# Coyote-Fawn Survival Study Research Meeting



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

I was unable to attend the meeting in Richfield last night. But here are some notes from the meeting for those interested.

"Answers to Coyote-Fawn Survival Meeting"
Sportsmen from south central Utah attended a meeting with the UDWR and University research scientists tonight in Richfield. Prior to the meeting we submitted questions to the presenters so they could address our specific concerns.

I've listed the question here, before but this time with really, really brief answers, as I understood them. We had information burn out tonight so there are many many things that were discussed, in far greater detail, than I'm capable of passing along.

Nothing is an exact quote from the meeting, I've paraphrased everything as closely as my notes will allow me too.

elkfromabove drove up from Cedar, I hope he will share what he found significant as well.

This is pretty long, so you might want to read it when you've got a bowl of popcorn and a can of liquid to waste it down.

Here you go, if your interested:

Many sportsmen and professional biologists believe the Monroe Unit cougar and coyote/fawn study a huge waste of time and limited money. a) One group believes they all ready know, from past research, that reducing predators, specifically coyote and cougars does not generate a significant increase fawn survival. b) The other group believes they all ready know, from past research, that reducing predators, specifically coyote and cougars does in fact generate a significant increase in fawn survival. Why do you believe we should have started this study and why do you believe we should continue, based on the data that has been collected thus far. What more is there to learn?

Answer:
They said they started the study because, in fact, the UDWR, nor anyone else, knew if reducing predations significantly would impact/improve fawn survival. There have been two studies done in the past, one in Idaho and one in New Mexico and neither come to a definite conclusion either way, therefore, Utah’s DWR wanted to know for sure, thus the study was funded and will be conducted.


Fawns/Coyotes - So now what are the birth/survival trends of fawns? Is it better because of coyote reduction or something else like less winter kill?

Answer:
After having completed two years of a four year study, the mule deer population has increased from an estimated 5500 +/- head, to 7800 +/- head. The researchers do not attribute the increase to weather, all thought the weather has been favorable. So far, it looks like predator reduction, primarily coyote reduction, has caused the growth, however, the researchers warned against assuming any thing at this time and will not draw up any conclusions until the study has been completed, in another two years.


Does the research link coyote population to fawn survival? Cougars- What are we learning from the cougar study? How many are there? Is the population growing or shrinking? How frequently does a cougar kill? What age of deer do cougars target?

Answer:
It is starting to look like there is a link to coyotes and fawn survival. Regarding cougars; 
This answer was a little more convoluted, in my opinion, ,because cougars are so difficult to study, they leave very little information behind and capturing, monitoring and analysising is so expensive and time consuming and takes many many years to gather enough data to sort out what’s actually happening. The Monroe cougar study is in it’s 19th year, however, not all 19 of the years have been studying fawn survival/courgar data.

Some of the interesting things they share were these:
A single tom will control a large geographic area with as many females as the area can hold. Usually many females to a single mature tom. In an area where a mature tom has establish his territory, all the young toms leave the territory. The young toms travel through other territories looking to fill a void and establish an area themselves or keep wandering and avoiding mature, established territories. Then the mature tom is removed from the area, all hell breaks loose, as a lot of young toms will move onto the geography left open and attempt to become the dominate male. Killing of both males and females occurs and cougar chaos reigns until a male establishes dominance. Of note, they said killing a mature tom does not necessarily reduce fawn kills because of the number of young males that move on the area after the mature male is gone. More males need more meals so killing mature males may actually cause a situation where more fawns are killed because for a period of time the cougar population increases, until one male become dominate again.

Cougars kill coyotes, mostly when coyotes move in on an uneaten portion of a cougar kill. They kill them at other times, but the study indicates most killing is over coyotes stealing a cougar’s left-overs.

Cougars kill deer, primary at these times, last winter (Feb and March), especially fawns because fawns have used most of their fat reserves and are low on energy. They kill does heavy in pregnancy, and they kill bucks (I think they said when the bucks were weakened from the rut.) but to be honest with you, I can't actually remember what he said about when they focused on the bucks. However, they did say that coyotes kill the most fawns in June and cougars kill fawns in July, August, and Sept. They said, so far, thirty percent of the fawns born are killed by predators (coyotes or cougars).

