I don't think we are criticizing this that failed, but those who are suggesting we try what already failed!


----------



## Dahlmer

wyoming2utah said:


> And why is that? Could it be that we rehash what hasn't worked over and over again because people bring up failed management practices as viable solutions? Also, FWIW, I don't think we are criticizing this that failed, but those who are suggesting we try what already failed!


Agreed, I have no criticism regarding those who originally tested those theories. I do, however, get tired of seeing the same tired arguments rehashed over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

How many times do we have to argue predator control, hunter restrictions, antler restrictions, weapon restrictions, and buck to doe ratios (forgive me if I missed one). These have all been proven inneffective long term in GROWING deer herds.

The answers can only be found by asking different questions. Hunters and predators are not the heart of the issue. The real issue can only be found in determining what is the root cause of decling mule deer health which is not likely to be found via field observation.

Right now we are completely dependent on weather patterns. Is there something we can do that will allow herds to sustain greater health during severe drought/winters and rebound more dramatically during more moderate conditions? What is happening on a biological level that is making deer more susceptible to disease?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

I agree with portions the last two comments but by the same token many that make a suggestion or ask a question get ridiculed for a lack of knowledge on a subject. Fact is very little of it is common sense. Just because one guy learns something first it doesn't make the people that haven't learned yet stupid. It also doesn't void them of the same right that others that are already "in the know" have benefited from. Maybe a new section of the forum should be started that is restricted to those that have been here for several years.

Calling a kid or grown man stupid or ignorant is not a very productive way to foster a want to learn. No different than teaching a person a learned craft.


----------



## BradN

Don't worry about Lonetree. He's just sort of grumpy and arrogant personified. Rumor has it that there is no theory of evolution, just a list of creatures that Lonetree allows to live.


----------



## Lonetree

Mr Muleskinner said:


> I agree with portions the last two comments but by the same token many that make a suggestion or ask a question get ridiculed for a lack of knowledge on a subject. Fact is very little of it is common sense. Just because one guy learns something first it doesn't make the people that haven't learned yet stupid. It also doesn't void them of the same right that others that are already "in the know" have benefited from. Maybe a new section of the forum should be started that is restricted to those that have been here for several years.
> 
> Calling a kid or grown man stupid or ignorant is not a very productive way to foster a want to learn. No different than teaching a person a learned craft.


In Lakota culture they have sacred "clowns". They are called the Heyoka, and are a part of the cycle of education in society. They do every thing in reverse, in order to make things move forward. Sometimes they use humor to break the ice while broaching "taboo" subjects. They say things that others are uncomfortable saying, and bring to light truths, that others are afraid to confront. In doing so, they drive the conversation into, and through the headwind of the unknown. That would otherwise keep us hunkered down, and under its influence.

Brent, you and others have already stated that you are biased against solutions to the problems that affect wildlife. If fact, it is a little more simple than that, you won't even admit that they are a problem. Because like everyone else, you can't see them with your hands over your eyes. And for related reasons feel like you have a vested interest in the continuation of those things that are detrimental to us. Making solutions to such things an attack upon you personally. These are of course, like predator control, false perceptions of the world.

Or to be clear, stupidity, and ignorance, are a huge part of what is preventing solutions to wildlife declines. The search for solutions starts with identifying the actual problems, not applying pseudo solutions that are in search of problems. There are some known root problems, that until addressed, will drive wildlife declines further, regardless of "wildlife management". We must admit first that there is a Problem, not a predator problem, not a hunter management problem, but rather a huge ecological problem that is at the root of the declines of wildlife and hunting. Basically you are with the status quo on this, or you are for the wildlife and hunting.

Anyone who disagrees can easily find people, organizations, and departments to tell them what they want to hear, and make them feel better. Heck, they might even tuck you in and read you a goodnight story.


----------



## Lonetree

BradN said:


> Don't worry about Lonetree. He's just sort of grumpy and arrogant personified. Rumor has it that there is no theory of evolution, just a list of creatures that Lonetree allows to live.


Uh,....Yeah.

"I've been around since the planet was inhabitable
I spit in the ocean and created microscopic animals
Which evolved into two species, the righteous and the cannibals
But until then, I had ***** ***** **** ** off
When God said "Let there be light", I turned it *** **** off
And that's the reason that the earth is only 5 billion years old
I made the sun shine, and permitted time to unfold
The surface was lava, but when I stepped down, it became cold
**** what you've been told
My spiritual form became a swarm of molecule sickness
Manifested liquid trapped inside a mountainous region
Until the skies starting raining, continuous seasons
Immortal Technique, at long last, reincarnated
Undebatably reinstated to leave you decapitated
Je suis fous, but my crazy words make sense"--Tech


----------



## Lonetree

Dahlmer said:


> Agreed, I have no criticism regarding those who originally tested those theories. I do, however, get tired of seeing the same tired arguments rehashed over and over and over and over and over and over and over.
> 
> How many times do we have to argue predator control, hunter restrictions, antler restrictions, weapon restrictions, and buck to doe ratios (forgive me if I missed one). These have all been proven inneffective long term in GROWING deer herds.
> 
> The answers can only be found by asking different questions. Hunters and predators are not the heart of the issue. The real issue can only be found in determining what is the root cause of decling mule deer health which is not likely to be found via field observation.
> 
> Right now we are completely dependent on weather patterns. Is there something we can do that will allow herds to sustain greater health during severe drought/winters and rebound more dramatically during more moderate conditions? What is happening on a biological level that is making deer more susceptible to disease?


It is not weather dependent, but rather the weather becomes an antagonist, of other problems. Rains storms that once brought life in the form of moisture, now bring death when coupled with pollution, and the time of year they received. Google "eutrophication and disease susceptibility" You start with a root problem, and then bring in two other aggravating factors, and you have the recipe for the perfect fire storm. The manifestations of which look like 100 individual problems. They are individual problems, but they have the same root causes. Making it harder to recognize the root of some of this, is that it does play out differently over multiple states, because the combination of root causes, are different, and driven by more localized variants of one said cause. Leaving use with 100 hundred band aids on a shot gun wound.


----------



## goonsquad

Why bother to be in a discussion where you try to rip apart anyone elses ideas while offering nothing as a solution. You're the whiny bitch who never wants to do anything anyone else wants to do but don't want to voice an opinion. 

Rip my ideas apart all you want, I don't pretend to have some divine farts which will cure the herd problems. Just voice you're opinions while you're at it. Otherwise take your own advice and search out others who fart as divinely as yourself.


----------



## Lonetree

silentstalker said:


> What I see is an upswing in deer based mostly on mild winters. Those same mild winters are not helping the sheep or moose? My buddies moose off the wasatch had arterial worms so thick its hard to imagine blood flow. Biologists are studying them right now and they told us it was killing our moose as they mature.
> 
> Are you suggesting a similar condition on our mule deer? If so, what parasite or disease?


Big, big picture: Moose, deer, bighorn sheep, amphibians, Bitter brush, sage brush, pikas, Sage grouse, Woodland Caribou, pine trees, marmots, etc. Have all followed the last 30 year pattern of declines. While invasive species, and infestations have increases in a mirrored fashion. So while deer are not suffering from arterial worms, or liver flukes in numbers that are driving their declines, like moose, they have followed the same course of decline, over the same time period. The results and manifestations are different, but the root causes are the same. You nitrify a mountain ecosystem, and you will have increased pine beetle infestations in the forests, while the meadow next to it loses its diversity of plants, affecting summer feed for deer and sheep. As rain brings more nitrates into this scene, it gets worse, and you start to change the over all ecology at a very fundamental level. The mychorrhizea in soil(fungus), that regulate plant uptake of nutrients, is reduces. This then also drives invasive weed species, and annual grasses, while lowering the nutritional content available for wildlife. While native bitterbrush, sage brush, and countless forbs are lost. All the while, the weakened trees in the forest next door are being overtaken by pine beetles, reducing summer cover for big game, and reducing the nitrogen filtration capacity the forest one had. As the nitrates work their way through the soil, on their way to rivers and streams, they lock up certain minerals, such as selenium, that in turn drive bighorn sheep disease, and parasite susceptibility. When the nitrates reach lakes rivers and streams, they not only lock up minerals, they mobilize some of them, like mercury. When they lock up calcium, that is absorbed by fish through their gills, young fry do not ossify their cartilage into bone quick enough, giving the trematodes that carry whirling disease, favorable growing conditions, feeding on these trout, that they would not normally have. This is the process that probably drives "stunting" in Brook trout, as it has been observed in parallel in aquaculture. In areas where moose are suffering from "tip over", liver flukes, and arterial worms, they also suffer mineral deficiencies. These things are cyclic, and become chicken or egg situations at a certain point. By itself, this nitrification is can be dealt with by a lot of wildlife to a degree. But if you throw in other issues and contaminates like pesticides, and extreme weather, then you trigger events, because of the way these things affect each other. FWIW, pesticide drift has been shown to occur over 100 miles.

Did I mention what happens in the marshes........


----------



## Dahlmer

So how do we lower nitrogen levels or reduce acid rain?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Lonetree said:


> In Lakota culture they have sacred "clowns". They are called the Heyoka, and are a part of the cycle of education in society. They do every thing in reverse, in order to make things move forward. Sometimes they use humor to break the ice while broaching "taboo" subjects. They say things that others are uncomfortable saying, and bring to light truths, that others are afraid to confront. In doing so, they drive the conversation into, and through the headwind of the unknown. That would otherwise keep us hunkered down, and under its influence.
> 
> *Brent, you and others have already stated that you are biased against solutions to the problems that affect wildlife.* If fact, it is a little more simple than that, you won't even admit that they are a problem. Because like everyone else, you can't see them with your hands over your eyes. And for related reasons feel like you have a vested interest in the continuation of those things that are detrimental to us. Making solutions to such things an attack upon you personally. These are of course, like predator control, false perceptions of the world.
> 
> Or to be clear, stupidity, and ignorance, are a huge part of what is preventing solutions to wildlife declines. The search for solutions starts with identifying the actual problems, not applying pseudo solutions that are in search of problems. There are some known root problems, that until addressed, will drive wildlife declines further, regardless of "wildlife management". We must admit first that there is a Problem, not a predator problem, not a hunter management problem, but rather a huge ecological problem that is at the root of the declines of wildlife and hunting. Basically you are with the status quo on this, or you are for the wildlife and hunting.
> 
> Anyone who disagrees can easily find people, organizations, and departments to tell them what they want to hear, and make them feel better. Heck, they might even tuck you in and read you a goodnight story.


Really? tell me where or when. Don't pretend to know me. If you did you wouldn't lecture me on an Indian culture that I actually married into 21 years ago.

There are things I don't have knowledge about. I will admit that, but biased against solutions? Sorry. I do know that your "solutions" are vague at best.

In fact, *you don't have one.*

Your solution is no better than than a person that has never studied deer when the rubber meets the road. Your solution is no better than the many failed attempts that you continually reprimand.

Your solution, if there is one.......*"change the current paradox*"

Wow........now there is something concrete that we can all sink our teeth into.

Now really.........how much difference has your incredible wealth of knowledge made to the true cause? Has your great wealth of knowledge increased the herd size or just added to the polluted air that they breath? How much progress have YOU made? Where are YOUR studies and essays published?

Oh yea I forgot..........Right here on the UWN. You are no different or better than the next guy. You consume. Chew. Digest. Use what you can or want and then dump the rest.

I will hand you this though. You are pretty accomplished illusionist.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Dahlmer said:


> So how do we lower nitrogen levels or reduce acid rain?


Well............first we must change the current paradox


----------



## Lonetree

Dahlmer said:


> So how do we lower nitrogen levels or reduce acid rain?


Get China to reduce their emissions, they have only begun. We then have to look at point of source, for nitrate emissions here, and reduce them. Mostly it is cars, but there are a lot of other sources as well. We know it can be done, we have significantly, and measurably reduced sulfur emissions that drove sulfuric acid rain. We were able to reduce CFCs, and society did not fall apart, it can be done.

Along with this, concurrently, we have to better understand how these interactions are playing out on wildlife, and what can be done to mitigate those affects, while addressing the bigger problem. How do secondary reactions affect particular species? What kind of short term solutions, can be implemented? We must first acknowledge reality, look at the big picture, and start to understand it. Through that understanding, short of the ultimate fix, which IS attainable, we will find more solutions.

Just a hunch, but deer transplants and coyote bounties are probably not going to cut it.


----------



## Lonetree

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Really? tell me where or when. Don't pretend to know me. If you did you wouldn't lecture me on an Indian culture that I actually married into 21 years ago.
> 
> There are things I don't have knowledge about. I will admit that, but biased against solutions? Sorry. I do know that your "solutions" are vague at best.
> 
> In fact, *you don't have one.*
> 
> Your solution is no better than than a person that has never studied deer when the rubber meets the road. Your solution is no better than the many failed attempts that you continually reprimand.
> 
> Your solution, if there is one.......*"change the current paradox*"
> 
> Wow........now there is something concrete that we can all sink our teeth into.
> 
> Now really.........how much difference has your incredible wealth of knowledge made to the true cause? Has your great wealth of knowledge increased the herd size or just added to the polluted air that they breath? How much progress have YOU made? Where are YOUR studies and essays published?
> 
> Oh yea I forgot..........Right here on the UWN. You are no different or better than the next guy. You consume. Chew. Digest. Use what you can or want and then dump the rest.
> 
> I will hand you this though. You are pretty accomplished illusionist.


My marriage was a traditional ceremony, performed by Members of AIM. And makes me no more an authority on native culture than you. I have my own qualifications. You need not be a first nations person, to understand the concept. As a Hopi, Eagle clan elder once told me, "There is only one race of people, with one home".

I am sensing some resistance? This is not about me, but whatever excuse you need......


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Lonetree said:


> In Lakota culture they have sacred "clowns". They are called the Heyoka, and are a part of the cycle of education in society. They do every thing in reverse, in order to make things move forward. Sometimes they use humor to break the ice while broaching "taboo" subjects. They say things that others are uncomfortable saying, and bring to light truths, that others are afraid to confront. In doing so, they drive the conversation into, and through the headwind of the unknown. That would otherwise keep us hunkered down, and under its influence.
> 
> *Brent, you and others have already stated that you are biased against solutions to the problems that affect wildlife. If fact, it is a little more simple than that, you won't even admit that they are a problem. Because like everyone else, you can't see them with your hands over your eyes. And for related reasons feel like you have a vested interest in the continuation of those things that are detrimental to us. Making solutions to such things an attack upon you personally. These are of course, like predator control, false perceptions of the world.*
> 
> Or to be clear, stupidity, and ignorance, are a huge part of what is preventing solutions to wildlife declines. The search for solutions starts with identifying the actual problems, not applying pseudo solutions that are in search of problems. There are some known root problems, that until addressed, will drive wildlife declines further, regardless of "wildlife management". We must admit first that there is a Problem, not a predator problem, not a hunter management problem, but rather a huge ecological problem that is at the root of the declines of wildlife and hunting. *Basically you are with the status quo on this, or you are for the wildlife and hunting. *
> 
> Anyone who disagrees can easily find people, organizations, and departments to tell them what they want to hear, and make them feel better. *Heck, they might even tuck you in and read you a goodnight story.*


I digress.

You made this about me right? or was it some other Brent that you quote captioned that has the same avatar and username?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Lonetree said:


> My marriage was a traditional ceremony, performed by Members of AIM. And makes me no more an authority on native culture than you. I have my own qualifications. You need not be a first nations person, to understand the concept. As a Hopi, Eagle clan elder once told me, "There is only one race of people, with one home".


so I guess we are like family now.


----------



## Lonetree

I generalize in much of my responses, but the first time CO2 was brought up, you flinched. 

Marriage: it was short. But I still have a lot of brothers.


----------



## RandomElk16

I have had Lonetree go after me on a post as well. So although he has more study on the subjects, and I can admit that, I must call out that you bash EVERY SINGLE MANAGEMENT PLAN on here. Any time management is brought up, it is wrong. Manage for numbers? WRONG. Age? WRONG. Predation? WRONG. B/D? WRONG.

I understand that these won't change the whole worlds problems. When you bring up Chinese emissions and years of bacteria and viruses recycling through nature though, you are basically saying that your solution is impossible. However, I think I have found it. It happened once to the planet, back when Lonetree part 1 was around. Noah's Ark. Let's start fresh because all of our short term solutions won't save a planet that can not avoid it's growth, pollution, overpopulation, lack of long term effects, blah blah blah. You sound like Yoda sometimes.

At the bigger problem, to fix the deer herds we must look.. Herh herh herh


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

I have always felt that green house gases were part of the problem but I had no idea the depth of the affect that it has on juniper and cedar versus vegetation that provides good nutrition for deer.


I may have questioned it but that doesn't make me biased against a solution.


----------



## RandomElk16

Absolutely. I am not a scientist or a bioligist, but I understand that those things have an impact on nature. I believe many things do. However, I don't expect the DWR to fix the worlds pollution problems. So I appreciate them managing what they can; compared to what? Abandoning all hope?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

RandomElk16 said:


> I have had Lonetree go after me on a post as well. So although he has more study on the subjects, and I can admit that, I must call out that you bash EVERY SINGLE MANAGEMENT PLAN on here. Any time management is brought up, it is wrong. Manage for numbers? WRONG. Age? WRONG. Predation? WRONG. B/D? WRONG.
> 
> I understand that these won't change the whole worlds problems. When you bring up Chinese emissions and years of bacteria and viruses recycling through nature though, you are basically saying that your solution is impossible. However, I think I have found it. It happened once to the planet, back when Lonetree part 1 was around. Noah's Ark. Let's start fresh because all of our short term solutions won't save a planet that can not avoid it's growth, pollution, overpopulation, lack of long term effects, blah blah blah. You sound like Yoda sometimes.
> 
> At the bigger problem, to fix the deer herds we must look.. Herh herh herh


Random there have been some great strides made with regards to the environment and not just locally. The short term fixes while scoffed at are probably the best thing that can happen before a long term solution can occur, or if even given the chance. I will tell you first hand that my industry has been all about change in the past twenty years and 90% of it has been environment controls. The other 10% has been employee safety.

There have been major changes. Problem is they have to be quantified in order to be recognized.

The world can get cleaned up with effort and it has been happening. My biggest concern aside from that long term battle is actually land development. That is going to be the battle that may be the toughest to win in the long run. Enforced pollution penalties can trigger a man's greed to stop polluting in areas, even on a worldwide scale. Greed that drives development of land though, while similar, is a another battle. It is the one that I will probably be most active with because I feel that it the battle that I am best suited to help fight.


----------



## Old Fudd

WOW Can't see how anyone took what I aid so serious, Just an Old Man with his Head In The Sand.:smile:


----------



## goofy elk

Dahlmer said:


> How many times do we have to argue predator control, hunter restrictions, antler restrictions, weapon restrictions, and buck to doe ratios (forgive me if I missed one). These have all been proven inneffective long term in GROWING deer herds.
> QUOTE]
> 
> They may NOT work for long term herd growth ,,,,
> 
> BUT, they are the best tools we have TO DEAL WITH WHAT WE HAVE!!!!
> 
> A way of improving quality and exsperiance for those who enjoy hunting
> mature bucks------And NOT all units need this .......
> The general season guys can still have units with low B/D ratios to harvest Whatever...
> 
> The tide is changing were a larger majority would like to see
> a better quailty hunt .....those are the tools needed make that happen.;-)..


----------



## Lonetree

RandomElk16 said:


> Absolutely. I am not a scientist or a bioligist, but I understand that those things have an impact on nature. I believe many things do. However, I don't expect the DWR to fix the worlds pollution problems. So I appreciate them managing what they can; compared to what? Abandoning all hope?


Not addressing the root cause of these problems, IS giving up all hope. And that is exactly what is happening, with many out right attempts at suppression of the current understanding of the science. Not to mention all the influence and attempts to propagandize the current "management" as a step forward. "Managing what they can" is not a solution, even to "management", and most hunters go along with it, because they either do not know any better, or refuse to learn. As for the DWR, yeah there are some great folks there, some with their hands tied, but as for the folks driving policy, that are in bed with the orgs that do not have the best interest of wildlife and hunters in mind, they are nothing but a bunch of crooks.

Wildlife conservation, is the basis for "management", and that is not what is occurring. Wildlife science is supposed to be the means by which we gain the understanding, to carry out that management, that is not occurring. Even if we can not solve the root causes, we are not looking at them. And without that understanding, we can not come up with sound management, even for the short term. Just doing something, gets us no where. The past is prologue, look at the results of the last 20 years. If the worlds pollution problems are affecting wildlife, and our hunting, then our DWR is mandated to acknowledge that, and manage in accordance with our best understanding of that science, while continuing to better understand the science and possible solutions. Their job is not to be ruled by special interests, damaging wildlife and hunters, with suppressing the current scientific reality.

When some hick DWR botanist says he does not know why pinion and juniper invasions occur, he is lying and suppressing the truth at the expense of the wildlife and us as hunters. When a wildlife biologist says that the non existent testicles of a congenitally deformed fawn will magically appear when it grows up, that is the same bull****. And he is steeling from you, just like he is me. Difference is, a whole lot of you folks don't know any better, and eat it up.

I'm not here to make friends. Group think is a big part of the problem.


----------



## Lonetree

goofy elk said:


> Dahlmer said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do we have to argue predator control, hunter restrictions, antler restrictions, weapon restrictions, and buck to doe ratios (forgive me if I missed one). These have all been proven inneffective long term in GROWING deer herds.
> QUOTE]
> 
> They may NOT work for long term herd growth ,,,,
> 
> BUT, they are the best tools we have TO DEAL WITH WHAT WE HAVE!!!!
> 
> A way of improving quality and exsperiance for those who enjoy hunting
> mature bucks------And NOT all units need this .......
> The general season guys can still have units with low B/D ratios to harvest Whatever...
> 
> The tide is changing were a larger majority would like to see
> a better quailty hunt .....those are the tools needed make that happen.;-)..
> 
> 
> 
> Goofy, you could not see the trees if you were in a forest. Higher buck to doe ratios are probably detrimental to herd health. If you want "quality", and big deer, you need more deer, and you need to be able to sustain that growth.
> 
> The current paradigm, is the best tool we have to finish off the current decimation of wildlife and hunting. Some folks just drink too much kool aid to know other wise.
> 
> Only guys like you and Don would trade large healthy deer herds, your children's hunting future, and hundreds of years of hunting heritage, for a few large "quality" bucks, most of whom can't breed.
Click to expand...


----------



## Lonetree

Come on guys, tell me how 20 more years, of the last 20 years, is going to make things better.......

Maybe there is an "article" with some guesses in it, that can sum it for us. Maybe we can get it on audio cassette, to make it even easier.


----------



## swbuckmaster

While i also agree with what lonetree is saying to an extent I cant help but think if the deer population is low enough the predators arent a factor. Most of the deer in the transplants have been killed by cats or cars. The fawn studies the dwr is doing now will probably show when the fawn hits the ground bears and coyotes will kill 65-85% of them. 

I could be talking out my backside but In my lifetime I would say bears and coyotes are at an all time high. It seems like I see them more and more every year. 

Lonetree how come the unit the dwr is getting the does off of for transplants is over objective and growing out of control. Could it be the predators have lost that threshold and the deer are recovering faster than they can be consumed? To me it explains it better than saying that area has less acid rain then it does a mile or two down the road.


----------



## Lonetree

swbuckmaster said:


> While i also agree with what lonetree is saying to an extent I cant help but think if the deer population is low enough the predators arent a factor. Most of the deer in the transplants have been killed by cats or cars. The fawn studies the dwr is doing now will probably show when the fawn hits the ground bears and coyotes will kill 65-85% of them.
> 
> I could be talking out my backside but In my lifetime I would say bears and coyotes are at an all time high. It seems like I see them more and more every year.
> 
> Lonetree how come the unit the dwr is getting the does off of for transplants is over objective and growing out of control. Could it be the predators have lost that threshold and the deer are recovering faster than they can be consumed? To me it explains it better than saying that area has less acid rain then it does a mile or two down the road.


Who says they are out of control, objectives are quite arbitrary. Are they recovered to pre '92 levels? It is far too simple to say that it is a lack of localized acid rain, the bigger picture concept is not that simple and easy to grasp, so many people won't try. The masses can grasp it, but too many refuse.

Bear numbers rise, prior to deer numbers rising. Deer numbers do not decline, because of bears. We had high bear numbers in the late '80s, I do not see that as a negative. Yes, predators kill prey, but simply looking at the current predation situation, does nothing to tell you how that is affecting deer herds in the long term. Lion numbers have crashed, contemporarily with deer declines. We have been killing a lot of lions over the last 20 years, there is no solid evidence that it has increased deer numbers, in fact, quite the opposite correlation could be made. We can support a lot of predators and big game, but not in the current state of the ecosystem.

Tell me why the deer are headed into a crash in parts of Wyoming after lots of predator control, including coyote bounties.


----------



## stillhunterman

These types of articles pop up every so often and the way they are written often has me shaking my head out of frustration. Mr. Kirby (author of the article) did a good job of picking out parts of one particular study that made up the bulk of his points. I'll do the same thing in a bit to bring a little more clarity to the actual study. But let me say this first: I think the possibility that the ultimate conclusion drawn by the study may have validity for THAT PARTICULAR STUDY. The fish and game department allowed hunters to shoot the hell out of the does for years to bring the population down, and before they realized it, that population was way lower than intended. Throw in a predator like the coyote (who is fairly new to that region) in dense numbers, and I can see how the scenario could occur. Now, for the actual study&#8230;

This thesis was written by Angela Jackson in 2011 for Auburn University, and was 'approved' by three professors. The studies took place in 2009 and 2010, one year each. The study area size was a tad over 12 sq. miles (a bit smaller than how things are done out west). The habitat was vigorous and healthy with many additional 'food plots' planted throughout the area. This military installation was surrounded with chain link fence with barbed wire at the top. Areas with streams were NOT fenced. The median rather than the mean number of coyotes was used to determine coyote density&#8230;

Some numbers: The study comprised of 15 does and 14 fawns for analysis over 2 years. Forty-four of 60 scat samples were used to determine coyote density. Interesting numbers&#8230;

Some quotes from the study:

-We were unable to determine if any variables in our models affected survival, but whether this was due to the variables not affecting survival or a product of low sample size is unknown.

-Exactly how this low recruitment affects long-term densities of white-tailed deer populations is somewhat unknown.

-Although these studies improved our understanding of the potential impacts of predator control programs on fawn survival and subsequent population growth, they were only conducted for one year each and did not evaluate the long term effects of predator control or contribution of increased fawn recruitment to growth of the deer population.

-To accurately predict the long term effects of management prescriptions such as predator control programs, population parameters (density, recruitment, etc.) must be regularly monitored. These data can then be used to definitively determine if predators are having an additive or compensatory effect on white-tailed deer populations.

-If a prey population is limited by food resources, predation is most likely compensatory, and any losses associated with predation do not measurably increase rates of mortality.

Enough already. I would suggest that before we all jump on any band wagon, we do our due diligence and take nothing at face value, especially magazine articles.

Here is the study link. I read it two or three years ago I believe.

https://fp.auburn.edu/sfws/ditchkoff/Theses/Jackson,%20Angela%20-%20MS%20Thesis.pdf


----------



## stillhunterman

Lonetree said:


> Not addressing the root cause of these problems, IS giving up all hope. And that is exactly what is happening, with many out right attempts at suppression of the current understanding of the science. Not to mention all the influence and attempts to propagandize the current "management" as a step forward. "Managing what they can" is not a solution, even to "management", and most hunters go along with it, because they either do not know any better, or refuse to learn. As for the DWR, yeah there are some great folks there, some with their hands tied, but as for the folks driving policy, that are in bed with the orgs that do not have the best interest of wildlife and hunters in mind, they are nothing but a bunch of crooks.
> 
> *Wildlife conservation, is the basis for "management", and that is not what is occurring. Wildlife science is supposed to be the means by which we gain the understanding, to carry out that management, that is not occurring. Even if we can not solve the root causes, we are not looking at them. And without that understanding, we can not come up with sound management, even for the short term.* Just doing something, gets us no where. The past is prologue, look at the results of the last 20 years. If the worlds pollution problems are affecting wildlife, and our hunting, then our DWR is mandated to acknowledge that, and manage in accordance with our best understanding of that science, while continuing to better understand the science and possible solutions. Their job is not to be ruled by special interests, damaging wildlife and hunters, with suppressing the current scientific reality.
> 
> When some hick DWR botanist says he does not know why pinion and juniper invasions occur, he is lying and suppressing the truth at the expense of the wildlife and us as hunters. When a wildlife biologist says that the non existent testicles of a congenitally deformed fawn will magically appear when it grows up, that is the same bull****. And he is steeling from you, just like he is me. Difference is, a whole lot of you folks don't know any better, and eat it up.
> 
> I'm not here to make friends. Group think is a big part of the problem.


That's about as true as it gets...


----------



## Vanilla

Don't you guys get it? All the Utah DWR has to do is get China to significantly reduce their emissions. Anything short of that makes you a kool-aide drinking bafoon and you are just an idiot! 

It seriously isn't that difficult. I don't know why the DWR continues to ignore that real issue and focus on things to control just locally. Seriously, just get China to reduce emissions. Quit wasting time and money on anything. Stupid worthless biologists!


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Nothing to with the DWR but do a little research on what China has been implementing. They are well behind the curve but big movements are being made and they are being made by their leaders. Their leaders in case you didn't know have a bit of power over there.


----------



## RandomElk16

TS lets not forget about our own inversions here in the state, gotta fix them. And the drought years! And the ever growing population causing an invasion of winter grounds and habitat. Gosh, If only lonetree was heading the polar bear effort!


Lone, in all seriousness there are roots, and they need to be addressed. That will take the whole worlds effort though. And lets not forget the biggun..... MONEY. I understand they are taking what you may see as shortcuts. I just think its funny you want them to do more, but what are you doing? That isn't a cheap shot, its a real question. How are you helping deer numbers be "1992"? We have all asked and you address us with redirection. We arent group think either... Hell you can't make it a page on a thread without some opposition on this forum, unless its a picture. We love pictures.


----------



## Lonetree

TS30 said:


> Don't you guys get it? All the Utah DWR has to do is get China to significantly reduce their emissions. Anything short of that makes you a kool-aide drinking bafoon and you are just an idiot!
> 
> It seriously isn't that difficult. I don't know why the DWR continues to ignore that real issue and focus on things to control just locally. Seriously, just get China to reduce emissions. Quit wasting time and money on anything. Stupid worthless biologists!


No, that would be higher up on the list, a little bit above deer transplants. Acknowledgement of the ways in which these things, and many others, are greatly impacting the over all ecology and driving the greater wildlife and hunting declines, would be where this all starts.

No, not easy, that's why it is not getting done. Same reason "hunters" cry about "quality", ease of obtainment. Not to mention there is no money, or political clout to be had.

As for stupid worthless biologists, yes, some of them are. I know countless ones that are not. I can hold my own with the best of them. And to clarify, from a policy point of view, we are not listening to the biologists. I know many of them that are being ignored, or suppressed, in every Western state. The state of wildlife science is not being driven by wildlife professionals, researchers, and biologist. It is being driven by politicians that have bought a few unscrupulous titles from that community.

Hunters complain about a lack of wildlife, quality, and opportunity, but when it comes down to brass tacks, if it requires real thought, or work, then suddenly, there is nothing that can be done.

I appreciate the sarcasm, but it does not change reality.


----------



## Lonetree

RandomElk16 said:


> TS lets not forget about our own inversions here in the state, gotta fix them. And the drought years! And the ever growing population causing an invasion of winter grounds and habitat. Gosh, If only lonetree was heading the polar bear effort!
> 
> Lone, in all seriousness there are roots, and they need to be addressed. That will take the whole worlds effort though. And lets not forget the biggun..... MONEY. I understand they are taking what you may see as shortcuts. I just think its funny you want them to do more, but what are you doing? That isn't a cheap shot, its a real question. How are you helping deer numbers be "1992"? We have all asked and you address us with redirection. We arent group think either... Hell you can't make it a page on a thread without some opposition on this forum, unless its a picture. We love pictures.


What am I doing, what have I done, that is not a simple question, or answer, in many regards.

On mule deer, and the last 30 years of Western wildlife declines? I'm initiating some of the first steps, that lead to solutions. I'm not the only one on that, there are many that have been fighting for decades. Those first steps are admitting, and addressing that there is a greater problem, that con not be over come with more of the same bull**** of the last 20 years. They are short cuts all right, short cuts to greater declines, and losses of hunting.

Its the elephant in the god **** room, the complete Western ecology has been dying for 30 years. A refusal to acknowledge that, is no different that an endorsement of it. And an acknowledgement of it, with refusals to understand it, or attempts to solve it, is even worse than an endorsement of it. It is full culpability, and participation in the destruction of the West, its wildlife, and hunting.

You can not "manage" things you do not acknowledge, or understand.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Lonetree said:


> A refusal to acknowledge that, is no different that an endorsement of it. And an acknowledgement of it, with refusals to understand it, or attempts to solve it, is even worse than an endorsement of it. It is full culpability, and participation in the destruction of the West, its wildlife, and hunting.


Lonetree that statement right there.................WOW.

Reads just like extremists propaganda.


----------



## Lonetree

Its an extreme problem. Can you refute the statement, or are you just gonna brand it?


----------



## RandomElk16

People in rehab admit and address they have a problem. So what you have done, vs the wildlife groups and dwr, is make a plan to address a problem, but just havent done that first step yet? 

So you've done....


----------



## GBell

As I've said repeatedly, if our new management
Plans to help restore mule deer include telling buck hunters
To stay home, increasing B to D ratios to appease the
Trophy crowd that owns the Wildlife Board, then start trucking
In pigs and whitetails. There won't be mule deer to hunt.


----------



## silentstalker

I wish we had hogs and more whitetails! 

For now, study and make changes abroad, control predators, and improve habitat. Manage for herd health and not how many 200" bucks we can put in a booth at the expo.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Lonetree said:


> Its an extreme problem. Can you refute the statement, or are you just gonna brand it?


Just gonna brand it. It doesn't deserve anything else.


----------



## Lonetree

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Just gonna brand it. It doesn't deserve anything else.


Ohan, hiya wacon!?


----------



## Lonetree

RandomElk16 said:


> People in rehab admit and address they have a problem. So what you have done, vs the wildlife groups and dwr, is make a plan to address a problem, but just havent done that first step yet?
> 
> So you've done....


It would be more like the DWR, and some wildlife orgs, are shooting up in NA meetings. But your right, I only have a 30 day sobriety patch. Man, you got me on that one.

Let me retort, what the **** have you ever done? I've been involved in making things happen on wildlife, and wild land issues in some meaningful way for over a decade, across the West. Much longer, in an "unaffiliated" manner. My focus on mule deer is only about three years old. But prior to that I had worked with biologists in other states, on other issues, with other species. Have lead YNP biologists ever hired you, because of the work you were doing with wildlife?


----------



## Springville Shooter

oldfudd said:


> Have the solution for people who have a solution,, Stop the Gun Hunt And the muzzy hunts for 3 years., Ya want to see the heard explode? Randy People Who Get It Get It,, Them That Don't NEVER WILL..


At that point, we might as well get rid of bowhunters too. Just think of how good the shed hunting would be in a few years.-------SS


----------



## RandomElk16

Lonetree said:


> It would be more like the DWR, and some wildlife orgs, are shooting up in NA meetings. But your right, I only have a 30 day sobriety patch. Man, you got me on that one.
> 
> Let me retort, what the **** have you ever done? I've been involved in making things happen on wildlife, and wild land issues in some meaningful way for over a decade, across the West. Much longer, in an "unaffiliated" manner. My focus on mule deer is only about three years old. But prior to that I had worked with biologists in other states, on other issues, with other species. Have lead YNP biologists ever hired you, because of the work you were doing with wildlife?


First off, hopefully you understand where the rehab reference came from. When asked what you have done you said you have started the first step of acknowledging a problem. That is great and all, it is important, but saying we have a bigger problem isn't really much.

Here is my thing man.... When people complain about the president, my first question is "Did you vote?"

You get on here and complain about EVERYTHING that EVERYONE ELSE is doing. So I was just wondering why everyone should be kissing your royal a**.

You never tell us any specifics. I appreciate you doing "stuff" in other states, but that doesn't mean you need to undermine everything that everyone in UTAH is doing. Even if it is under-educated suggestions, at least we get on here and discuss the pro's and con's to potential solutions. They may not be *the* solution, and you will retort saying they are no solution just a waste blah blah blah; BUT, they sure as hell beat any solution you have presented, because you haven't. Unless you count the China thing.


----------



## goonsquad

Are there studies which show that the food chain is becoming less healthy or even possibly dangerous to the animals and that the plants are causing a less healthy herd? 
I can see where pollutants can cause health issues with herds, but I wouldn't think it would be the same throughout the entire western states. That's a lot of land, that's a lot of different climates, that's a lot of different airstreams.


----------



## Lonetree

goonsquad said:


> Are there studies which show that the food chain is becoming less healthy or even possibly dangerous to the animals and that the plants are causing a less healthy herd?
> I can see where pollutants can cause health issues with herds, but I wouldn't think it would be the same throughout the entire western states. That's a lot of land, that's a lot of different climates, that's a lot of different airstreams.


Yes, there are plenty of studies. Dangerous? the food chain and environment, is currently dangerous to us, as well as the wildlife. Many studies have been posted here on the UWN. Why do think mule deer, bighorn sheep, and moose, have followed the same declines, and cycles of disease across the West, for the last 30 years? You think it is because they are all "managed" the same? Why do mule deer numbers rise and fall, across the West, in synchronicity? Even though they are "managed" differently in every state? Why did mule deer, moose, and bighorns all crash in the early '80s? If it was just a hard winter, why did they not fully rebound? It happened again in '92, with an even bigger crash, and that was not all a winter. It happened in every Western state, heavy winter or not. The recovery was sub par, they never recovered. It occurred again in the early 2000s, again, with sub par recoverys.