At this time there are and estimated 22 cougars on Monroe. The coyote research groups said they were working on taking DNA from scat transects to get an estimated coyote population but I don’t recall they had that figure ready to release yet. If they did, I missed it.

Different classes of cougars kill deer more or less frequently. The males, the young females, the pregnant female and the female with partially grown kittens all require different amounts of protein so their killing frequency varies. The two example they gave were: a male will average .75 deer a week, a female with kittens will average 1.5 kills per week. The others are somewhere in between .75 and 1.5 per week.

They don’t answer the specific ages of deer that cougars kill but from the other things they said it would seem to suggest they kill deer of all ages but they target certain types of deer it very specific times during the year.

How many coyotes were killed on the north end of the Monroe Unit by the helicopters on the first year of the study? What were the killing conditions, ie: weather etc?

Answer:
They killed 54 in 2012 from the helicopter. 40 killed by helicopter in 2013. The weather was good enough to kill a satisfactory and statistically viable number of coyotes. They explained the “rule” for defining a satisfactory and valid number of coyotes but it was lengthy and I lost track of the details but in the end, I was satisfied that enough coyotes were removed, in both years, to meet the scientific communities standard for a statistically valid data collection. (I wouldn’t have the slightest way for knowing what's valid and what's not, but they were questioned rather vigorously and gave us enough information regarding scientific peer requirements, to the degree that I think most in attendance was satisfied as well.)
How many were killed on the north end on the second year. What were the killing conditions, ie: weather etc?

How many were killed on the north end on the second year. What were the killing conditions, ie: weather etc?

Answer:
See above.


What are the buffer zones for the north and south parts of the Unit. Is there a map of the buffer zones we can see?

Answer:
Buffer zone data was not provided. It did not seem to hold a significant interest to the research teams for this meeting but in fairness to them, they did say they had buffer zone data and in the final research papers they would include buffer zone observations and how they may or may not interacted with the dynamics of coyote/fawn survival relationships on the unit.


Did you kill coyotes in the buffer zone (next to the Unit), on the north end in year one and year two, if so, how many?

Answer:
They did but did not present any data at the meeting.

Have any of the collared deer from the Monroe moved off the Unit. How far have collared moved on the unit?

Answer:
Many collared deer moved off the unit, some as far as 35 miles from their summer pastures, however, all the researchers were a little surprised that all but one collared doe returned to the exact same summer location where she had spend the previous year.

How do you know when you have killed enough coyotes or cougars to change or alter the fawn survival rate?

Answer:
They said that prior to any research they establish a minimum data set that must be gathered for the research to be valid. These standards are critical to scientific validity and scientific research reputation. Loose standards or improper standards destroy the University’s reputation and it's standing in the greater research community. The University guard this reputation at all costs. They are making certain their statistical sample sizes meet and exceed the requirements in the research community.

A simple explanation one the research team leaders gave me after the presentations was this: we killed coyotes until we couldn’t find any more tracks to follow with the helicopter and we didn’t give up until we had looked every where possible, on the designated research area.

How many cougars are on the Monroe? How do you know that? What percentage of error do you use in your cougar estimate. With elk the Division uses 20 -25%, what error factor are you using for cougars?

Answer:
22 at present. The percentage of error was not discussed and no one brought it up in the meeting.


We need to know what their assessment is in regards to habitat. We need to know specifically if the habitat -- winter range specifically-- can support more deer and what is the realistic number for population. If they determine that the habitat can not support more growth then we are just throwing money away in increased predator control. If there is more room for growth then we need to stay serious about predator reduction and even increase our efforts to reduce mortality by predators.

Answer:
The gentleman that sent this question to be asked this question may have been at the meeting but the question was not address, that I recall. If he was there he didn’t ask about it during the question and answer period.

To be frank, we were getting really great data and information for 2 solid hours, like we were drinking from a fire hose, I was in sensory over load most of the night, so it might have been discussed but I don’t think it was. It certainly is a valid and important part of the information that needs to be considered and the next chance I get I will try to ask someone to put an answer to it.

How many deer are there on the Unit? What is the carrying capacity of the Unit for deer? How do you determine the carrying capacity of the Monroe? Do you use the same method to determine carrying capacity on the Monroe as you use on the West Desert, Henry Mountains, Logan Canyon, the Wasatch Front?

Answer:
They believe there are, give or take, 7800.

Carrying capacity specific to the Monroe was not discussed, as I recall. This certainly needs to be discussed if this deer population contuinues to respond as it is presently.


Nobody is actually out counting mule deer to determine total population, how to you come up with your estimate of total deer on a unit? I’m asking this because I would like to know if there is any correlation between total coyote carrying capacity and the fawn survival abilities of a deer herd when it approaches total unit carrying capacity. Do you believe there is a correlation and if so, what would it be? When a deer herd reaches some thing near total carrying capacity on a unit, can it support a coyote population that has reached it’s carrying capacity. Does this ever happen in the real world or only in theory?

Answer:
Not discussed, as I recall. Good question though, it should be followed up on, at our next opportunity.

Is anyone in the study group checking to see if there are any relevant issues between reducing coyotes and it’s effect on the behavior of cougars and visa versa, as it relates to fawn survival? If you reduce cougar populations do coyote populations increase, and visa versa? Is data from this specific study been collected and analyzed regarding this question, that can be released?

Answer:
Yes but my head was spinning about the time they discussed it so I apologize, I don’t remember the details, hell, I don’t remember anything about this question, accept to say it was discussed!

I think habitat, weather, infectious disease, high speed roads, poachers, etc. etc, are killing more deer than cougars or coyotes. How can your very small Monroe Mountain project prove that droughts and heavy winters are not the primary reason for low fawn counts? What’s your sample size? Who say’s it’s conclusive? As a research biologist, don’t you think a two to four year study, focused on cougars and coyotes is too short to learn much of anything, much less justify killing a large number of predators with the simple hope it will help deer?

Answer:
They were pretty (the research team from the University) confident that it (the research) will be comprehensive enough to provide a lot of new and valid predator/fawn survival facts. They seemed to be starting to see some trends they believe will be solid and reproducible on other deer units in the west. They are guarded, as I said earlier, about making any premature predictions. They were more than sure they were following true scientificallyproven methods and getting high quality data.

How much has been spent killing coyotes on the Monroe in the last two years, including helicopters, labor, sportsmen’s bounties, professional trappers, etc. Do not include any of the research related costs, just the actual cost to killing x number to the State for killing x number of coyotes?

Answer:
They didn’t say and know one asked.


What are the fawn/doe ratios on the Monroe now? What were they before the study started?

Answer:
They had them but I don’t recall exactly. However a report I got from one of the presenters prior to the meeting said, the north end, that has had two years of coyote reduction, was 75 fawns per 100 doe this year and the untreated south end was 39 fawns per 100 doe, this year.

I do recall the presenter saying that the fawn doe ratios on the south end where higher before they started the study, so they’ve reversed rather significantly now that coyotes have been remove from the north. If they gave us the actual ratios from before the study started I don’t recall what they were.

Do we know what the fawn/doe ratios were on the north end separated from the south end before the study started two years ago. I mean, can we compare fawn/doe on the north and south before the study, to fawn/doe now that the study is underway?

Answer:
Yes. Don’t recall the specific numbers.

What a waste, nobody believes these studies regardless how they turn out. When was the last time you every heard of the outcome of a DWR study? These research projects get written up and shoved in some university's filing cabinet and never see the light of day. Let's be honest, isn't this just another bunch of college kids working on a PhD. project? What good can come from this?

Answer:
What can I say. After tonight I’m pretty encouraged we’re going to have some valuable new information that will help management decisions. The presenters were not the students, they were there tonight but it was the professors from the Universities that did the presentations and addressed the questions, they all seem involved on the field work themselves.

Some people think that fawn survival is almost entirely tied to weather conditions. As you compare the weather on the South end of the Monroe to the North end, as there been any notable difference? More or less snow, rain, hot, dry etc. that could reflect a difference in fawn survival from north to south, without regard to the coyote/cougar reduction project?

Answer
They said, as far as they have been able to tell there has been little to no difference in weather patterns on the unit. Same conditions exist on both the north and south ends of the unit.

Secondly, are there any other factors besides weather that may be causing a difference between the fawn survival between the north end and the south end besides the predator reduction?