Mule deer health is dependent on nutrition and environment, that is what drives ungulate numbers. So, if you have 30 years of big crashes, followed by subpar recoveries, you have a health problem. You have something, or a combination of things, that are suppressing deer numbers. Study after study, says that the predation is compensatory. So if you see high predation, but it is shown to be compensatory, that means once again, that you have a health problem. Weather? They have been dealing with the weather for tens of thousands of years. Hunters, oh yes, it must be hunters, yet as we have cut more hunters, we have not seen increases in deer. We have been cutting hunters for 20 years, while killing more predators, and yet, where are the deer?

When was the last time you saw a wax wing migration, or ibis's black out a field. Seen any flying squirrels lately? Think it does not matter? That it is just about deer, and deer "management"? Do you think it is just a coincidence that whirling disease and CWD, that had been present in the Western environment for 30 years prior, took off, like never before seen, at the same time that everything was sharply declining?


----------



## Lonetree

RandomElk16 said:


> First off, hopefully you understand where the rehab reference came from. When asked what you have done you said you have started the first step of acknowledging a problem. That is great and all, it is important, but saying we have a bigger problem isn't really much.
> 
> Here is my thing man.... When people complain about the president, my first question is "Did you vote?"
> 
> You get on here and complain about EVERYTHING that EVERYONE ELSE is doing. So I was just wondering why everyone should be kissing your royal a**.
> 
> You never tell us any specifics. I appreciate you doing "stuff" in other states, but that doesn't mean you need to undermine everything that everyone in UTAH is doing. Even if it is under-educated suggestions, at least we get on here and discuss the pro's and con's to potential solutions. They may not be *the* solution, and you will retort saying they are no solution just a waste blah blah blah; BUT, they sure as hell beat any solution you have presented, because you haven't. Unless you count the China thing.


Specifics? You mean you want the easy, get rich quick answer, or solution, it does not work that way.

Kissing my ass? Don't you think if I were looking for such treatment, or was here looking for friends, I would go about this differently? Again you miss the point, while simultaneously getting it, against your own will, I might add.

Yes, you discuss solutions, and potential solutions, to "deer management". That is the hypothetical bull **** conversation, that you and the DWR love. It goes no where, but keeps you occupied, and looks like progress, much like a dog chasing his tail. They like you tired and dizzy.

I am talking about those things that actually affect mule deer conservation, it is an entirely different conversation. And it is not just Utah, it is every Western state.

Again, with my retort. What do you propose, we do, to increase the number of mule deer? Here is the crux, you can't use any of the last 20 years of "management", that has been shown not to work, in you answer. Have at it.


----------



## Vanilla

Why don't you ever mention the elk herds and how they have done over this period of time? After all, they inhabit the same ecosystems that are unhealthy...right? 

Further, "compensatory" does not mean "worthless" or "makes no difference."


----------



## RandomElk16

Your last question is the same question we have been asking you lone... Give us your answer. What is the bigger issue and how are we going to address it? You keep talking about "it". What is "it"?

And I am not missing the point, bbut regardless of how we phrase something you twist it. I get it, what we are doing is horse s*** and should never be called management. Now I really want to know what the hell YOU propose. Not a proposal saying lets admit there is a bigger problem. Or a proposal about the current strategy that is not management... I want a real proposal. Saying this is the problem, we could do this about it. No china emissions either. This is a Utah proposal.

You are smart, you have made that point about yourself, so if your boss said I want a proposal, would you respond by saying the current system is horse s*** and give him no reason why? Give him your proposal lone.


----------



## Lonetree

TS30 said:


> Why don't you ever mention how the elk herds and how they have done over this period of time? After all, they inhabit the same ecosystems that are unhealthy...right?
> 
> Further, "compensatory" does not mean "worthless" or "makes no difference."


Elk are affected, but in a much different matter. They will see crashes, but can recover in a much different way because of the increase in annual grasses, and the fact there interaction with the environment, with regard to nutrition, plays out very differently, because they are grazers.

It affects sheep, deer and moose in very specific ways as well, but the trend lines end up much the same.

Compensatory predation means that if you remove the predation, the animals that would have been killed by predators, will still die. When you see this play out over and over again, it means there is an underlying problem, like disease, or nutrition, or both. Compensatory predation is not a limiting factor in deer herds, even in suppressed circumstances. So over a 10 year period, you can kill lots and lots of coyotes and lions, and you will not raise the number of deer. That is what has been playing out.


----------



## Lonetree

RandomElk16 said:


> Your last question is the same question we have been asking you lone... Give us your answer. What is the bigger issue and how are we going to address it? You keep talking about "it". What is "it"?
> 
> And I am not missing the point, bbut regardless of how we phrase something you twist it. I get it, what we are doing is horse s*** and should never be called management. Now I really want to know what the hell YOU propose. Not a proposal saying lets admit there is a bigger problem. Or a proposal about the current strategy that is not management... I want a real proposal. Saying this is the problem, we could do this about it. No china emissions either. This is a Utah proposal.
> 
> You are smart, you have made that point about yourself, so if your boss said I want a proposal, would you respond by saying the current system is horse s*** and give him no reason why? Give him your proposal lone.


**** your slow! S T U D Y M U L E D E E R H E A L T H A N D E C O L O G Y T H A T I S W H E R E T H E A N S W E R I S

Would you like fries with that?


----------



## Springville Shooter

If only 50% of the windbags who claim to have all the solutions would quit hunting and devote 100% of their time to whining and bloviating, I bet the deer situation would be miraculously fixed in no time. So, here's my grand conclusion......leave the coyotes and lions alone and remove the incredulous whiners from the eco system.-----SS


----------



## RandomElk16

Lonetree said:


> **** your slow! S T U D Y M U L E D E E R H E A L T H A N D E C O L O G Y T H A T I S W H E R E T H E A N S W E R I S
> 
> Would you like fries with that?


Oh my hell. You don't even realize how stupid your responses sound. Your solution is a call to action. You basically have said you don't know what the problem is, or the solution, just know enough to b**** about everything.

I'm slow because you give answers politicians give. Just bull**** but if we take you around the block it sounds like an answer.


----------



## Lonetree

RandomElk16 said:


> Oh my hell. You don't even realize how stupid your responses sound. Your solution is a call to action. You basically have said you don't know what the problem is, or the solution, just know enough to b**** about everything.
> 
> I'm slow because you give answers politicians give. Just bull**** but if we take you around the block it sounds like an answer.


Yes it is a call to action of sorts, that would be a good starting point. We know what the problem is, the deer and their environment, are not healthy. What we do not fully understand, is all the dynamics at play, and how to effectively bring about positive change. That is because decades ago, real wildlife science, and real wildlife conservation were left by the road side. There is a lot of catching up to do. And just because you don't understand the subject matter, or refuse to understand it, does not negate it.

Simply dismissing parts of what I have said, based on arbitrarily applied conditions of your understanding, without anything to support your assertions, says a lot about where you are coming from. Especially when coupled with a demand for a "solution", now! It demonstrates a great lack of understanding. The instant gratification generations, are a big part of this problem.

You can call me stupid all you want. I know the subject matter and can demonstrate as much. You don't, and can't show other wise. You can not like it, all you want, it won't change the weight of reality.


----------



## Lonetree

Springville Shooter said:


> If only 50% of the windbags who claim to have all the solutions would quit hunting and devote 100% of their time to whining and bloviating, I bet the deer situation would be miraculously fixed in no time. So, here's my grand conclusion......leave the coyotes and lions alone and remove the incredulous whiners from the eco system.-----SS


In all reality, people should be complaining and whining, just like they have been for the last 20+ years. I get it, I understand it. People want opportunity, they want "quality", they want deer, they want to hunt. Technically we all agree. The real problem, is most hunters don't really know what they are whining and complaining about. There for, their demands can not produce results.


----------



## Vanilla

Lonetree said:


> We know what the problem is, the deer and their environment, are not healthy. What we do not fully understand, is all the dynamics at play, and how to effectively bring about positive change.





Lonetree said:


> The real problem, is most hunters don't really know what they are whining and complaining about.


A self-diagnosis there?


----------



## RandomElk16

Lonetree said:


> Yes it is a call to action of sorts, that would be a good starting point. We know what the problem is, the deer and their environment, are not healthy. What we do not fully understand, is all the dynamics at play, and how to effectively bring about positive change. That is because decades ago, real wildlife science, and real wildlife conservation were left by the road side. There is a lot of catching up to do. And just because you don't understand the subject matter, or refuse to understand it, does not negate it.
> 
> Simply dismissing parts of what I have said, based on arbitrarily applied conditions of your understanding, without anything to support your assertions, says a lot about where you are coming from. Especially when coupled with a demand for a "solution", now! It demonstrates a great lack of understanding. The instant gratification generations, are a big part of this problem.
> 
> You can call me stupid all you want. I know the subject matter and can demonstrate as much. You don't, and can't show other wise. You can not like it, all you want, it won't change the weight of reality.


The first part was the start of what I was asking for. Then you go on to bash me and say things that your truly have no ******* clue are accurate. You have no clue what I believe, or what I am rejecting. I asked for a potential solution to look into. This may be premature you are correct, but I wanted to understand why you think everything being done is soooooo stupid. That should mean you have proof it isn't an accurate thing to do. You can say the decline has continued, but that doesn't mean that everything we are soing still wouldn't occur once you and your posse found a potential solution. But, you will say its all stupid and wrong. You also sound less intelligent when every post you respond to is simply negative to the person who posted it. And you wonder why people are ignorant? That is because the other side of the fence is you, hard to recruit people and avoid group think when you are being a jerk. The go to the side of the fence without aholes that call them stupid. Then this is the part where you make it clear you aren't trying to recruit.

Glad you say the herds aren't healthy. I still don't believe that is enough to get on here and discredit everyone here, the dwr, biologists, and all wildlife groups. Not yet..


----------



## Lonetree

RandomElk16, TS30

How about you break down the last 30 years of wildlife declines, and the ensuing losses of hunting because of it. Then explain how the last 20 years of "management" has benefited us as hunters. Then explain how 20 more years of it, will reverse the last 20. If you are going to defend it, by all means, defend it, make your case.

And if you have anything supportable to offer, by way of alternatives, to the last 20 years of failures, by all means speak up. But coming at me, and things you don't understand, that do hold a future for wildlife and hunting, is not moving anything forward, other your lack of understanding on the matter.

Seriously, we can do the dozens, we can do the scientific substance, I'm game either way, or both.


----------



## RandomElk16

Not everything we are doing is what we were doing 20 years ago. I like how you throw in the lack of understanding, just to again put down others so you feel cool. Good work. What exactly have we said wrong? We have just asked, given you are so bitter, what you have to offer to the discussion other than saying negative things about others. 

We aren't coming at you. Most times you open your mouth it is to either call a forum member stupid or to insult the DWR. Thats grounds to be questioned is it not?

The entire world is different from 20 years ago, not to mwntion much more populated. We simply are asking for some knowledge on what you know is impacting the deer other than elements that are impacting the entire world.


----------



## Vanilla

Lonetree, 

I haven't defended anything. Not a single time. I'm just tired of your condescending bull crap where you talk in circles and don't actually say anything other than you are right and everyone else is wrong. You've been asked multiple times by others what you propose, then you go on with your circular talk about how nobody but you understands this issue, then you still don't answer the questions. 

Put up, or shut up. The end.


----------



## Lonetree

RandomElk16 said:


> Not everything we are doing is what we were doing 20 years ago. I like how you throw in the lack of understanding, just to again put down others so you feel cool. Good work. What exactly have we said wrong? We have just asked, given you are so bitter, what you have to offer to the discussion other than saying negative things about others.
> 
> We aren't coming at you. Most times you open your mouth it is to either call a forum member stupid or to insult the DWR. Thats grounds to be questioned is it not?
> 
> The entire world is different from 20 years ago, not to mwntion much more populated. We simply are asking for some knowledge on what you know is impacting the deer other than elements that are impacting the entire world.


Looking at the date, that you registered here, explains some of my lack of understanding. I do like tenacity :mrgreen:

20 years ago we decided the plan was to cut tags, and kill predators. That is the current plan. There were no results, except for more declines 20 years ago, and that is what we will get more of.

How old are you? Nothing negative, but hunting with quite a few 20 something year olds, over the last few years, has been an eye opener for me. Not to mention people my own age. Watching guys get all stoked because there are lots of deer, and lots of big deer. I end up sounding much older than I am when I tell them about the good old days. Not so much about how it used to be, but more about how it should be. Deer are doing well right now, they are not declining, the numbers bear that out. But they are in no way, where they should, or could be. And that goes for just about everything else on the mountain.

I think it bears repeating. The West has been dying for the last 30 years. And just because the downward trend line, has ticked up a smidge, does not mean things are better. That's what it does, just before every crash.

It is understanding what has driven the last 30 years of declines, where we will find solutions. That is not being done. We know quite a bit, but most won't even look at that, because it is "too hard", or "too big", or "insert excuse here". Lets be clear, for wildlife and hunters, it is the right thing to do. That is why it is not easy.

My arrogance, and brashness, are just part of how this works. It is meant to illicit this very response. Some will eventually get it, but for some it will stay stuck in their craw. Either way, like it or not, you are thinking about things you never would have before.


----------



## Lonetree

TS30 said:


> Lonetree,
> 
> I haven't defended anything. Not a single time. I'm just tired of your condescending bull crap where you talk in circles and don't actually say anything other than you are right and everyone else is wrong. You've been asked multiple times by others what you propose, then you go on with your circular talk about how nobody but you understands this issue, then you still don't answer the questions.
> 
> Put up, or shut up. The end.


If you can't follow it, that is a problem on your end. Either a lack of effort, or a simple inability.


----------



## silentstalker

Lonetree, what do you make of deer declines over the same time period of the elk explosion in this state?Where we once had tons of deer and almost no elk, we have the reverse. Is there a correlation?


----------



## Vanilla

Lonetree said:


> If you can't follow it, that is a problem on your end. Either a lack of effort, or a simple inability.


No, I think the issue is I follow it all too well. And that is what bothers you so much about my response. Now at least you know that I know. Carry on...


----------



## c3hammer

Wow, what a waste of my morning reading Lonetree's utter nonsense.

In my local environ, the declining deer herd since the mid 80's has been due almost exclusively to orders of magnitude higher predition, poorer weather, elk and development of winter ground. In that order.

There are 5 - 10 times the number of hunters over a 4 month season that didn't exist in the early 80's. There are now at least 6 cats, three of which I have personally filmed in my one canyon alone that never existed before 2002. Also a number of bears that hadn't been seen here since the 50's. Add 300 some elk that didn't exist in the 80's and the inability to effectively hunt or poison coyotes due to all the residential development and human recreation in the area. Add to all of that the massive winter kills of 1998, 2002, a number of horribly wet cool springs since and you see exactly why there are 1/10 the number of deer now.

Don't know where Lonetree gets his his foofer bag full of bs, but it's just that bs.


----------



## Lonetree

c3hammer said:


> Wow, what a waste of my morning reading Lonetree's utter nonsense.
> 
> In my local environ, the declining deer herd since the mid 80's has been due almost exclusively to orders of magnitude higher predition, poorer weather, elk and development of winter ground. In that order.
> 
> There are 5 - 10 times the number of hunters over a 4 month season that didn't exist in the early 80's. There are now at least 6 cats, three of which I have personally filmed in my one canyon alone that never existed before 2002. Also a number of bears that hadn't been seen here since the 50's. Add 300 some elk that didn't exist in the 80's and the inability to effectively hunt or poison coyotes due to all the residential development and human recreation in the area. Add to all of that the massive winter kills of 1998, 2002, a number of horribly wet cool springs since and you see exactly why there are 1/10 the number of deer now.
> 
> Don't know where Lonetree gets his his foofer bag full of bs, but it's just that bs.


That is what you choose to believe, it has no bearing on actual reality.

First, there are far less hunters than there were in the eighties. You think it is because they are spread out more? Also false, we go back a little bit, and you could hunt multiple seasons on one tag, much like a DH permit, but is was over the counter, and everyone had one. We also had more upland game, and more people that were pursuing them. Outdoor recreation is not a new phenomenon, and deer suffer equally in remote areas, like wilderness, just as much as they do in more easily accessible areas. Population trends, bear this out. Second, we have been killing more cats every year than we ever did 30 years ago. We have few lions, and we kill more of them. Healthy ecosystems have large predators, that is how it works. Coyotes: We have done nothing but increase efforts to control coyotes over the last 20 years. Bears: yes, there is peer reviewed science that shows that bears can suppress deer numbers. Problem is, that scenario applies to the Sierras of California, with bear densities that Utah could never support, so you assertion once again, is just your belief. Weather: deer have been dealing with extreme weather for tens of thousands of years, does it play a role? Yes, a big role. But if it were that much of a limiting factor, deer would have died out thousands of years ago.

So I'm full of ****, but you can't support your beliefs, with anything other than your feelings on the matter, Ok.......


----------



## Lonetree

TS30 said:


> No, I think the issue is I follow it all too well. And that is what bothers you so much about my response. Now at least you know that I know. Carry on...


If you don't like what I'm saying, make the honest effort to counter it, and try supporting your arguments with something other than, you don't like who is saying it. Or that you are tired of listening to it. If that is the case, quit listening, or like I said make a supportable argument.


----------



## Lonetree

silentstalker said:


> Lonetree, what do you make of deer declines over the same time period of the elk explosion in this state?Where we once had tons of deer and almost no elk, we have the reverse. Is there a correlation?


Because Elk are grazers, and have the ability to just plain eat more, to overcome nutritional deficiencies, they have an advantage over moose, deer, and bighorns in this respect. In the last 30 years with a change in the jet stream over the West, weather patterns have changed. The jet stream used to be strong, and a much straighter line. It weakened and now wobbles, in a North South fashion. This change is actually bringing more moisture into the West, but it is coming at different times than it used to, making it not as beneficial as it could be. The August monsoons have been disrupted, we see earlier springs(multiple factors there) and we get wet springs. Couple these weather changes with the nitrification that is occurring, and you see a couple of things happen. Wetter springs, intensify nitrification, it is a matter of bad timing. Nitrification destroys native mychorrhizae, these are root funguses that have symbiotic relationships with native Western plants, such as sage brush, and bitterbrush. When these mychorrhizae are destroyed, it leaves native plants vulnerable to invasion by invasive weeds. Mychorrhizae also help to up regulate the nutrients that plants have. A piece of bitterbrush that has no mycorrhizae, will have a much lower nutritional value, than one that has a healthy presence of mycorrhizae. So in this situation, deer, moose and bighorns become nutritionally limited, and mule deer specifically can not make up for this, by just eating more. While elk on the other hand, are able to just eat more food, to make up for the loss of nutrition. Also under these conditions, as we loose sage brush, bitterbrush, and forbs, we are increasing annual grasses. These annual grasses are of no use to deer at most times of the year. But elk can utilize these rising food sources, giving them an advantage over other species. It does not mean that they can not crash, because of ecological reasons, just like mule deer. It has happened before.


----------



## c3hammer

Lonetree said:


> ...First, there are far less hunters than there were in the eighties. You think it is because they are spread out more?.......


There wasn't even an extended season back in the 80's. While there were more archery tags sold when we could hunt all three seasons, there were only a handful that hunted the front with a bow. Now days virtually all 15k tag holders hit the front every year at one point or another. There are 10 times the number of deer taken on the front now as there were in the 80's even with 1/10th the number of deer. Back in the 80's when they ran sheep and cattle still up there the ranchers and sheep herders killed all the predators. There were no bears, lions and very few if any coyotes from them poisoning them. Since the land swaps took place and they stopped running livestock up there, the predators have gone off the charts.

It's not feelings Lonetree. Just facts of the matter. Those aren't the reasons all across the state, but each location has it's own set of unique circumstances for why the deer numbers are down. Just the spot I've spent all my adult life hunting more than just about anyone. Feelings have nothing to do with it.

You can believe all your hippy "we can save the earth" bs all you want, but it leads nowhere but to the end of hunting.


----------



## Vanilla

Lonetree said:


> If you don't like what I'm saying, make the honest effort to counter it, and try supporting your arguments with something other than, you don't like who is saying it. Or that you are tired of listening to it. If that is the case, quit listening, or like I said make a supportable argument.


I will when you do....fair? You and I have offered EXACTLY the same amount of options to change how things are done for the better. And my running total on this website is zero.

See, now you want me out of this because you now know that I know. You're full of crap. Full of condescending crap. Put up or shut up, Dr. Lonetree.


----------



## Vanilla

Check that....I did propose the idea that the Utah DWR works with China to make them reduce their emissions. So I'm up on you 1-0 after that. My second proposal is the Utah DWR works with the jet streams to make them go back to how they were. 2-0. This one may end up being a blowout!


----------



## Lonetree

c3hammer said:


> There wasn't even an extended season back in the 80's. While there were more archery tags sold when we could hunt all three seasons, there were only a handful that hunted the front with a bow. Now days virtually all 15k tag holders hit the front every year at one point or another. There are 10 times the number of deer taken on the front now as there were in the 80's even with 1/10th the number of deer. Back in the 80's when they ran sheep and cattle still up there the ranchers and sheep herders killed all the predators. There were no bears, lions and very few if any coyotes from them poisoning them. Since the land swaps took place and they stopped running livestock up there, the predators have gone off the charts.
> 
> It's not feelings Lonetree. Just facts of the matter. Those aren't the reasons all across the state, but each location has it's own set of unique circumstances for why the deer numbers are down. Just the spot I've spent all my adult life hunting more than just about anyone. Feelings have nothing to do with it.
> 
> You can believe all your hippy "we can save the earth" bs all you want, but it leads nowhere but to the end of hunting.


The extended: You are talking about one localized area, not the big picture. And even in the big picture scheme of things, the Extended area deer, have followed the same 30 year trends as everywhere else in the West. They declined in the early '80s, again in the early '90s(big), and again in the early 2000s, just prior to every one of these declines we saw subpar recoveries. This includes National parks, where there is no hunting. And wilderness areas, with limited access. Your case about hunters is not valid or supportable.

Lions: If you think there were no lions in the '80s, you really don't know what you are talking about. Ask any houndsman, it was hard to go out and not cut a track, just the opposite is true today.

Bears: Again your assertions have no support, there were lots of bears in the '80s. And yes we have seen a rise again in bear numbers now. But whether we are talking about the '80s or now, there are or were, in no where near enough bears to reduce or suppress deer numbers.

Coyotes: I don't know where you were in the '80s, but we had coyotes. And we have increased coyote controls over and over again in the last 20 years.

Your feelings have everything to do with it. I have my own about the places I have hunted my whole life. Yes all areas have there own unique situations. Yet when you look at the numbers, across the West, over the last 30 years, your area looks like everyone else's, even those with supposedly very different problems. Therefor, there are driving forces, and limiting factors that are affecting the health and viability of mule deer across the West. regardless of, or in conjunction with localized issues. But the bigger picture, is overriding the local issues. This is not just my feelings on the matter, it can be quantifiably demonstrated, above simple observation, and feeling.

Hippy :mrgreen: the greenies call me "Bark eater", the bunny buggars despise me just as much as the hicks. I cut my hair about the same time I quit wearing boots, and my Resistol. You can throw labels at it all you want. It is environmental factors driving the health of mule deer. You can call it "saving the Earth", or dismiss it how ever you like. The substantiated truth of the matter, is that I don't care what it is called, mule deer conservation, and preservation of hunting, depend on certain things being done. So you can carry on with your narrow view of the world, or open your eyes to what is being done to your hunting future, and what has already occurred to its past.


----------



## Lonetree

TS30 said:


> I will when you do....fair? You and I have offered EXACTLY the same amount of options to change how things are done for the better. And my running total on this website is zero.
> 
> See, now you want me out of this because you now know that I know. You're full of crap. Full of condescending crap. Put up or shut up, Dr. Lonetree.


I have been putting up for years. By all means, refute it. Show us how well you understand the situation, and subject matter at hand. If I am full of ****, you should be able to demonstrate as much. You should be able to come in with an argument that just shatters all of the made up, false, bull **** I have been spewing, right? By all means, show us what you have got. Pick it apart, find some magazine articles, or something.

My condescension does not negate what I present. It only biases you, intentionally I might add, to what I present.


----------



## Vanilla

You've presented nothing. The question is how do you grow the deer herds. That is what everyone (and the DWR) is trying to do, and has been trying and failing for 30 years...as you put it. 

You've yet to tell us how to do it. Therefore, you're a blow-hard wanna-be know it all that is mad that he's being exposed for how little he actually knows. That has been proven over and over again on this forum. There is no need for a magazine article for that.

2-0 still. Your move.


----------



## Lonetree

TS30 said:


> You've presented nothing. The question is how do you grow the deer herds. That is what everyone (and the DWR) is trying to do, and has been trying and failing for 30 years...as you put it.
> 
> You've yet to tell us how to do it. Therefore, you're a blow-hard wanna-be know it all that is mad that he's being exposed for how little he actually knows. That has been proven over and over again on this forum. There is no need for a magazine article for that.
> 
> 2-0 still. Your move.


You're not helping your cause. You increase deer numbers by improving their health, you increase their health via nutrition and environment, this is biology 101. Currently, in the big scheme of things, nutrition and environment are the limiting factors for mule deer. This has been demonstrated in large scale habitat improvement studies, and in large scale micro nutritional studies, regarding deer. With captive studies, we have been able to get some better base lines, and understand better, some of the critical points. So, we are doing habitat improvements, and we have some success, but not like we used to see with seeding and other efforts in the past. The deer are not responding like we have seen in the past, with increases in favorable forage. So if you dig a little deeper, you find that is because there are greater factors driving mule deer nutrition, and therefor over all mule deer health. Healthy mule deer reproduce a lot of fawns, including twins, and are capable of population explosions. This is driven by nutrition. healthy deer in healthy ecosystems, increase, and just the opposite is true. So as we understand the nexus between nutrition, environment, and mule deer, we can then actually affect positive change that benefits mule deer in the long run. You understand the problems driving mule deer health, and you then understand what can be done to fix it.

Screaming king me!, king me! in the course of a chess match, is likely to get the response, Check, and mate. You do not know what you are talking about, nor can you prove otherwise. Which is why your responses are structured the way they are, with no substance, no support, not really even a stance, just little girls feelings on the way the conversation has gone, not what it is about. I'm sorry you don't like, I'm sorry you can't, or are unable to grasp reality, but that is not my problem.


----------



## Kevin D

c3hammer said:


> .....Back in the 80's when they ran sheep and cattle still up there the ranchers and sheep herders killed all the predators. There were no bears, lions and very few if any coyotes from them poisoning them.......the predators have gone off the charts.


I started tagging along with a friend's dad who ran hounds back in the mid 70's and have run my own hounds after lions since 1983. So I gotta take issue with your statement that there were no lions back in the 80's. On the contrary, those were the happy times if you were a hound dogger. Treeing 40 lions a season was the norm back then. I don't think I've even had a 20 lion season since the mid 90's and I probably spend more days in the field now as I did back then.

Bear numbers have unquestionably increased since the 1980's, coyote numbers are about the same, but lion numbers have mirrored the decline in the deer population.

Predator populations off the charts now compared to the 70's and 80's?? Honestly, I sure haven't seen it.


----------



## Vanilla

When deer have healthier nutrition, they are more healthy? Well that is some groundbreaking stuff there! 

Will someone get Dr Al Lonetree Gore a Nobel Prize, please? 

Habitat improvements have been taking place for years now. One question, and it's a yes or no question: Have they helped? 

(And no, genius, I'm not asking if they've fixed the problem. Just if they've helped.)


----------



## c3hammer

Kevin D said:


> ...Predator populations off the charts now compared to the 70's and 80's?? Honestly, I sure haven't seen it.


Sorry Kevin D, I was talking about the front, not state wide. I said predation which includes hunters up there. Since the land swaps in the central Wasatch, there has been no check to the predators up there. When you can film cats 1500' above the houses on a regular basis there's a predator problem. When after 30 years you get trail cam pics of bears 250 yards off the main road for the very first time, you know things have changed.


----------



## Lonetree

TS30 said:


> When deer have healthier nutrition, they are more healthy? Well that is some groundbreaking stuff there!
> 
> Will someone get Dr Al Lonetree Gore a Nobel Prize, please?
> 
> Habitat improvements have been taking place for years now. One question, and it's a yes or no question: Have they helped?
> 
> (And no, genius, I'm not asking if they've fixed the problem. Just if they've helped.)


They have not helped, like they have in the past, that is part of the problem. You can take an area that has a lot of preferred mule deer forage, and an area, that has marginal mule deer forage. And we are seeing similar results of the long term numbers. If you look at how deer browse, in times when they are declining or flat, verses times when they are increasing, you will see them preferentially browse a low percentage of plants, in relation to what is available. If you look at those specific plants, you do an analysis of the nutrition in the preferred piece of sage brush, verses the non preferred piece, you will see that preferred piece will have a higher nutritional value than the other plants. My own observations have shown that as little as 7% of the plants that could be utilized, were being utilized under these conditions. As numbers increase, you also see an increase in plant utilization, sometimes ten fold. The deer are selecting for what they need, and if they can not get enough of what they need, in good proportions, they will have nutritional deficiencies, and or imbalances. Not only does this cause higher energy expenditures while browsing, it causes less than ideal health. This in turn drives disease, and low productivity.

So if we do habitat improvements, but we do not see corresponding deer improvements, then no, these habitat improvements can only help minimally. the reason for this, is because the problem extends beyond just having preferred mule deer plants like sage brush and bitterbrush. If the deer can not get the nutrition they need from these plants, there can not be an over all improvement in deer health, or a corresponding recovery of deer numbers.

There are a number of things, such as nitrification, that are driving these ecological conditions. So yeah, "When deer have healthier nutrition, they are more healthy? Well that is some groundbreaking stuff there!" Well actually, if this was understood so well, and so elementary, then we would have over come this limiting factor, long ago. We have not, because we have chosen to pursue other avenues, and continue to disregard, the real problems that are driving the declines of hunting. Mostly because of the programed knee jerk reactions from "hunters", and game "managers".

So it is pretty well established science, that here the West, cutting hunter numbers, and predator numbers, has not been able to increase numbers, let alone reverse the last 30 years of declines. Nutrition has been shown to be able to increase deer numbers, so yes habitat improvements are a good thing. But if the deer are still not getting what they need, because of other factors that are reducing their nutrition, then that is where the focus needs to be. Not on hunter management, not on predator management, not on deer translocations. Millions of dollars of conservation money is spent every year, and much of it on very meaningful projects. But if we do address the very fundamental issues, that have driven mule deer declines, we can not expect anything but more failure. The "hey, at least something is being done" argument does not hold up. That is like painting your truck, when it has a blown head gasket. It looks good.


----------



## Lonetree

c3hammer said:


> Sorry Kevin D, I was talking about the front, not state wide. I said predation which includes hunters up there. Since the land swaps in the central Wasatch, there has been no check to the predators up there. When you can film cats 1500' above the houses on a regular basis there's a predator problem. When after 30 years you get trail cam pics of bears 250 yards off the main road for the very first time, you know things have changed.


I live on "the front" there is no where near the lions there were in the '80s. We had them in our yard in the '80s. Your observations and perceptions are just that.


----------



## Vanilla

That wasn't 'yes' or 'no.' Not only are you as clueless on the 'fix' for this problem as those you blast constantly on the internet, you're not very good at reading and following instructions either. 

I've still proposed 2 solutions that you haven't used science, research, or a magazine article to refute. You've still posed zero solutions. Just for those keeping score at home...


----------



## osageorange

LT, what the he!!, did you start sharing PBH's prescription of Argiav. You're starting to softening. Your last quote was remarkably civil and uncharacteristically normal. I'm wondering how it feels, from your side. If it didn't go down like a junk of glass shard, you try it again sometime. Might surprise you how many might turn an ear to your whispering screams.

Regarding your focus on the physio-pathologic state of wild animals, as they relate to changes in trace elements, you and the boys and girls you work and quarrel with, keep refining the research and when you get enough figured out, to the degree that your ready to share a solution, let us know.

In the mean time, we'll try to hold it together, scattering ferns and fauna and harassing fur and flora until y'all get the volcano's, the astroid collisions, the wild fires, sand storms, the sun flares, the tectonic drift, the magnetic north slip and human built electrolytes and trace element factories under control, and we'll be ready to hire you to roll the tortoise back onto it's pedestals.

I'll be civil for a minute too. Thank you for "delivering a few more french fries". While you still haven't shared your deepest concerns and discoveries, we at least know where your headed, what's rubbing you and why. Makes a difference.  Sincerely, if you're on to something, I wish you all the best in developing a sale-able solution. All the best in your quest, we want our more and healthier wildlife, regardless of the source from whence it comes.


----------



## Lonetree

TS30 said:


> That wasn't 'yes' or 'no.' Not only are you as clueless on the 'fix' for this problem as those you blast constantly on the internet, you're not very good at reading and following instructions either.
> 
> I've still proposed 2 solutions that you haven't used science, research, or a magazine article to refute. You've still posed zero solutions. Just for those keeping score at home...


-_O- :rotfl: You are not going to get a yes or a no, because this is not Burger King, kid, you don't get it your way.

You proposed that the DWR, reduce emissions in China. So basically, you are retarded. I proposed that as part of the ultimate solution, reduction of Chinese emissions, coming across the Pacific, that negatively affect mule deer habitat, there by negatively affecting hunting, would need to be addressed, for any ultimate solution. In the short term, studying and better understanding the full affects, could find us some short term solutions, and get us some gains in reversing the long term trends of declines. This is not being done.

Your second proposal, was that the DWR change the Jetstream, this one, as far as we know, scientifically, is impossible, so give your self another pat on the back.

Both of your solutions were actually taken in part, from things I had posted, that you severely distorted or did not understand. Not only do you lack any original thought, or critical thinking skills, you possess a serious lack of comprehension, of the subject matter.

Now, lets take into consideration, that maybe it is an attempt on your part at humor. While I appreciate the effort, comedy is great, it ranks a little less than sophomoric fart jokes. Again, you are just not grasping the craft.

Now pull your pants up, and put your hat on straight.


----------



## Lonetree

osageorange said:


> LT, what the he!!, did you start sharing PBH's prescription of Argiav. You're starting to softening. Your last quote was remarkably civil and uncharacteristically normal. I'm wondering how it feels, from your side. If it didn't go down like a junk of glass shard, you try it again sometime. Might surprise you how many might turn an ear to your whispering screams.
> 
> Regarding your focus on the physio-pathologic state of wild animals, as they relate to changes in trace elements, you and the boys and girls you work and quarrel with, keep refining the research and when you get enough figured out, to the degree that your ready to share a solution, let us know.
> 
> In the mean time, we'll try to hold it together, scattering ferns and fauna and harassing fur and flora until y'all get the volcano's, the astroid collisions, the wild fires, sand storms, the sun flares, the tectonic drift, the magnetic north slip and human built electrolytes and trace element factories under control, and we'll be ready to hire you to roll the tortoise back onto it's pedestals.
> 
> I'll be civil for a minute too. Thank you for "delivering a few more french fries". While you still haven't shared your deepest concerns and discoveries, we at least know where your headed, what's rubbing you and why. Makes a difference. Sincerely, if you're on to something, I wish you all the best in developing a sale-able solution. All the best in your quest, we want our more and healthier wildlife, regardless of the source from whence it comes.


See, even the old guys in the peanut gallery want their wildlife management from McDonalds. Must be where their kids got it from.

As for being nice, you don't have to hit very hard, when they are on the ropes. It is simple physics. And sometimes, its just about walking them over there.


----------



## osageorange

I guess you prefer to be a lonetree, LT. Taunting from the second story does bring a certain degree of personal satisfaction and it does suave a bruised for a while. 

Best of luck in your pursuits.


----------



## Lonetree

:grin:


----------



## swbuckmaster

I wonder if acid rain was the cause of the elk decline in Yellowstone?

Does the elk decline in the park mirror the elk across the west?

Did we have a jet stream change? Wetter springs causing even more nitrification in the park?

Either way it looks like the habitate improvements are working in the park because the beavers are increasing. Maybe the habitate improvements will increase the elk numbers in the park?

Or maybe we can except the fact that that coyotes, wolves, bears, cats ect affect the size of deer/elk pie we can eat!

Larger predator base equals bad news to hunters. 

We had more lions in the 801's because we had ten times the deer numbers. We had less coyotes, wolves and bears because of predator control


----------



## Lonetree

swbuckmaster said:


> I wonder if acid rain was the cause of the elk decline in Yellowstone?
> 
> Does the elk decline in the park mirror the elk across the west?
> 
> Did we have a jet stream change? Wetter springs causing even more nitrification in the park?
> 
> Either way it looks like the habitate improvements are working in the park because the beavers are increasing. Maybe the habitate improvements will increase the elk numbers in the park?
> 
> Or maybe we can except the fact that that coyotes, wolves, bears, cats ect affect the size of deer/elk pie we can eat!
> 
> Larger predator base equals bad news to hunters.
> 
> We had more lions in the 801's because we had ten times the deer numbers. We had less coyotes, wolves and bears because of predator control


Keep clinging to your beliefs, it is much easier than trying to understand how the world actually works.

Tell me why mule deer numbers have risen and fallen, over the last 80 years in Yellowstone, just like in the rest of the of the West. How does that work, mister 1+1?

Let me guess, you are going to say because there are no hunters? Well if that were the case, how come cutting hunters and predators in Utah, for 20 years, does not increase deer numbers, over the Western trends?