Answer
If there are I don’t recall them pointing any out.

What measurement standard are you using to determine if there has been a adequate coyote reduction on the Monroe Unit? Do you know how many coyotes you had to begin with, do you know how many you need to remove in order to know if you have removed enough to measure an effect on fawn survival? What does adequate remove mean, as to the Monore Unit? If there are 500 coyotes on the Monroe Mt. and you kill 250 of them, is that enough? If there are 1500 is killing 200 enough? How many coyotes did we have and how many are left now? Who decides when enough is enough?

Answer
I believe most of this has been addressed in different pieces of the answers I’ve given above.

As you have captured fawns at or near their birth dates, do you have a chart that shows the birth dates of all those captured? I’d be interested in know the actual dates the fawns are born each year.

Answer
They did have a couple of charts specific to this. The mean birthday was June 16th, with a nice bell curve starting June 2nd and ending about the first week in July, as I recall. Heaviest birth definitely in mid-June. Actual birth days of every fawn in the study is available.

On the Monroe, of the captured and monitored deer, what percentage are killed by predators, road kills, poaching, disease, other causes? Do you believe these percentage are similar to the percentages on the total deer mortality of all deer on the unit?

Answer
A third of all fawns born are killed by predators. They didn’t break out the mortality factors by %, as I recall. They said they were confident the sample size was a valid representation of the rest of the unit.

How much of this information that your getting off the Monroe can be used to manage predators and improve fawn survival on other units in the State? Are you going to need to do a study on every unit? Why or why not?

Answer
They believe most if not all their data can be used beyond the Monroe unit, State wide. They didn’t actually address having to do the same research on every unit.

Do predators ever over populate like deer and elk?

Answer
Don’t recall hearing anything specific to this but they talked about predator’s having smaller numbers of young, when population of they prey base was low. They actually inferred all evening that predator numbers followed deer numbers up and down, some times quite delayed, but never the less they said managing predators for maximum impact on deer populations had to be careful synchronized with deer populayion trends, particularly with cougars.

Can someone in the research group compile the data and with a brief explanation of the latest information and publish it on the Internet like they have been doing on the Holden/Phavant Unit Deer Transplant?

Answer
They promised to do better.

If circumstances like weather, politics, funding, etc interrupt the study, are there contingencies in place that will allow it to continue until a proven conclusion can be reached?

Answer
They said yes, but so far they don’t believe they have needed to use any.

Let me wrap this up by saying I’ve been to hundreds of wildlife meeting with the DWR folks, this was, if not the best, at least in the top three I’ve ever attended. They started on time, the presenters were amazing and spoke in language we could all understand. There was absolutely no condescension, from any party in the room. Questions where asked politely and the answers were very specific and to the point. There was not hedging or apologizing for not having the data available because they came well prepared. The information was succinct and to the point but complete and appropriately thorough.

I wish every sportsman in the State could have been to this meeting tonight, it was exactly what we had hoped for, which was to update sportsmen on the progress of the study.

I want to especially thank Kevin Bunnell, UDWR South Region Supervisor for encouraging these “town hall meetings”, (what a difference it is making), Justin Shannon, UDWR State Big Game Biologist, for offering to bring all of the presenters together and for making all of the arrangements for the public to attend. John Shivik UDWR State Predator Biologist brought his cougar professional and researchers and turned them loose, and I appreciated how candid and open they all were, with their information and especially their answers to the publics questions. Thank you John and thanks to all the sportsmen and women who came, I hope everyone feels as positive about the meeting as I do.

DC


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

So if we do a little extrapolation we see that 22 cougars will kill approximately 25-26 deer per week. When you look at an annual basis that is about 1300-1350 deer per year. With an estimated herd count of 7800 that means cougars are taking out about 17% of the herd per year. I may have missed it but I didn't see predation numbers for yotes. We can reasonably suspect that they are killing at least that many. So it's highly likely that cougars and coyotes are killing a number in excess of 33% of the deer herd on a yearly basis. For our esteemed colleagues at the DNR to say that the jury is still out on whether or not reduction in predators will have any effect on the deer herd is, well laughable. I earned my degree in wildlife management over 35 years ago and these clowns never cease to give me a good chuckle.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I wasn't at the meeting, but from reading what was written above, I don't think the DWR is saying the jury is still out as much as they are saying it is a 4 year study and we aren't drawing any official conclusions until the study is over. It's a fair position. 