So lets see, that's 50+60-40=URIQ


----------



## c3hammer

Lonetree I don't know where you get your info from, but it seems you take your talking points from SUWA and the obamination. Here's the numbers on acid rain here in Utah. All the stations show level or raising ph and lower SO4 and NO3 concentrations since the 80's. Humans are not poisoning the earth and like usual you have nothing that shows otherwise, yet you continue with your standard refrain.

http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/sites/sitemap.asp?state=ut

The reason predator control hasn't worked in my neck of the woods is because we're not actually doing any... none, nada, zip. I've never seen a houndsman run one canyon in the central Wasatch in 30 years. Hunting or poisoning coyotes around here is as close to impossible as it gets.

As much as I respect my friends who run hounds, I can assure you none of them has any interest in predator control. The dwr won't let us do any predator control either. We manage predators here like we do premium LE rifle deer tags on the Henrys.

Obviously predators are just a small piece of the puzzle, but unlike the biggest culprit in our declining deer herd since the 80's, the weather, we can have an effect on predators, however small a piece of the equation that might be. In my local microcosm that happens to be a huge factor inspite of the Lackofevidencetree's mantra.


----------



## ridgetop

c3hammer said:


> Lonetree I don't know where you get your info from, but it seems you take your talking points from SUWA and the obamination. Here's the numbers on acid rain here in Utah. All the stations show level or raising ph and lower SO4 and NO3 concentrations since the 80's. Humans are not poisoning the earth and like usual you have nothing that shows otherwise, yet you continue with your standard refrain.
> 
> http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/sites/sitemap.asp?state=ut
> 
> The reason predator control hasn't worked in my neck of the woods is because we're not actually doing any... none, nada, zip. I've never seen a houndsman run one canyon in the central Wasatch in 30 years. Hunting or poisoning coyotes around here is as close to impossible as it gets.
> 
> As much as I respect my friends who run hounds, I can assure you none of them has any interest in predator control. The dwr won't let us do any predator control either. We manage predators here like we do premium LE rifle deer tags on the Henrys.
> 
> Obviously predators are just a small piece of the puzzle, but unlike the biggest culprit in our declining deer herd since the 80's, the weather, we can have an effect on predators, however small a piece of the equation that might be. In my local microcosm that happens to be a huge factor inspite of the Lackofevidencetree's mantra.


Well, it seems the more he defends his arguments, the more of his information and numbers seem to change. 
It appears that ole Lonetree is starting to grasp at some straws, while trying to stay on top of this fight.


----------



## Lonetree

****ing retards!

Just because you guys observe things, or look at numbers does not mean you understand what you are looking at. This goes for your little corner of the mountain, and scientific data. When you couple these nitrate cycles with weather, and throw in something else like a pesticide load, or disease from prior declines, it drives the down ward trend.

Make all the hippy comments you want. Unlike some people around here, I am quite secure as a hunter, and as a naturalist, and as a conservationist. 

Here is the nitrate data for the last 30 years, per your link, for a Northern Utah site. The Data starts in 1983, which is a high year, not a mean, or base point. This is where it really started.

Year/Nitrate level

83 1.942
84 .800 Crash
85 .866
86 .711
87 1.034 
88 .892
89 .821
90 1.019
91 .906
92 .950 crash
93 1.118
94 1.150
95 1.07
96 .808
97 1.051 
98 .973
99 1.057
2000 1.055 
2001 .939
2002 1.130 crash 
2003 .783 
2004 .818
2005 .729
2006 .923
2007 .989
2008 .903
2009 .717 When the deer currently started to increase.
2010 .582
2011 .468


----------



## Lonetree

We can predict, herd specific, bighorn sheep die offs, based on geology, and the amount of nitrate deposition, in a single storm, if that storm occurs at the right time in the spring, around lambing.


----------



## Lonetree

Keep in mind, that the ecosystem is already nitrified, this is called eutrophication. We built up to those numbers, in the early 1980s. With eutrophication, already having been occurring for decades, it does not take as much atmospheric deposition, as it used to, to create a negative response, to just a few nitrate deposition episodes. Without eutrophication, herds would be able to more easily rebound from heavy winters. Eutrophic environments suffer from reduced nutrition, lack of biodiversity, and suffer from increased invasive species, and the spread of disease, along with increased virulence of diseases.

Does anyone know why West Nile virus, is more virulent in the Western United States, verse else where?


----------



## ridgetop

Lonetree said:


> Does anyone know why West Nile virus, is more virulent in the Western United States, verse else where?


No. Does it have anything to do why the coyotes are eating so many fawns?


----------



## Lonetree

ridgetop said:


> No. Does it have anything to do why the coyotes are eating so many fawns?


Her, her, her, yer a real funny feller. You're still a ****ing retard! I love how you only piled on when you thought someone had something, and then went strait for a joke, cause you can't grasp anything else. Typical....


----------



## ridgetop

Lonetree said:


> Her, her, her, yer a real funny feller. You're still a ****ing retard! I love how you only piled on when you thought someone had something, and then went strait for a joke, cause you can't grasp anything else. Typical....


I just got back from a vacation in Arizona. Guess what, they are having coyote problems down there too.
I can grasp the idea that your loosing control.:shock:
And I don't even know your first name.:sad:


----------



## Lonetree

ridgetop said:


> I just got back from a vacation in Arizona. Guess what, they are having coyote problems down there too.
> I can grasp the idea that your loosing control.:shock:
> And I don't even know your first name.:sad:


You can keep dismissing it all you want. Your sixth grade understanding of the world, and the people that prey on it, is the next biggest reason why hunting is declining. Saying that you were in AZ, does not support you statement, that they have a "coyote problem". It means you were AZ, and you like the kool aid there, because it is just like the kool aid here.


----------



## Lonetree

Reposted, in case some missed why ridgetop has his panties in a knot.

****ing retards!

Just because you guys observe things, or look at numbers does not mean you understand what you are looking at. This goes for your little corner of the mountain, and scientific data. When you couple these nitrate cycles with weather, and throw in something else like a pesticide load, or disease from prior declines, it drives the down ward trend.

Make all the hippy comments you want. Unlike some people around here, I am quite secure as a hunter, and as a naturalist, and as a conservationist. 

Here is the nitrate data for the last 30 years, per your link, for a Northern Utah site. The Data starts in 1983, which is a high year, not a mean, or base point. This is where it really started.

Year/Nitrate level

83 1.942
84 .800 Crash
85 .866
86 .711
87 1.034 
88 .892
89 .821
90 1.019
91 .906
92 .950 crash
93 1.118
94 1.150
95 1.07
96 .808
97 1.051 
98 .973
99 1.057
2000 1.055 
2001 .939
2002 1.130 crash 
2003 .783 
2004 .818
2005 .729
2006 .923
2007 .989
2008 .903
2009 .717 When the deer currently started to increase.
2010 .582
2011 .468


----------



## Lonetree

So what are 2012, and 2013 nitrate numbers? What is 2014 going to look like?


----------



## ridgetop

Lonetree said:


> You can keep dismissing it all you want. Your sixth grade understanding of the world, and the people that prey on it, is the next biggest reason why hunting is declining. Saying that you were in AZ, does not support you statement, that they have a "coyote problem". It means you were AZ, and you like the kool aid there, because it is just like the kool aid here.


I don't know about the kool aid but they have pretty good slushies down there.
On a serious note.
Seriously, I don't understand how you can say that in areas where the deer have crashed/ died off, either by bad weather or disease. Coyotes have no effect on suppressing their numbers by killing off fawns. Which slows down a recovery.
But I guess all us retarded 6th grade level idiots don't get a lot of what's going on.
Except deer hunting is better now than it has been in the last 20 years. 
Things are looking up, thanks to option 2.


----------



## Lonetree

ridgetop said:


> I don't know about the kool aid but they have pretty good slushies down there.
> On a serious note.
> Seriously, I don't understand how you can say that in areas where the deer have crashed/ died off, either by bad weather or disease. Coyotes have no effect on suppressing their numbers by killing off fawns. Which slows down a recovery.
> But I guess all us retarded 6th grade level idiots don't get a lot of what's going on.
> Except deer hunting is better now than it has been in the last 20 years.
> Things are looking up, thanks to option 2.


Ridge, I'm book marking your Option WTF? comment, I will feed it back to you later. Again nothing to support your claim, the deer were increasing prior to Option WFT? or bounties.

YOU show me the numbers, that correlate coyote numbers, to deer increases and deer declines. The Monroe study does not count, because it is not complete, and I can show the same effect in a dozen other studies, that when they were completed, destroy that notion. Myself and others have provided several, long term, large scale, peer reviewed, Western, predator control studies, on this very forum, that show that a reduction of predators, can not increase deer numbers. I don't recall, ever seeing, any hard data, to support the SFW, kool aid drinking, fairy tales that guys keep telling each other. It is all wishful thinking with no foundation or basis. It has been shown that raising buck to ratios can not increase deer, in fact it has been shown that it most likely can reduce herd numbers. But you guys _feel _like coupling that bad idea, with Unproven coyote control, will fix things, based on nothing but unsound ideology. So you are going to cling to the _hope_, that it will bring _change_. We have already done this a few times, what will be the next excuse when this fails?

SHOW ME THE NUMBERS. Or as C3PO would say, put up, or shut up, and go _hope_ for _change_.


----------



## Vanilla

Dr Al Lonetree Gore---Change we can believe in!!!

Here is how it goes--Lonetree sits and uses lots of exclamation points, tells everyone they don't get it, and when everyone else sees what he can't, even when it is right in front of him, I laugh. 

Dude, keep yelling at everyone. Keep telling everyone how stupid they are. Use a couple more exclamation points. The only person who doesn't get it is you. I seriously can't believe you miss the hyperbole in my suggestions making fun of how utterly and ridiculously stupid your statements are. But when wanna-be know it alls like you miss the mark badly, it only makes for even better comedy. 

You know that I know...and that is good enough for me.


----------



## Lonetree

TS30 said:


> Dr Al Lonetree Gore---Change we can believe in!!!
> 
> Here is how it goes--Lonetree sits and uses lots of exclamation points, tells everyone they don't get it, and when everyone else sees what he can't, even when it is right in front of him, I laugh.
> 
> Dude, keep yelling at everyone. Keep telling everyone how stupid they are. Use a couple more exclamation points. The only person who doesn't get it is you. I seriously can't believe you miss the hyperbole in my suggestions making fun of how utterly and ridiculously stupid your statements are. But when wanna-be know it alls like you miss the mark badly, it only makes for even better comedy.
> 
> You know that I know...and that is good enough for me.


Yes, I know that you know, that I know, that you can not support your arguments with anything but conjecture. Which is why you are in here again, with nothing as usual. Talking about how you can see things, yet can't quit demonstrate, or articulate them, with anything but your belief, in things you "see". If I missed any mark, by all means, jump on it, point it out. You can laugh, and passively dismiss it, but you can not, and are not capable of actually dismantling my argument, with any substance, or any substantiation. As evidenced in your responses. Which is why you try to deflect instead.

"You know that I know...and that is good enough for me." Yet more self reinforcing belief, to sooth the fears of the insecure.


----------



## ridgetop

Lonetree, how long did those other studies last?
What was the % of coyotes taken out of that study area.
Was the study just before one of the natural declines?

Also, I've never said that Option 2 was going to raise deer numbers. Your the one that keeps bringing it up, it looks like your the one that's having a hard time getting a grasp of that concept.
Option 2 has always been about raising buck to doe ratios on each individual unit and hunter management. 
Why is that so hard for you to understand that?
BTW, my hunting opportunities have never been greater. So stop spreading that lie.


----------



## Lonetree

ridgetop said:


> Lonetree, how long did those other studies last?
> What was the % of coyotes taken out of that study area.
> Was the study just before one of the natural declines?
> 
> Also, I've never said that Option 2 was going to raise deer numbers. Your the one that keeps bringing it up, it looks like your the one that's having a hard time getting a grasp of that concept.
> Option 2 has always been about raising buck to doe ratios on each individual unit and hunter management.
> Why is that so hard for you to understand that?
> BTW, my hunting opportunities have never been greater. So stop spreading that lie.


Study length: Over four years but you can go look it up to verify.

% of coyotes: It does not matter, lions and coyote were removed "heavily" in one study. And in the areas where they were removed, the deer numbers stayed the same, as the numbers, in the control areas, where predators were not removed. They saw the same increase in fawn survival early on, just like in the Monroe study, but at the end of the study, it could not be shown, that predator removal could increase deer numbers, or raise the trend line.

Natural declines: While some factors that influence mule deer declines are natural. The long term suppression of mule deer numbers is not a natural phenomenon.

Study timing: It was during flat, to moderately declining numbers.

Buck to doe ratios, do not increase deer, there for they can not really increase bucks either, just the ratio of bucks to does. And higher buck to doe ratios, correlate with lower productivity rates, so it is pointless. Not to mention it is not a biological function that can be influence by hunter management anyway. That is a whole other conversation that would take years to explain here.

Option WFT? is hard for me to understand, because it does not grow deer, and it reduces hunting.

Opportunity: I am glad that you perceive the status quo, to be beneficial to your opportunity. But if you factor in the last 30 years of declines, coupled with all the reduction of hunters, and then look at where the draw odds are. I'm betting there are a lot of people that see it very differently. You can not have increased opportunity, with simultaneous reductions in wildlife, and permits. That is not possible. You can make all the "We have more of these tags, to offset those tags", arguments, it still does not add up. I am not spreading lies, that is the simple truth of the state of hunting and wildlife.

Now, back to where we were. Show me those numbers, that support your arguments. I'm not going to make it easy, like C3PO does for me, I'm not going to go get them for you.


----------



## Lonetree

So for those that want the readers digest version, of the last couple of pages, here it goes.


In an attempt to show that we are not “poisoning the earth”, and that pollution has nothing to do with mule deer declines. C3PO posted a link to a website, that has a lot of raw data. Where he proclaimed that acid rain has been declining for the last 30 years, so it can not be part of the problem. Because he is new to this information, and does not understand what he is presenting. He missed the fact the early '80s numbers are a high mark, and the point where mule deer numbers begin to decline. And as the nitrate numbers ebb and flow, you see them spike in synchronicity with sharp mule deer declines. Until about 2003, when the nitrate numbers dip, and they then essentially flat line. Just like the mule deer numbers did for years. And then, after 2009, as the nitrate numbers dipped further, the deer numbers began to rise, as nitrate numbers fell to levels we had not seen in the last 30 years.


To further drive home his point, he then played the Al Gore, Obama, boogie man game, where by associating me with them, my arguments, and reality, somehow lose all credibility. Regardless of supporting data. After that he then proclaimed victory. Seeing this, Ridgetop, and lil' TS piled on, thinking falsely that they had the upper hand, because they don't know what the numbers mean either. Ridgetop, attempted to change course as he realized what was actually happening, while Lil'TS played the part originally invented by Flavor Flav, of Hype man. Nice clock by the way.


Here are the nitrate numbers, from the website provide by C3PO, for one Northern Utah location. Anyone want to lay deer numbers over it? Maybe those elusive coyote numbers? 


Year/nitrate deposition
83 1.942
84 .800
85 .866
86 .711
87 1.034
88 .892
89 .821
90 1.019
91 .906
92 .950
93 1.118
94 1.150
95 1.07
96 .808
97 1.051 
98 .973
99 1.057
2000 1.055 
2001 .939
2002 1.130 
2003 .783 
2004 .818
2005 .729
2006 .923
2007 .989
2008 .903
2009 .717
2010 .582
2011 .468
I had left out 2012 numbers for fun earlier, but I'll throw them back in.
2012 .630
2013 ?
It should also be noted that in 2012 Chlorine (Cl) numbers quadrupled from the previous 5 years, to levels not seen since the early 2000s. Sulfate (SO4) also doubled from its previous 3 year average in 2012. Those Sulfate numbers now look like the mid nineties. These numbers only take into account wet deposition, dry deposition, plays out in a whole different manner. When you combine water(H2O) with Chlorine or Sulfate, you get hydrochloric acid, and sulfuric acid respectively. 


Also C3PO claimed that PH levels had risen, or that acidity levels had fallen, from the low PH numbers from the early '80s. This is not correct. The average PH over the 30 years of data is 6.224. '86, '88, '96, 2001, 2005, 2008, and 2010, all fall within ~ +/- 3% of the 30 year average, with 1986, and 2010, being within ~ 1% of each other. 


And then of course, its the predators, its all 'bout the pred'turrs. We've covered this, of course.


----------



## Longgun

Lonetree said:


> Seriously, get back to me in 5 years when your ignorant, ideological lack of understanding, for the world you live in, continues to fail you, and your children. It is because of retards that believe in coyote/deer predation, and the tooth fairy, that we can not get anything done about deer declines. So if the problem is predation, why have moose and bighorn sheep numbers followed the exact same pattern of decline for the last 30 years, across the West, regardless of "management"? Is it the coyotes eating all the moose?
> 
> Yes, right now in Utah, deer are on the upswing. This is no where close to reversing the post '92 declines. And in other parts of the West, you know, those places that manage better than Utah, the deer are starting down a path to another post '84 type decline, and it has nothing to do with coyote predation. The herds in Utah were improving prior to the implementation of the coyote bounty, there is no connection, except for your love of anti hunters like SFW.
> 
> Even if you could show, that coyote predation were additive to a deer herd. All you have done is exposed a bigger problem of herd health. Healthy deer herds are quite resistant to coyote predation. If you have high coyote predation, you have an underlying problem, of disease, and ecology destruction, not a predation problem.
> 
> Regardless of some article about white tailed deer in the South, coyote predation has been shown to be compensatory in the West, with regard to mule deer, in large contemporary studies.
> 
> Focusing on what you want it to be, while ignoring the larger truth at hand, just makes you part of the problem of wildlife declines, and the anti hunter regime that whores your ignorance to the masses, for their benefit, while chipping away at our hunting tradition and heritage.


Blah blah blah... Goof was merely pointing out his personal sightings. w/o properly timed temprature and h20, ALL of these little discussions are moot.

So whats THE answer LT? Enlighten us...