I think they gave enough information that we are free to draw our own conclusion. Kudos to those working to make a difference. Thanks for posting!


----------



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

Just another napkin meeting in Richfield


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

Did anyone ask if the rivers are maintaining their courses because the coyotes are being removed from the ecosystem?

Maybe a better question is whether or not someone asked the question in a British accent?

http://utahwildlife.net/forum/29-other-kinds-animals/74393-wolves-changing-rivers.html


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Wait, how can the deer herd increase? Didn't we just hear a few months ago how they were all slaughtered?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Let me begin by saying the this meeting was VERY informative and non-confrontational. In fact, we were told from the beginning that this was NOT the time or place to discuss policy and that's what the RAC's and Wildlife Board meetings were for. Inevitably, of course, there were still questions about how the data would effect managing/hunting the deer herds and in every case the presenter said we would have to take that up with the division. And whenever Kevin responded he again reminded us of the RAC process. Also, throughout all of the presentations, we were told in various ways the these were controlled, scientific studies with established time limits and that the results couldn't/shouldn't be considered conclusive or applicable at this time or at any point short of the time limit. There are just too many variables that could change the results from year to year, plus the scientific community will scrutinize these studies and the data and there would be too much to lose for the individuals and the universities if they were sloppy.

Now, for some disclaimers regarding my response. I didn't take such copious notes as did DeLoss and will have to rely mostly on my memory which is pretty good, but far from perfect. Also, since I represented UWC, I'll just tell you what happened without comment other than to say that I viewed it as a completely honest presentation and discussion without any agendas other than to get the data that nature provided. Admittedly, there have been some attempts outside of this presentation by various people to influence the interpretation of the results even this early, but in every case I'm aware of, the response from the BYU biologists and/or the DWR has been the same as we heard in this presentation. It's too early and we need to allow the biologists to do their job, that's why we hired them.

Now back to the meeting;

DeLoss pretty well summed it up and there isn't much I could add, but some further information may help you see it in the long term.

This Monroe study is actually 3 studies;

1) USU via David Stoner, Postdoctoral Research Fellow and crew are currently in the 19th year of a 20 year male cougar study (which also includes a study on the Oquirrhs). It's long term because cougars are hard to capture and study because of they are solitary, long-lived, they live in rough country, they can reproduce all year, populations parallel deer populations with a gap as wide as 8 years and populations also follow wet/dry cycles which last from 6 to 12 years. Male cougars are captured, examined and tested, then radio-collared and monitored. I asked about the females, but the presenter admitted that they weren't a direct part of the study. (Maybe I was able to put enough of a bug in his ear to consider future studies.)

2) USU/USDA (Wildlife Services) via Julie Young Phd. Supervisory Research Wildlife Biologist, and crew are currently beginning the 3rd year of a 4 year coyote study. This study is more closely related to and coordinated with the fawn study below. For one portion of the study, coyotes, both male and female, are captured, examined and tested and radio-collared and monitored. At this point they have collared 52 and are now tracking 29 coyotes from 16 different packs. (The difference is due to missing and dead coyotes and dead radios.) The other portion of the study relates to the fawn study below in that some coyotes in the north (treatment) area of the fawn study were killed in order to determine coyote predation on the fawns. In 2012 there were 54 killed and 40 in 2013 in the north area, and 21 so far in 2014 in the south area which will now become the treatment area instead of the control area.

3) BYU via Brock McMillan Phd. and Eric Freeman and crew are in the 3rd year of a 4 year study of mule deer fawn survival rate. To obtain the data, does are captured and a vaginal radio implant is inserted which will drop out with the fawn(s) at birth and will double it's emission impulse rate when it cools. The biologists then wait 4 to 6 hours in order for the mother and fawn(s) to bond, then they locate the fawn(s) (sometimes it's not easy) and examine and radio collar the fawn with an expandable collar and then monitor the fawn(s). In order to make this study scientifically viable they have to collar 60 fawns per year and they've done that and more. 

That's basically how the mechanics of the studies work.

Now, as to the results so far and the answers to the questions, I'll have to put you on hold for a bit, but I'll get back to you. I've got some honeydo's. Thanks.

Lee Tracy (UWC)


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Thanks for posting.


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

Looks like the study shows that predators kill prey. I knew it!!!

M73,

Thank you to you and your dad for your work on this and posting. Very interesting. Sincerely appreciated.


----------



## reb8600 (Sep 8, 2007)

So they killed 94 coyotes in 2 years and the deer herd increased by 2300. They are claiming that is because of the coyotes killed?? I call bull on that one. Even though they killed 94 coyotes, there were probably more than that born over that time period. You can kill 75 percent of the coyotes and they will replenish.

Based on that information then every herd in the state should have increased by over whelming numbers if thousands of coyotes were killed the last few years. Unfortunately it isnt true. Thousands of coyotes have been killed every year for a long time with no significant increase in the deer numbers. I personally feel the study is a waste of time and false information/results.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Hey, researchers still have jobs after they find conclusive evidence, don't they? Just askin'...


----------



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

reb8600 said:


> So they killed 94 coyotes in 2 years and the deer herd increased by 2300. They are claiming that is because of the coyotes killed?? I call bull on that one. Even though they killed 94 coyotes, there were probably more than that born over that time period. You can kill 75 percent of the coyotes and they will replenish.
> 
> Based on that information then every herd in the state should have increased by over whelming numbers if thousands of coyotes were killed the last few years. Unfortunately it isnt true. Thousands of coyotes have been killed every year for a long time with no significant increase in the deer numbers. I personally feel the study is a waste of time and false information/results.


Everyone has there own opinions and I agree money could be better spent..... cough habitat........ but nonetheless money is being spent here. I guess it didn't do any harm even if money was wasted.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Everyone has there own opinions and I agree money could be better spent..... cough habitat........ but nonetheless money is being spent here. I guess it didn't do any harm even if money was wasted.


 I believe all the funds are coming from sources outside of the DWR, but the question wasn't asked. I'll check into it.


----------



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

elkfromabove said:


> I believe all the funds are coming from sources outside of the DWR, but the question wasn't asked. I'll check into it.


Still money could be better spent, and I believe $5 was added to ever big game tag I buy for coyote control so that is division money. In reality it is me and all Utah sportsmen paying for it so ya you could say the money's coming from somewhere else.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

That is statewide coyote control, not just this study.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Speaking of state wide coyote control.

Since the start of the $50 bounty, combine with arial and non-bounty kills,
There has benn OVER 10,000 COYOTE's hit the ground in Utah!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyone not thiinking this will NOT help this year durning fawning/calving season,


IS nuttz--------.....


----------



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

TS30 said:


> That is statewide coyote control, not just this study.


It's all tied in to SFW and the DWR and the money we are all spending. It's all a part of the Utah "coyote control" that is going on right now, so it's just as much a part of it as this study. I don't think killing 10,000+ coyotes can hurt that's for sure, but I am unsure of how substantially it will help.

PS- And Goofy did you ever answer my PM.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Still money could be better spent, and I believe $5 was added to ever big game tag I buy for coyote control so that is division money. In reality it is me and all Utah sportsmen paying for it so ya you could say the money's coming from somewhere else.


 I guess if you extrapolate the funding far enough, we're all paying for EVERYTHING any government agency is involved in whether we like it or not. And in some form or another they are involved in EVERY monetary transaction the takes place.

As to whether or not this is money well spent, regardless of the outcome, we should have enough definitive info to make that decision in order to keep the process going or shut it down. In either case, we'll be better off.

Regarding this specific issue, during the presentation, I raised my hand in an attempt to ask a question about how the $50 bounty removals play into her coyote statistics, but Kevin wanted to move on in order to get it all in before 9:00. So after the presentations I got a chance to talk to Julie in the breakout session of the meeting and there happened to be a couple of trappers who were discussing the difficulties of killing coyotes who are getting smart enough to recognize the sound of the helicopters as a sign of danger and who no longer respond to callers. I had them stick around for my question and we learned from Julie that she only hears from the $50 bounty hunters/trappers when they catch one with a collar. She had no idea how many were actually removed, but said she would contact the division regarding it from now on.