----------



## Longgun

Lonetree said:


> So for those that want the readers digest version, of the last couple of pages, here it goes.
> 
> In an attempt to show that we are not "poisoning the earth", and that pollution has nothing to do with mule deer declines. C3PO posted a link to a website, that has a lot of raw data. Where he proclaimed that acid rain has been declining for the last 30 years, so it can not be part of the problem. Because he is new to this information, and does not understand what he is presenting. He missed the fact the early '80s numbers are a high mark, and the point where mule deer numbers begin to decline. And as the nitrate numbers ebb and flow, you see them spike in synchronicity with sharp mule deer declines. Until about 2003, when the nitrate numbers dip, and they then essentially flat line. Just like the mule deer numbers did for years. And then, after 2009, as the nitrate numbers dipped further, the deer numbers began to rise, as nitrate numbers fell to levels we had not seen in the last 30 years.
> 
> To further drive home his point, he then played the Al Gore, Obama, boogie man game, where by associating me with them, my arguments, and reality, somehow lose all credibility. Regardless of supporting data. After that he then proclaimed victory. Seeing this, Ridgetop, and lil' TS piled on, thinking falsely that they had the upper hand, because they don't know what the numbers mean either. Ridgetop, attempted to change course as he realized what was actually happening, while Lil'TS played the part originally invented by Flavor Flav, of Hype man. Nice clock by the way.
> 
> Here are the nitrate numbers, from the website provide by C3PO, for one Northern Utah location. Anyone want to lay deer numbers over it? Maybe those elusive coyote numbers?
> 
> Year/nitrate deposition
> 83 1.942
> 84 .800
> 85 .866
> 86 .711
> 87 1.034
> 88 .892
> 89 .821
> 90 1.019
> 91 .906
> 92 .950
> 93 1.118
> 94 1.150
> 95 1.07
> 96 .808
> 97 1.051
> 98 .973
> 99 1.057
> 2000 1.055
> 2001 .939
> 2002 1.130
> 2003 .783
> 2004 .818
> 2005 .729
> 2006 .923
> 2007 .989
> 2008 .903
> 2009 .717
> 2010 .582
> 2011 .468
> I had left out 2012 numbers for fun earlier, but I'll throw them back in.
> 2012 .630
> 2013 ?
> It should also be noted that in 2012 Chlorine (Cl) numbers quadrupled from the previous 5 years, to levels not seen since the early 2000s. Sulfate (SO4) also doubled from its previous 3 year average in 2012. Those Sulfate numbers now look like the mid nineties. These numbers only take into account wet deposition, dry deposition, plays out in a whole different manner. When you combine water(H2O) with Chlorine or Sulfate, you get hydrochloric acid, and sulfuric acid respectively.
> 
> Also C3PO claimed that PH levels had risen, or that acidity levels had fallen, from the low PH numbers from the early '80s. This is not correct. The average PH over the 30 years of data is 6.224. '86, '88, '96, 2001, 2005, 2008, and 2010, all fall within ~ +/- 3% of the 30 year average, with 1986, and 2010, being within ~ 1% of each other.
> 
> And then of course, its the predators, its all 'bout the pred'turrs. We've covered this, of course.


Firstly ... Can we please put the highbrow/name calling/belittleing BS aside?

Yes, being that you have the data always at hand, post up.

Soooooo, when declines continue to head to the t0ilet again in the future, critter control shouldnt be used?


----------



## RandomElk16

Longgun said:


> Blah blah blah... Goof was merely pointing out his personal sightings. w/o properly timed temprature and h20, ALL of these little discussions are moot.
> 
> So whats THE answer LT? Enlighten us...


Its not that simple... That is what the big problem is. You all drank the koolaid, are little kids and want it now now now. We need to understand and study the deer herds and what is causing them to be unhealthy. Only in that lies the answer. You could never understand though. ****** retards.

I just saved him some key time.


----------



## Longgun

RandomElk16 said:


> *Its not that simple*... That is what the big problem is. You all drank the koolaid, are little kids and want it now now now. We need to understand and study the deer herds and what is causing them to be unhealthy. Only in that lies the answer. *You could never understand though.* ****** *retards*.
> 
> I just saved him some key time.


and ... the *abbreviated* version. :neutral:

Seriously speaking, and "other" comments aside, it is an interesting piece to the puzzle of these declines.


----------



## Longgun

Lonetree said:


> Here are the nitrate numbers, from the website provide by C3PO, for one Northern Utah location.
> 
> Year/nitrate deposition
> 83 1.942
> 84 .800
> 85 .866
> 86 .711
> 87 1.034
> 88 .892
> 89 .821
> 90 1.019
> 91 .906
> 92 .950
> 93 1.118
> 94 1.150
> 95 1.07
> 96 .808
> 97 1.051
> 98 .973
> 99 1.057
> 2000 1.055
> 2001 .939
> 2002 1.130
> 2003 .783
> 2004 .818
> 2005 .729
> 2006 .923
> 2007 .989
> 2008 .903
> 2009 .717
> 2010 .582
> 2011 .468
> I had left out 2012 numbers earlier, but I'll throw them back in.
> 2012 .630
> 2013 ?
> It should also be noted that in 2012 Chlorine (Cl) numbers quadrupled from the previous 5 years, to levels not seen since the early 2000s. Sulfate (SO4) also doubled from its previous 3 year average in 2012. Those Sulfate numbers now look like the mid nineties. These numbers only take into account wet deposition, dry deposition, plays out in a whole different manner. When you combine water(H2O) with Chlorine or Sulfate, you get hydrochloric acid, and sulfuric acid respectively.
> 
> Also C3PO claimed that PH levels had risen, or that acidity levels had fallen, from the low PH numbers from the early '80s. This is not correct. The average PH over the 30 years of data is 6.224. '86, '88, '96, 2001, 2005, 2008, and 2010, all fall within ~ +/- 3% of the 30 year average, with 1986, and 2010, being within ~ 1% of each other.


For sake of discussion, what are these higher levels affecting that is so detrimental? endocrine, immune, reproductive? and why the spikes in these chemicals?


----------



## RandomElk16

http://atmos.seas.harvard.edu/lab/hf/hfnitro.html

Harvard article, but Lone will find something wrong with it.

"If fixed N is deposited as nitrate in forests, it may act as a "fertilizer", stimulating growth and thus enhancing carbon sequestration. But when accumulated deposition exceeds the nutritional needs of the ecosystem, nitrogen saturation may result. Soil fertility declines due to leaching of cations and thus, carbon uptake diminishes. The balance between fertilization and saturation depends on the spatial and temporal extent of nitrogen deposition."


----------



## Lonetree

RandomElk16 said:


> http://atmos.seas.harvard.edu/lab/hf/hfnitro.html
> 
> Harvard article, but Lone will find something wrong with it.
> 
> "If fixed N is deposited as nitrate in forests, it may act as a "fertilizer", stimulating growth and thus enhancing carbon sequestration. But when accumulated deposition exceeds the nutritional needs of the ecosystem, nitrogen saturation may result. Soil fertility declines due to leaching of cations and thus, carbon uptake diminishes. The balance between fertilization and saturation depends on the spatial and temporal extent of nitrogen deposition."


That is exactly what is happening. We are way past the fertilization point, we exceeded that a long time ago. "leaching of cations" essentially means, that the nutrition is now getting locked up, or robbed from the soil, making it unavailable for wildlife. This is what leads to poor deer health, and their declines. Which is why deer numbers respond positively, to sharp reductions of nitrogen. The fertilization effect of CO2 drives P&J encroachment, while N "fertilization" drives increases in annual grasses, and invasive weeds, while reducing sagebrush, forbs, bitterbrush, etc.

Good piece.


----------



## Lonetree

"For sake of discussion, what are these higher levels affecting that is so detrimental? endocrine, immune, reproductive? Where are the chemicals coming from? why the spikes?"--Longgun


The nitrates are affecting, immune and reproduction, via habitat degradation. Specifically the way in which mule deer obtain nutritional value from plants. Which is why when you have high nitrate numbers, you see reduced deer health, and lowered reproduction. Endocrine disruption is occurring from other chemicals, and takes an already bad nitrate situation, beyond the breaking point. Nitrate deposition, comes from a lot of different sources, and it depends on when, and how it is being deposited, as to where it comes from. We produce a lot of it locally(automobiles, industry, etc.), with some big increases in the last 2 years. But it also comes from global sources, From LA, to China. I have already heard the its too big excuse, that is just small thinking. 


What do we do about it? Long term, we reduce it. Short term we learn how to deal with it. But we can't learn how to deal with, in regard to wildlife, if we are not looking at it. We could be conducting habitat improvements that take this in to account, so that we see mule deer get the biggest benefit from these efforts. If we don't, if we keep doing habitat improvements like we are, and have been doing. It is just like predator control. We spend a lot of money, and we don't raise deer numbers. You guys keep asking for a “solution”. This is a fundamental part of the problem. We have been putting the cart in front of the horse for so long, sportsmen think that is how it is done. There is a way in which you solve problems, that applies to industry, manufacture, monetary matters, wildlife, etc. And creating solutions, is not how that process starts. We know what the long term solution would be. To find the short term ones, that affect positive change over years, while working on the big solution, requires a lot of work, and will. Which is ultimately the bigger problem. I think Edison said something about that. The current mentality of the modern “sportsmen” is much like that of the rest of modern society. They want to pull up to the drive thru window, and get it ready made, and now. Which is why things like hunter control, and predator control, are preferred over those things that can actually bring long term gains and value. They are quick “solutions”, even if they have been shown to not be solutions at all. Long term health and sustainability of our wildlife, and hunting future, will be a hard, uphill battle, which is why so many choose to not go there. 


Predator control: Like I keep telling these guys, show me the numbers. Show me where it has been demonstrated that predator control will grow deer numbers. The current biological study on the matter, from the last 15 years, does not show the benefits that everyone keeps touting. No different than reducing hunters, we just keep doing it, starting 20 years, with nothing to support the claim that it will increase deer numbers. 


Regardless of tactics, or how people feel about it, I support my assertions and arguments. People get to chose, how they would like for me to respond to them. Thanks for taking the high road.


----------



## Vanilla

Lonetree said:


> Predator control: Like I keep telling these guys, show me the numbers. Show me where it has been demonstrated that predator control will grow deer numbers.


You were shown preliminary numbers on another thread. But the study isn't done yet. Let it play out fully, and you'll have your numbers either way. They will either confirm what you think you already know, or you will discount them and return to telling everyone that they don't know what they are talking about because they go against what you think you know.

Either way, it is certain you'll make an AdoubleS of yourself while doing it.


----------



## Longgun

Lonetree said:


> "For sake of discussion, what are these higher levels affecting that is so detrimental? endocrine, immune, reproductive? Where are the chemicals coming from? why the spikes?"--Longgun
> 
> The nitrates are affecting, immune and reproduction, via habitat degradation. Specifically the way in which mule deer obtain nutritional value from plants. Which is why when you have high nitrate numbers, you see reduced deer health, and lowered reproduction. Endocrine disruption is occurring from other chemicals, and takes an already bad nitrate situation, beyond the breaking point. Nitrate deposition, comes from a lot of different sources, and it depends on when, and how it is being deposited, as to where it comes from. We produce a lot of it locally(automobiles, industry, etc.), with some big increases in the last 2 years. But it also comes from global sources, From LA, to China. I have already heard the its too big excuse, that is just small thinking.
> 
> What do we do about it? Long term, we reduce it. Short term we learn how to deal with it. But we can't learn how to deal with, in regard to wildlife, if we are not looking at it. We could be conducting habitat improvements that take this in to account, so that we see mule deer get the biggest benefit from these efforts. If we don't, if we keep doing habitat improvements like we are, and have been doing. It is just like predator control. We spend a lot of money, and we don't raise deer numbers. You guys keep asking for a "solution". This is a fundamental part of the problem. We have been putting the cart in front of the horse for so long, sportsmen think that is how it is done. There is a way in which you solve problems, that applies to industry, manufacture, monetary matters, wildlife, etc. And creating solutions, is not how that process starts. We know what the long term solution would be. To find the short term ones, that affect positive change over years, while working on the big solution, requires a lot of work, and will. Which is ultimately the bigger problem. I think Edison said something about that. The current mentality of the modern "sportsmen" is much like that of the rest of modern society. They want to pull up to the drive thru window, and get it ready made, and now. Which is why things like hunter control, and predator control, are preferred over those things that can actually bring long term gains and value. They are quick "solutions", even if they have been shown to not be solutions at all. Long term health and sustainability of our wildlife, and hunting future, will be a hard, uphill battle, which is why so many choose to not go there.
> 
> Predator control: Like I keep telling these guys, show me the numbers. Show me where it has been demonstrated that predator control will grow deer numbers. The current biological study on the matter, from the last 15 years, does not show the benefits that everyone keeps touting. No different than reducing hunters, we just keep doing it, starting 20 years, with nothing to support the claim that it will increase deer numbers.
> 
> Regardless of tactics, or how people feel about it, I support my assertions and arguments. People get to chose, how they would like for me to respond to them. Thanks for taking the high road.


Gotcha, im just trying to learn more from a different perspective than "the now" mentatlity, in regard to a discussion i had with an individual while i was at the SFW show. He made much the same discussion for the predator control as others here, but when asked how to compound the affects of the lower predator populations with more deer, he was lost. Other than habitat improvement...

-- Thank you for your explanation to support your earlier nitrate claim/statement. Is there anything that can be done to lessen the effects or _maybe_ counteract them?


----------



## Lonetree

Longgun said:


> Gotcha, im just trying to learn more from a different perspective than "the now" mentatlity, in regard to a discussion i had with an individual while i was at the SFW show. He made much the same discussion for the predator control as others here, but when asked how to compound the affects of the lower predator populations with more deer, he was lost. Other than habitat improvement...
> 
> -- Thank you for your explanation to support your earlier nitrate claim/statement. Is there anything that can be done to lessen the effects or _maybe_ counteract them?


Habitat improvement is the correct answer, so he told you right there. 60 years ago, when you said habitat improvement, you were talking about reseeding burns, and treatments for favorable browse species. We still do that, but we are missing part of the equation. If the deer can't get the nutrition they need, even from preferred plants, then it does not do much good, at least not when they really need it.

We need to look at the level in the soil, where the plant/soil interaction takes places. That is where the deer, "habitat", atmosphere, and nutrition all intersect. The soil is where the nutrition comes from, with the plants being intermediate. So soil treatments that lower PH, on treatment sites might hold some promise. Mycorrhizae inoculations, of treatment sites might also help. Less intensive treatments that minimize disturbing the soil as much, need to be looked at as well, because of the preference of invasives at these sites. Also the additional manipulation of soil microbia may have a detrimental effect. These are the areas where we need to be working. I have a few small scale Mycorrhizae tests underway, with some other ideas. But there people that know far more about how some of these things could be accomplished. But it just does not sell to the masses, like killing coyotes does. It is sometimes about what people think can see happening.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Some of you guys should have sore behinds about now….cause your butts are being kicked in this long drawn out argument! Carry on, though…I am enjoying the lesson!

I would love to see someone use peer reviewed research to refute Lonetree's claims….anybody? Anybody?


----------



## Lonetree

TS30 said:


> You were shown preliminary numbers on another thread. But the study isn't done yet. Let it play out fully, and you'll have your numbers either way. They will either confirm what you think you already know, or you will discount them and return to telling everyone that they don't know what they are talking about because they go against what you think you know.
> 
> Either way, it is certain you'll make an AdoubleS of yourself while doing it.


I have provided on several occasions on this forum, data from completed studies, that show that predator control can not raise numbers. Which is why you guys keep pointing to preliminary, predictable, results of incomplete studies. This is why you guys keep pointing to magazine articles, about white tailed deer, full of conjecture, that have no biological basis. Show me where, in the last 15 year of predator control studies, that predator control can raise deer numbers. If it could, we would have done it. You would be able to point to the shining example, where it was empirically proven to bring results. Show me the numbers.

If I make an ass of myself, in the process of doing something to benefit mule deer, so be it, it wont change the fact, that you don't have an argument that you can support, with anything other your beliefs on the subject.


----------



## RandomElk16

wyoming2utah said:


> Some of you guys should have sore behinds about now&#8230;.cause your butts are being kicked in this long drawn out argument! Carry on, though&#8230;I am enjoying the lesson!
> 
> I would love to see someone use peer reviewed research to refute Lonetree's claims&#8230;.anybody? Anybody?


He only began making claims on the 14th page... The only claims before that were that nothing the DWR is doing is worthwhile. Those studies are still on-going however correlation numbers have been posted. This, as previously stated, does not show cause-effect. No butt kicking involved, he is finally starting to deliver what we asked... just took 15 pages and name calling before he did so. Even then, the only claim he has made is that the nutrition is not at the levels it should be. The only evidence he has used to back this claim is nitrate levels that someone else posted.

He hasn't yet disproved anything other than saying "Deer levels haven't turned around, so it isn't working." Even though many of the management(lonetree I am using the term because that is the label the DWR puts on them, so it is easier to say then writing an explanation, like this.) practices being used currently are very new, but show correlation with increased deer numbers. Although he has said this increase is attributed to other things, just not what and hasn't disproved anything.

Lonetree, don't take this as me being on the predator bandwagon. I do not know enough on that subject to have a say. However, you haven't disproved it... I would say the compelling arguments against it have been presented the last few days on this and other threads by hounds men (not the member, the profession). They have stated numbers were far higher in the past, leading us to correlate that with higher deer numbers and discrediting predator control. I will wait for the studies to be complete before I have a feeling on this. Until then, I will keep shooting yote's.

The last page has actually shown suggestions; these are in regards to soil and plants. I am liking the information that is being presented, as it is more then simply knocking others. However, w2u, this is contrary to many articles stating "healthy deer herds." I won't post these, because as this discussion is showing, their may not be merit. I am just letting you know your request for peer reviewed research could yield articles.

One thing I have learned on this forum, there is almost always a scientific article written for both sides of the fence. This only further clouds the issues.


----------



## Lonetree

RandomElk16 said:


> He only began making claims on the 14th page... The only claims before that were that nothing the DWR is doing is worthwhile. Those studies are still on-going however correlation numbers have been posted. This, as previously stated, does not show cause-effect. No butt kicking involved, he is finally starting to deliver what we asked... just took 15 pages and name calling before he did so. Even then, the only claim he has made is that the nutrition is not at the levels it should be. The only evidence he has used to back this claim is nitrate levels that someone else posted.
> 
> He hasn't yet disproved anything other than saying "Deer levels haven't turned around, so it isn't working." Even though many of the management(lonetree I am using the term because that is the label the DWR puts on them, so it is easier to say then writing an explanation, like this.) practices being used currently are very new, but show correlation with increased deer numbers. Although he has said this increase is attributed to other things, just not what and hasn't disproved anything.
> 
> Lonetree, don't take this as me being on the predator bandwagon. I do not know enough on that subject to have a say. However, you haven't disproved it... I would say the compelling arguments against it have been presented the last few days on this and other threads by hounds men (not the member, the profession). They have stated numbers were far higher in the past, leading us to correlate that with higher deer numbers and discrediting predator control. I will wait for the studies to be complete before I have a feeling on this. Until then, I will keep shooting yote's.
> 
> The last page has actually shown suggestions; these are in regards to soil and plants. I am liking the information that is being presented, as it is more then simply knocking others. However, w2u, this is contrary to many articles stating "healthy deer herds." I won't post these, because as this discussion is showing, their may not be merit. I am just letting you know your request for peer reviewed research could yield articles.
> 
> One thing I have learned on this forum, there is almost always a scientific article written for both sides of the fence. This only further clouds the issues.


I don't have to disprove predator control, as a means to raise deer numbers. Biologists in Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, and Colorado, have already conducted the studies over the last 15 years. The data already exists, The Monroe study is nothing new or special, its been conducted dozens of times. Conducting it again under favorable conditions won't change the data all that much, and it still won't demonstrate that predator removal can reverse deer declines, or grow deer numbers. The predator control crowd is the one that can not support their claims, which is why they are grasping.

Nor can they discredit my claims. Just like the last 15 years of predator control studies, my claims rest a firm supportable foundation, of biology, ecology, and science.

As for the last 14 pages, I'm not burger king, you don't get it your way. You have to work for it. You have to go climb that mountain, stalk that animal, harvest it, process it, cook it, and then you get to eat. Which dinner is better? That is how all good things come to be.


----------



## Lonetree

I might pop in later today, but will back in a few days. I need to pack, Mi barco awaits me on the river.


----------



## wyoming2utah

RandomElk16 said:


> I won't post these, because as this discussion is showing, their may not be merit. I am just letting you know your request for peer reviewed research could yield articles.


I'll be waiting&#8230;.


----------



## RandomElk16

wyoming2utah said:


> I'll be waiting&#8230;.


http://www.muleymadness.com/articles/mule-deer-predator-happening/

This article covers both shrinking habitat(I have mentioned in many threads) as well as coyote management.

It also covers the quality of habitat, which Lonetree says isn't looked it. It backs what lonetree is saying, but also points out it is nothing new (the article was writting in 2009 I believe and was reposted in 2011 and the knowledge then was nothing new at either time). Habitat projects are nothing new.

I am sure your response or lone's will err on the side of him and still discredit the predator management and shrinking habitat portion.


----------



## RandomElk16

Here is a great article that manages to hop on both sides of the fence all in one piece. Like I said before, people can find articles to support their side. We could go 15 pages back in forth just with excerpts from this paper alone....

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3783986?uid=3739928&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103772332117

Utah states it has first looked at habitat and all species, as the article suggests.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/predators-mule-deer.html

It also says Utah doesn't have authority to manage coyotes. Just put a big ol bounty on em 
I got a real look into coyotes last year on the west utah/idaho border. We were seeing packs of 9-15 coyotes. Not sure how they were surviving, because we only saw a handful of deer. Imagine what a pack of coyotes can do.


----------



## wyoming2utah

wyoming2utah said:


> I would love to see someone use peer reviewed research to refute Lonetree's claims&#8230;.anybody? Anybody?


Not articles, but peer reviewed research&#8230;.I want studies!


----------



## Lonetree

from the JSTOR piece: "Deer populations at or near carrying capacity did not respond to predator removal experiments. When deer populations appeared limited by predation and such populations were well below forage carrying capacity, deer mortality was reduced significantly when predator populations were reduced. *Only one study, however, demonstrated that deer population increases resulted in greater harvests*". This after they looked at 21 existing predator control studies. And a lot has been done since then with similar results. That includes large studies in Southern Idaho. Your observations are just that, without corroboration. I applaud the effort though.

Habitat: I am talking about what makes for quality habitat, and those things that negatively affect it. It is not a matter of just putting a bush out there, because deer like those bushes. Nutrition, nutrition, nutrition, this begins in the soil, you can have lots of good habitat, and quality plants, and the deer can still not be getting the nutrition they need.

Oops, looks like I forgot tippet.....


----------



## Lonetree

The limiting factor for deer is "forage carrying capacity", based on external environmental conditions, but not predation, which is why predator removal can not increase deer numbers.


----------



## RandomElk16

wyoming2utah said:


> Not articles, but peer reviewed research&#8230;.I want studies!


Like the 20 study combo I posted?


----------



## RandomElk16

Lonetree said:


> from the JSTOR piece: "Deer populations at or near carrying capacity did not respond to predator removal experiments. When deer populations appeared limited by predation and such populations were well below forage carrying capacity, deer mortality was reduced significantly when predator populations were reduced. *Only one study, however, demonstrated that deer population increases resulted in greater harvests*". This after they looked at 21 existing predator control studies. And a lot has been done since then with similar results. That includes large studies in Southern Idaho. Your observations are just that, without corroboration. I applaud the effort though.
> 
> Habitat: I am talking about what makes for quality habitat, and those things that negatively affect it. It is not a matter of just putting a bush out there, because deer like those bushes. Nutrition, nutrition, nutrition, this begins in the soil, you can have lots of good habitat, and quality plants, and the deer can still not be getting the nutrition they need.
> 
> Oops, looks like I forgot tippet.....


Pretty sure you read that wrong. Obviously you didn't read the whole piece. That says their wasn't an increased harvest. Think about it. Does not mean that deer numbers did not increase.

Edit: My apologies. I have a saved copy of the article. Google it and you can find the complete paper.


----------



## RandomElk16

"predator effect on mule deer" google and the research gate pdf is the one.


----------



## Lonetree

I am not reading anything wrong, you don't understand what you are reading.

"Our review *suggests* that predation by coyotes, mountain lions, or wolves *may* be a significant mortality factor in *some* areas under *certain conditions." *

Those *certain* conditions would be "When deer populations _*appeared*_ limited by predation *and* such populations were *well below forage carrying capacity*"

Deer numbers are being limited, by forage carrying capacity, they are not well below them, they are at them, because that is the limiting factor.

Let me reiterate, "*Only one study, however, demonstrated that deer population increases resulted in greater harvests"* killing predators, even when it can increase a population, can not increase harvest, which is what hunters are concerned with, in regard to growing deer numbers. That is because any gains attributed to predator removal, were marginal at best. It means that some one spent a lot of time effort and money killing predators, and had nothing to show for it.

The piece is still an article, that cherry picked works in an attempt to make a case, that it still could not clearly make, with out an asterisk on every attempted assertion.

Like W2U said, show us the data, show us the actual peer reviewed science. BTW, the newer the data, the more relevant it will be, as it will have already taken previous works into account. JSTORS piece is a wildlife society "bulletin", it is "peer edited", not peer reviewed, which is why it is full of ifs, and maybes, and possibly. Peer editing in a journal, is a closed door process, limited to that journal, and does not expose the work to outside peer review.


----------



## RandomElk16

Harvest is not population numbers. There is no numbered data there or anywhere saying the increase was minimal or not, but you just made that assumption. Fawn and doe increases, mixed with the fact studies are done in small areas, can limit the harvest to a narrow number. Same with tag numbers.

You talk about forage issues then say they don't apply to predation? Read the whole thing, I can highlight numerous parts showing predator reduction benefitting deer herds. Its all in the full version.

We climbed the mountain, now where is your data showing predator management has had ZERO impact? Peer reviewed... Funny, you say show me the data... That's irony.


Keep in mind, I already stated I don't have a stance on it yet. I am posting this in response to w2u kissing your royal behind on here.


----------



## Lonetree

So here is an "article" http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wmon.4/abstract It is however an overview of an actual study. Easiest way to sum it up.

From the article, regarding the findings of the 6 years of research, that had been conducted on predator control, in South East Idaho:

"Coyote-removal programs targeted in areas where mortality of mule deer fawns is known to be additive and coyote-removal conditions are successful may influence mule deer population vital rates but likely will not change direction of population trend. Although mountain lion removal increased mule-deer survival and fawn ratios, we were unable to demonstrate significant changes in population trend with mountain lion removal. In conclusion, benefits of predator removal appear to be marginal and short term in southeastern Idaho and likely will not appreciably change long-term dynamics of mule deer populations in the intermountain west."

So even when predation, is additive, not compensatory, there is no measurable benefit, to predator control. The same thing has been demonstrated in studies conducted in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, etc.

I think JayZ may have said it best, 99 problems.......

Time to go fishing.


----------



## RandomElk16

Lonetree said:


> So here is an "article" http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wmon.4/abstract It is however an overview of an actual study. Easiest way to sum it up.
> 
> From the article, regarding the findings of the 6 years of research, that had been conducted on predator control, in South East Idaho:
> 
> "Coyote-removal programs targeted in areas where mortality of mule deer fawns is known to be additive and coyote-removal conditions are successful may influence mule deer population vital rates but likely will not change direction of population trend. Although mountain lion removal increased mule-deer survival and fawn ratios, we were unable to demonstrate significant changes in population trend with mountain lion removal. In conclusion, benefits of predator removal appear to be marginal and short term in southeastern Idaho and likely will not appreciably change long-term dynamics of mule deer populations in the intermountain west."
> 
> So even when predation, is additive, not compensatory, there is no measurable benefit, to predator control. The same thing has been demonstrated in studies conducted in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, etc.
> 
> I think JayZ may have said it best, 99 problems.......
> 
> Time to go fishing.


From doing more research, it seems that they can't provide studies YET showing a long term trend by removing additional predators, other than some areas where forage and mortality are a larger issue. There has been correlation, but not measurable data. Other than the enclosed Arizona studies where they introduced predators, removed them, opened the enclosure, etc... However, with that correlation it is hard to disprove predator control. Especially given that if we weren't killing these predators, they would be increasing faster and killing more. Even in the study you posted they had fawn survival increases. However, when the bills were passed for additional bounties and removal efforts, it was estimated that 12,500 coyotes were killed annually by USDA and private citizens. That is management, has been happening well before this recent bounty increase. There has been a bounty, and funds, directed at coyote management. Looks like heavy emphasis came in the 90's? Anywho, are you suggesting that removing(managing) these 12,500 coyotes has no impact on deer herds? If we abandoned these efforts the deer numbers would stay consistent? It appears, through correlation and no real study, that we are killing more coyotes annually then ever before. Accepting this growth rather than reducing it would have no long term impact?

Have fun fishing. I have had the fly rod out everyday lately and it has been amazing.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Jay Z has never said anything best. He sure runs his mouth a lot though.


----------



## martymcfly73

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Jay Z has never said anything best. He sure runs his mouth a lot though.


Buuuuurrrn!


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

That was a shot at JayZ, not Lonetree although.......


----------



## c3hammer

Lonetree are you really suggesting that the long term trend of lower nitrate levels is causing the mule deer to increase or decrease? With all your bs in this thread, I'm not sure what you're trying to suggest with your demonstration that nitrate levels have been reducing consistently since the mid 80's.

I'll suggest that soil nitrate level arguments are nothing but speculation, blind theory and relatively irrelevant compared to weather and predator related effects on wildlife.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

c3hammer said:


> Lonetree are you really suggesting that the long term trend of lower nitrate levels is causing the mule deer to increase or decrease? With all your bs in this thread, I'm not sure what you're trying to suggest with your demonstration that nitrate levels have been reducing consistently since the mid 80's.
> 
> I'll suggest that soil nitrate level arguments are nothing but speculation, blind theory and relatively irrelevant compared to weather and predator related effects on wildlife.


I was on the same side as you before. The more I have read about predation the more my mind has changed though. Especially with regards to the coyote and deer relationship. I do think though that "predation" is far to often displayed as a one study fits all. I find few similarities between the coyote/deer and wolf/elk relationship. They are often portrayed as the same thing though and they four distinct different species. I personally think that more predation studies need to be performed though. Even the most in depth ones I have read have admitted that not enough is known or understood.

Fact is this........to ignore any aspect of ecology with regards to wildlife and its future is not the best interest of conservation as a whole.


----------



## Longgun

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Fact is this........to ignore any aspect of ecology with regards to wildlife and its future is not the best interest of conservation as a whole.


^^^This^^^


----------



## Longgun

with all mentioned factors in these various species declines being weighed, what else is there that could be of consequence/contributor? Im not looking at picking sides in this discussion, just trying to keep an open mind to all variables...


----------



## Longgun

*Mule Deer Conservation Plan, July 2004*

those of you better versed in such or better yet, involved in this particular study, what conclusions ever came of this?

http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Hu...n Mule Deer Conservation Plan - MULE DEER ...


----------



## c3hammer

Just so everyone understands what kills off and lets deer live, it's this!


----------



## Longgun

Currently lower than normal average precip but improving...


----------



## RandomElk16

c3hammer said:


> Just so everyone understands what kills off and lets deer live, it's this!


The scale, or lack of scale, they are using doesn't tell anything. 81-2010? That is when the decline occurred so it isn't showing us much.

Maybe it is just me, but how can you correlate that Colorado basin chart to deer herds?


----------



## RandomElk16

Longgun said:


> Currently lower than normal average precip but improving...


05, 11, 93, 97 are all above... With a 20 year average years will be above and below so it is hard to tell anything from that chart, in my opinion. In that 20 years there could have been so much variation, and likely was. I just don't understand the scale they are using. Not very telling.


----------



## c3hammer

Did you even look at the image ramdomelk16?

The blue line is average snow pack expressed as inches of water by time of year. The colored lines show the years I selected. You have the colors wrong. 2011 is well below the average. As you can see the last 4 years have all been below average snow accumulation, particularly in the spring when the deer are most susceptible. The years radically above the average are the years our deer herd died off heavily in this area. 

In case you didn't know, we live in the Colorado Basin as determined by NOAA. That snotel site is at Brighton ski resort.


----------



## RandomElk16

In case you didn't notice, the color is listed after the year... maybe look at 2011 again. I stated that running a 20 year average, then throwing out some random years isn't telling. Obviously, with the lines well above the average then there were lines in that 20 year span BELOW the average. Thus is the origin of an average. That is why I stated listing ranges would be more telling, even then good look showing us the direct relation to deer numbers.

I know where we live. Now show me how that translates to deer herds. Correlation doesn't work around here, and would be bad for you to use given that the last 4 years have had increased numbers.

Average- blue 
2011- mustard

Looks a hell of a lot like mustard is higher?


----------



## c3hammer

Sorry 2011 was the peak year. I'm showing the years the deer decline vs the years the deer do well. Those are the particularly bad years that correlate to huge declines in the deer population around here. You can do the same for what ever location you want.


----------



## RandomElk16

In 2011, the peak year, that was the lowest our numbers have been in the last 5 years. They have gone up since then and from data it appears they are the highest they have been in over 20 years (92= 340K, 12= 320K; up from that but I don't have numbers).


Another thing I have found interesting reading lately. Now days it is estimated, from most articles I find, 20K mule deer are killed by motor vehicles annually. I found this number a few times, not sure if anyone has a counter number? I also couldn't tell you the sex numbers, but I think I have only once seen a buck hit by a car or train. Wonder how much this impacts our herd numbers? 

I would imagine, no evidence other then population increase and annual avg mileage increases, that this is far higher then the 80s.


----------



## Longgun




----------



## c3hammer

So, are we on the same page randomelk16? 

When we have huge late spring snow years we loose our deer herd. When we have low snow years, especially in the late spring we see deer numbers rebound.

Every part of the state might be different as to exactly what years were the culprit, but the correlation is near perfect with mule deer populations.


----------



## RandomElk16

I thought you were going the opposite direction.. Saying not enough moisture. I don't think this correlation is the only explanation though.

I am glad we address all factors that have been mentioned on here.


----------



## swbuckmaster

LT can you explain this. 

I hear you and others on UWN say killing bucks isn't additive in nature as long as the buck to doe ratio is above 10/100. To me I think it is additive because of the predator factor. If you kill a buck the lion still needs to eat so if the buck to doe ratio is lower the lion is forced to eat more does then bucks in my mind. This has to affect our deer numbers in a negative way.

If you dont have predators I can see how it wont affect the herd and this is another reason I think your off when you say predators dont affect overall deer numbers.


----------



## swbuckmaster

C3
Using your moisture charts does this spring look good or bad for the deer forcast


----------



## c3hammer

It's slightly better than normal up to now. I can't predict the weather, but the most critical time around here is still between now and June.


----------



## Lonetree

c3hammer said:


> So, are we on the same page randomelk16?
> 
> When we have huge late spring snow years we loose our deer herd. When we have low snow years, especially in the late spring we see deer numbers rebound.
> 
> Every part of the state might be different as to exactly what years were the culprit, but the correlation is near perfect with mule deer populations.


Yep, we are on the same page. I have been saying for years now that late spring(~may) precipitation is bad for deer numbers. This has been demonstrated in Wyoming with bighorn sheep as well. As well as with Moose, in the West, and upper mid West. The Bighorn studies in Wyoming looked beyond just the fact that it was raining. They tested the rain water for contaminates, and were able to show that it was nitrate levels, and other, yet fully understood contaminates, that drove the nutrition cycle, and dictated bighorn sheep declines. They were able to reproduce these conditions in controlled plots, on the mountain, where they covered plots, and manipulated simulated rain fall. When they simulated the nitrate levels they were observing in some spring rains, they were able to reproduce the conditions that were suppressing nutritional uptake of plants. When nitrates were introduced they decreases mychorrhizal function, mobilized some elements, locked up others, and even promoted bad fungal grow that volatilized trace elements, exporting them out of the environment, making them unavailable for plants, and sheep.

It is not simply the rain, and the weather, but what they bring with them, and how that chemistry plays out in the ecosystem, and its effects on big game. Soil nitrate levels are not speculation or theory. There is a direct measurable amount being produced, and a measurable amount being deposited into big game habitat. With measurable, reproducible affects on that habitat.

Bighorn sheep, mule deer, and moose, are being limited by forage carrying capacity. Not the availability of particular plants, or ranges with particular plants(at least not at these population levels), but the nutrition that is available in the current forage. This is why intensive habitat restoration has shown some gains in population, but not predator control. This is why when environmental conditions change, and nutritional uptake of the current forage is favored, we see increases in mule deer numbers.


----------



## Lonetree

swbuckmaster said:


> LT can you explain this.
> 
> I hear you and others on UWN say killing bucks isn't additive in nature as long as the buck to doe ratio is above 10/100. To me I think it is additive because of the predator factor. If you kill a buck the lion still needs to eat so if the buck to doe ratio is lower the lion is forced to eat more does then bucks in my mind. This has to affect our deer numbers in a negative way.
> 
> If you dont have predators I can see how it wont affect the herd and this is another reason I think your off when you say predators dont affect overall deer numbers.


It can not, and has not been shown, that removal of predators increases long term deer trends, or even localized deer populations in most cases. In the vast majority of these cases, the predation is compensatory. In some cases, and I stress some, where predation has been shown to be additive, the gains in deer population, were so marginal, that it was of no benefit to the over all trend of mule deer, or to hunter harvest. So if you can demonstrate, against decades of studies, most of which were intended to make your case, but could not, then by all means, provide us with the data that shows that predator removal, grows deer. If predators were limiting mule deer numbers, I'd be right there. I spent the '90s shooting coyotes, and telling unscrupulous lion hunters were to find cats.


----------



## Lonetree

Time to go pay some bills.


----------



## RandomElk16

RandomElk16 said:


> From doing more research, it seems that they can't provide studies YET showing a long term trend by removing additional predators, other than some areas where forage and mortality are a larger issue. There has been correlation, but not measurable data. Other than the enclosed Arizona studies where they introduced predators, removed them, opened the enclosure, etc... However, with that correlation it is hard to disprove predator control. Especially given that if we weren't killing these predators, they would be increasing faster and killing more. Even in the study you posted they had fawn survival increases. However, when the bills were passed for additional bounties and removal efforts, it was estimated that 12,500 coyotes were killed annually by USDA and private citizens. That is management, has been happening well before this recent bounty increase. There has been a bounty, and funds, directed at coyote management. Looks like heavy emphasis came in the 90's? Anywho, are you suggesting that removing(managing) these 12,500 coyotes has no impact on deer herds? If we abandoned these efforts the deer numbers would stay consistent? It appears, through correlation and no real study, that we are killing more coyotes annually then ever before. Accepting this growth rather than reducing it would have no long term impact?


Lone still waiting for a response to this. Predator Management has been happening for years; if we had not done this, or quit now, what would be the result? That is a lot of coyotes, and a lot of pups....

Also, please respond to my question about the estimated 20K motor vehicle kills a year. It is on page 18.


----------



## Lonetree

RandomElk16 said:


> Lone still waiting for a response to this. Predator Management has been happening for years; if we had not done this, or quit now, what would be the result? That is a lot of coyotes, and a lot of pups....
> 
> Also, please respond to my question about the estimated 20K motor vehicle kills a year. It is on page 18.


Coyotes do not eat deer exclusively, in fact far from it. They are omnivores and will eat anything. Again: In studies where they did predator removal, it did not, and could not raise deer numbers. Which means that even if we had 20,000 more coyotes, based on what the studies have shown us, no, it does not make a difference. This is because coyotes are not the limiting factor for mule deer. So more or less of them, does not reduce or increase, mule deer numbers. Healthy mule deer are very resistent to coyote predation.

Car collisions: Do we have steeper deer declines in areas with more roads, than in more remote areas? Can you show that deer have done better across the West, over the last 30 years, in areas that do not have roads? No, because regardless of highway mortality, or predator control, the deer trends across the West, have followed in sync, despite the localized issues.


----------



## RandomElk16

Lonetree said:


> Coyotes do not eat deer exclusively, in fact far from it. They are omnivores and will eat anything. Again: In studies where they did predator removal, it did not, and could not raise deer numbers. Which means that even if we had 20,000 more coyotes, based on what the studies have shown us, no, it does not make a difference. This is because coyotes are not the limiting factor for mule deer. So more or less of them, does not reduce or increase, mule deer numbers. Healthy mule deer are very resistent to coyote predation.
> 
> Car collisions: Do we have steeper deer declines in areas with more roads, than in more remote areas? Can you show that deer have done better across the West, over the last 30 years, in areas that do not have roads? No, because regardless of highway mortality, or predator control, the deer trends across the West, have followed in sync, despite the localized issues.


You don't think roads and the travel increase in the last 20 years resulting in 20,000 roadkill deer deaths in Utah each year has any impact??

Also, you think 20,000 more coyotes in Utah alone would have no impact?

You started to sound sane for a second.. for a second...


----------



## Lonetree

RandomElk16 said:


> You don't think roads and the travel increase in the last 20 years resulting in 20,000 roadkill deer deaths in Utah each year has any impact??
> 
> Also, you think 20,000 more coyotes in Utah alone would have no impact?
> 
> You started to sound sane for a second.. for a second...


Deer have not done better in remote areas over the last 20 years, this has not been demonstrated. They have declined in remote areas, as well as roaded areas across the West, at the same frequency.

If coyotes were shown to be a limiting factor of mule deer, then yeah 20,000 more would make a difference. Bu the fact of the matter is that coyotes eat grasshoppers, fruits, grass, anything else they can find, for the majority of the year.


----------



## LostLouisianian

RandomElk16 said:


> You don't think roads and the travel increase in the last 20 years resulting in 20,000 roadkill deer deaths in Utah each year has any impact??
> 
> Also, you think 20,000 more coyotes in Utah alone would have no impact?
> 
> You started to sound sane for a second.. for a second...


Repeat after me, predators and cars have NO IMPACT on deer numbers...keep repeating and sooner or later you'll start believing, despite the evidence that SOME people seem to ignore or pooh pooh because it doesn't fit their views.


----------



## DallanC

LostLouisianian said:


> Repeat after me, predators and *cars have NO IMPACT on deer numbers*...keep repeating and sooner or later you'll start believing, despite the evidence that SOME people seem to ignore or pooh pooh because it doesn't fit their views.


If you have a total population T, and a record a number of car killed deer D, the new total is T' = T-D.

T' != T

Not sure how you can say impact? At the very least, the direct immediate impact is a population decrease by the amount of deer killed.

-DallanC


----------



## Lonetree

LostLouisianian said:


> Repeat after me, predators and cars have NO IMPACT on deer numbers...keep repeating and sooner or later you'll start believing, despite the evidence that SOME people seem to ignore or pooh pooh because it doesn't fit their views.


Yes there is an impact. But what is that impact? Can you demonstrate how removing predators, can increase deer numbers, or reverse the the last 30 years of declines. NO, and in the context of mangement, and conservation, that is the goal. So if you can not show that predator removal, can increase deer numbers, you can not show the inverse, that predator numbers drive deer declines either. You show us the data, like was asked by myself and others earlier in this thread.

Can you show me the differential, of mule deer numbers, across the West, for the last 30 years, that shows that mule deer numbers decline, or have declined at higher rates, in areas that experience roadway mortality, verses areas that have little or no highway mortality? NO, because mule deer numbers have been, and are being driven by other factors, that supercede either of these things. Again show me the numbers, with correlation, and causation.

As some one with a degree in wildlife biology, you of all people should know how this works. Talk about belief systems. You are attempting to make a sidways, hair splitting arguement, in attempt to deflect, distartct, and change the focus of the conversation. Typical of those that can not fully support, and argue their positions, based on anything other than social tactics.


----------



## Lonetree

DallanC said:


> If you have a total population T, and a record a number of car killed deer D, the new total is T' = T-D.
> 
> T' != T
> 
> Not sure how you can say impact? At the very least, the direct immediate impact is a population decrease by the amount of deer killed.
> 
> -DallanC


So compare those areas, with high auto mortality, and those with low or no auto mortality. Can you show me a difference in mule deer trend numbers to support a long term case. Yes cars kill deer, that is not what we are talking about, we are talking THE things that are actually driving mule deer numbers although I love the creative ways in which you guys like to try to change the subject.

Did people quit driving less in the last few years? Is that why the deer are increasing?


----------



## RandomElk16

I'm scratching my head? I didn't know a study was done where no one in the state drove and where coyotes were on a protected list. Can this study be posted? I can't see where we could have 20,000 yotes and they have NO IMPACT whatsoever. I'm sure wintering grounds would be a safehaven for deer


----------



## Lonetree

RandomElk16 said:


> I'm scratching my head? I didn't know a study was done where no one in the state drove and where coyotes were on a protected list. Can this study be posted? I can't see where we could have 20,000 yotes and they have NO IMPACT whatsoever. I'm sure wintering grounds would be a safehaven for deer


Again, if auto mortality, is driving deer trends, then you could show this, by looking at what deer numbers have done in roadless areas, verses areas where traffic has increased inthe last 30 years. In areas where it has increaed in the last 30 years, the deer should be in worse shape, than deer in remote areas, yet that can not be demonstrated.

If removing coyotes does not increase deer, even with increased fawn survival, then more coyotes can not suppress deer numbers either. Especially when deer numbers are driven by the enviromental conditions, that drive their health, that dictate their increases and declines. Have you ever watched coyote predation play out? It is not easy, if not impossible, for coyotes to take healthy deer under almost all conditions. And if all the predator studies keep showing that removing coyotes, icreases fawns, bt can not raise deer numbers, then we ahve another problem that is driving deer numbers.


----------



## RandomElk16

Given your nutritional argument, deer habitat is no good. Coyotes however thrive. So we increase the coyote population, while deer keep getting weaker-something you said- then you dont think that they will keep eating deer? They would become a limiting factor and continue to have great breeding results, eating more deer. Lets propose to the rac no more coyote hunting. They are not killing any deer in the state, period.

For automobiles, please see the other thread.

Are one of these going to fix everything? Nope. Does addressing them all help, I would say absolutely.


----------



## Lonetree

RandomElk16 said:


> Given your nutritional argument, deer habitat is no good. Coyotes however thrive. So we increase the coyote population, while deer keep getting weaker-something you said- then you dont think that they will keep eating deer? They would become a limiting factor and continue to have great breeding results, eating more deer. Lets propose to the rac no more coyote hunting. They are not killing any deer in the state, period.
> 
> For automobiles, please see the other thread.
> 
> Are one of these going to fix everything? Nope. Does addressing them all help, I would say absolutely.


Actually addressing the issues, that are driving mule deer health, that in turn drive mule deer numbers, that in turn are affecting hunting, is what will help. We have been "addressing" all of these talking points for 20 years, show me the deer, and show me how these talking points have got us all these deer, not to mention all the hunting that it has provided.

Keep changing and expanding the conversation, away from things you don't like, are uncomfortable with, or just can't grasp. It might make you feel better, but it won't help the deer, or our hunting one iota. This has been borne out, over the last 20 years.


----------



## RandomElk16

Well the article he just posted said it is highest it has been in 14 years and is near objective?


----------



## Lonetree

RandomElk16 said:


> Well the article he just posted said it is highest it has been in 14 years and is near objective?


With no correlation or cooroboration, to support that any thing you guys say will help mule deer, is responsible for any of that. Highest in 14 years is no where near recovered to pre-decline numbers, and objectives have nothing to do with carrying capacity, or deer health, actually growing deer, or anything biological really. It is just a number that says we want this many deer in an area. Keep typing we'll get back to the big picture, after you get tired chasing your tail, talking about anything else.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Pre-decline numbers have nothing to do with today's world in which available land to deer is not what it once was. Going over the objective would just mean a huge increase in tags to bring the numbers back in line with the objective.

I say the objective number right now is far more important than the pre-decline numbers.


----------



## RandomElk16

Lonetree said:


> With no correlation or cooroboration, to support that any thing you guys say will help mule deer, is responsible for any of that. Highest in 14 years is no where near recovered to pre-decline numbers, and objectives have nothing to do with carrying capacity, or deer health, actually growing deer, or anything biological really. It is just a number that says we want this many deer in an area. Keep typing we'll get back to the big picture, after you get tired chasing your tail, talking about anything else.


So we have over 330K, higher than the last fifteen years, but management isn't working. Pure coincidence? I'm sure your rhetoric is what did it. Since 1970, Utahs population and industry have expanded, but you want the same carrying capacity numbers as 40 years ago?


----------



## Lonetree

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Pre-decline numbers have nothing to do with today's world in which available land to deer is not what it once was. Going over the objective would just mean a hug increase in tags to bring the numbers back in line with the objective.
> 
> I say the objective number right now is far more important than the pre-decline numbers.


It has nothing to do with available land at this point in time, with this deer population. It is what is driving post decline numbers that gets us where we want to go.


----------



## RandomElk16

Lonetree, is your profession biology? Are you currently paid for it? Were you ever an employed wildlife biologist?

Just wondering how they are so dumb and you are so smart.


----------



## Lonetree

RandomElk16 said:


> So we have over 330K, higher than the last fifteen years, but management isn't working. Pure coincidence? I'm sure your rhetoric is what did it. Since 1970, Utahs population and industry have expanded, but you want the same carrying capacity numbers as 40 years ago?


We do not have 330K more deer than 15 years ago, and nothing in the current "managment" has been shown to have brought us the last 3-4 years of deer increases, from ~2002-~2009 deer numbers were flat. What did we do managemnet wise, in 2009 that bought us the increases? If it is management, then we should be able to show what we did different to bring that increase. Note: Option WFT? and coyote bounties came after the increases. Show me some charts, and numbers that demonstarte how Utah deer management is the reason for the current rise in deer numbers. Even the DWR won't attempt that.


----------



## Lonetree

RandomElk16 said:


> Lonetree, is your profession biology? Are you currently paid for it? Were you ever an employed wildlife biologist?
> 
> Just wondering how they are so dumb and you are so smart.


I know lots of biologists, most of them are not dumb. But the folks driving the last 20 years of management, well that is a whole other thing, especially coupled with hunters that can not grasp mule deer biology, and science, that think their feelings on the the matter should out weigh what is god for deer, and deer hunting.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Maybe just maybe numbers were flat because things were holding steady due to weather patterns and other outside influences. Flat isn't all bad. Flat means no net loss.

and maybe the things that have been done have been taking root and the herd is improving because of it. Doing what can be done and trying sure beats waiting for a cure that may not come. Ever heard of radiation treatment and chemo-therapy. Neither are a bone-fide cure but it is certainly better than a promised death while science is taking it's course.


----------



## RandomElk16

Lonetree said:


> We do not have 330K more deer than 15 years ago, and nothing in the current "managment" has been shown to have brought us the last 3-4 years of deer increases, from ~2002-~2009 deer numbers were flat. What did we do managemnet wise, in 2009 that bought us the increases? If it is management, then we should be able to show what we did different to bring that increase. Note: Option WFT? and coyote bounties came after the increases. Show me some charts, and numbers that demonstarte how Utah deer management is the reason for the current rise in deer numbers. Even the DWR won't attempt that.


There was a comma after 330K. Before the $50 bounty program there was a $20 bounty. Coyote management has been going on in Utah since the 90's.


----------



## Lonetree

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Maybe just maybe numbers were flat because things were holding steady due to weather patterns and other outside influences. Flat isn't all bad. Flat means no net loss.
> 
> and maybe the things that have been done have been taking root and the herd is improving because of it. Doing what can be done and trying sure beats waiting for a cure that may not come. Ever heard of radiation treatment and chemo-therapy. Neither are a bone-fide cure but it is certainly better than a promised death while science is taking it's course.


The reasons why the numbers were flat, what drove previous and yet to happen declines, and what is driving the current increases, is what we need to be looking at. Doing things for the sake of it, with no proof they are working, has not been demonstrated to bring any different results, than waiting around.

You don't wait for cures, you go out and find them. And then impliment them. That is not what is getting done.


----------



## Lonetree

Anyone want to go back in the multiple conversations, and subject changes, and cases for "well at least we are doing something",or "things could be worse" and look at some nitrate numbers? Anyone want to lay some deer numbers over those nitate numbers? 


Anyone want to talk about the declining moose with mineral deficiencies. You know, mineral deficiencies that people here have been telling me for years are not driving willdife declines.


Anybody?


----------



## nocturnalenemy

Lonetree said:


> Anyone want to lay some deer numbers over those nitate numbers?



















I quickly threw these charts together. In my quick searches I didn't find the deer population estimates from 1983-1991, so those aren't include. I'd be happy to include them if someone wants to point me to them.

Based on the data from 1992-2012, the correlation between nitrate levels and deer population is basically 0. There are some years where nitrates dip, deer increase, and some where nitrates increase deer decrease; but the opposite is true as well, i.e. nitrates increase and deer increase, nitrates decrease and deer decrease. This is why the R-squared correlation is basically 0.

I'm looking for some guidance on what you're after, because so far, these numbers don't show the correlation, let alone the causation. I'm interested in learning about this, so could you please explain what I might be misunderstanding/interpreting.


----------



## Lonetree

nocturnalenemy said:


> View attachment 30721
> 
> 
> View attachment 30729
> 
> 
> I quickly threw these charts together. In my quick searches I didn't find the deer population estimates from 1983-1991, so those aren't include. I'd be happy to include them if someone wants to point me to them.
> 
> Based on the data from 1992-2012, the correlation between nitrate levels and deer population is basically 0. There are some years where nitrates dip, deer increase, and some where nitrates increase deer decrease; but the opposite is true as well, i.e. nitrates increase and deer increase, nitrates decrease and deer decrease. This is why the R-squared correlation is basically 0.
> 
> I'm looking for some guidance on what you're after, because so far, these numbers don't show the correlation, let alone the causation. I'm interested in learning about this, so could you please explain what I might be misunderstanding/interpreting.


First, you are starting at the 93 crash, and moving through some relatively flat numbers, ending in a big decline in nitrates, and still rising deer numbers.

So we are looking at just nitrate numbers from one site, and deer population numbers for the whole state. And it is not just nitrates levels, but that is a big one. Given that, you can still see a correlative effect.

Actual causation has already been shown in other studies that have measured rain fall, their contaminate levels, and how that affects trace element availability on site. The conditions and affects were then reproduced on site as well, under controlled conditions. From rain to soil, to plant to animal. These same things have been measured in lab work as well.

Charting it for mule deer is not going to be perfect given what you are working with.


----------



## RandomElk16

He did exactly what you ask and you still loophole around it?


----------



## Lonetree

RandomElk16 said:


> He did exactly what you ask and you still loophole around it?


No loop hole, he is working with incomplete data, that still shows a pattern. I simply pointed that out. By all means, interpret the data for us. It is not in a cage, so might have a little trouble with it.


----------



## RandomElk16

Lonetree said:


> No loop hole, he is working with incomplete data, that still shows a pattern. I simply pointed that out. By all means, interpret the data for us. It is not in a cage, so might have a little trouble with it.


Ohhh good one.. You headed out back to work your groundbreaking experiment?

You, a biologist, should understand and respect the value of a controlled study. The fact that you don't speaks volumes. Make jokes at something that REAL biologist accomplished. At least their doing more than keyboard crunching about other biologists.


----------



## LostLouisianian

Lonetree said:


> No loop hole, he is working with incomplete data, that still shows a pattern. I simply pointed that out. By all means, interpret the data for us. It is not in a cage, so might have a little trouble with it.


Here is complete data and a pattern. It is SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN that in Utah predators and automobiles KILL SIGNIFICANTLY more big game than humans.


----------



## Lonetree

LostLouisianian said:


> Here is complete data and a pattern. It is SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN that in Utah predators and automobiles KILL SIGNIFICANTLY more big game than humans.


But can you show if either are additive? We have been able to show that predation is compensatory, what about automobiles?


----------



## Lonetree

RandomElk16 said:


> Ohhh good one.. You headed out back to work your groundbreaking experiment?
> 
> You, a biologist, should understand and respect the value of a controlled study. The fact that you don't speaks volumes. Make jokes at something that REAL biologist accomplished. At least their doing more than keyboard crunching about other biologists.


I am not a biologist, that is LostLA, that is making the profession proud. All of the predator control studies in ID, WY, and CO that have shown predation to be compensatory, not additive, and therefor not driving deer numbers down, have been "controlled" studies. I don't think you understand the use of the word.


----------



## RandomElk16

Lonetree said:


> I am not a biologist, that is LostLA, that is making the profession proud. All of the predator control studies in ID, WY, and CO that have shown predation to be compensatory, not additive, and therefor not driving deer numbers down, have been "controlled" studies. I don't think you understand the use of the word.


Oh you aren't a biologist. Geez, you had me goin!


----------



## Lonetree

RandomElk16 said:


> Oh you aren't a biologist. Geez, you had me goin!


That is right, I do not have degree. I think we have already shown, that does not seam to help, when grasping information around here.


----------



## RandomElk16

Lonetree said:


> That is right, I do not have degree. I think we have already shown, that does not seam to help, when grasping information around here.


Seam?


----------



## Lonetree

RandomElk16 said:


> Seam?


Yeah, it does not connect them together like a "seam" :mrgreen: DYAC


----------