I also told her who I was and what we were doing with the updates and asked her to send me emails. DeLoss overheard us talking and suggested that she get together with Brock and just send one update on both the USU coyote and BYU deer aspects of the study(ies). And she said she would. Right now there isn't much going on with those studies because we're in somewhat of a lull with the near-adult fawns, but I'll pass along any updates I get.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Repeated studies and reports have shown that wild predators kill more deer in Utah than anything else. Tied for 2nd is auto kills of deer and deer killed by hunters. So hunters kill less than 1/3 of the deer that die in Utah each year. Go figure!


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Lets go kill every single coyote out there. Then what? Will Sasquatch be the next excuse the deer population isn't growing? Interesting that the pro sfw crowd is ignoring the fact that we have now had THREE mild winters in these study areas and and forget that many coyotes live where deer do not.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> elkfromabove drove up from Cedar, I hope he will share what he found significant as well.
> 
> From EFA; I'll break this long post into shorter replies so that it's easier to read and respond to. And I'll rely a lot on the handouts more than my memory, so I can get it right and so you know I'm not trying to spin the data toward some agenda, one way or another. Also, some of it may differ from DC's info, but he already acknowledged that as do I. It'll take me a while. Thanks.
> 
> ...


That's enough for now, Lee Tracy
United Wildlife Cooperative
Southern Region Chair


----------



## reb8600 (Sep 8, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Speaking of state wide coyote control.
> 
> Since the start of the $50 bounty, combine with arial and non-bounty kills,
> There has benn OVER 10,000 COYOTE's hit the ground in Utah!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> ...


And how many have been killed every year for the last 10 years prior to the bounty? People have been hunting and trapping them for a long time. Not just since the bounty. Gunning from the air has been happening for a long time also, not just since the bounty program started and not in the mountains where it would really help the deer.

I read something a while back that there were not that many more coyotes killed since the bounty started when compared to before the bounty. Of course there will not be many records with good information prior to the bounty. The fact remains that if you kill a lot of coyotes, mother nature will replenish them.

Also, the numbers for the bounty include all coyotes that were killed from other states also. Anyone that believes all of those were killed in Utah
IS nuttz--------:grin:.....


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

The numbers show that on the Monroe fawn survival was significantly higher on the portion of the unit that the coyotes where addressed. This would go in hand with other studies done. Is it a fix all? No. But if you can show a 40%+ increase in fawn survival it would be NUTZ to no continue the study and even expand it to other areas. 

Again lets look at the actual results instead of who's involved politically. Do you want more deer??? Or is it more important to prove the SFW wrong? I know the answer for myself. Like I've said before I'd set down and buy the devil himself drinks and visit all night if I thought it would bring our deer herds back!


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

^^^**** fine admission. FINALLY!

When a biologist (not a division biologist, but one trying to make it in the world and develop a name in the wildlife management community) says they don't attribute fawn survival to the weather and then jump straight to coyotes as the primary, its suspect. Hell, there's hardly a mention of habitat playing a roll and road kills. I will agree to wait the next couple years for everything suspect in my mind to balance out or be adequately explained by published data before I hang anyone out to dry unless they respond with organizational talking points or drivel. Big thanks for DC and Lee for reporting the info to us.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

8) A few thoughts.

I feel a bit vindicated.

^ (reb) Wow a coyote hunter that thinks we should just leave it up to the "pro's" to do the killing for us. That's a shock. Sounds a lot like vanwilder and a few other big yote guys around here. Then they say it has no effect on the populations and its a waste of money. BS! Then why do they hate the program so bad? 

Habitat? Seriously habitat? Even in this very thread it cant be avoided as the answer to our deer ills. We are concerned about wasting money, then mention habitat as the answer? 1-I? Seriously? Your a thinking man I know it. You even live at the bottom of the greatest mule deer laboratory that exists. There has been more habitat restoration and predator studies on elk and deer then any other unit in the state when you combine all those factors. Take the info from those studies combined with common sense and realize the unit has seen a steady decline for 30 yr and not until the deer population had hit near bottom. (around 04-08) then the cougar population after that, then the coyote reduction, did we see a nearly 50% increase in the deer herd in 2 yrs. And something like a 60% success rate on the buck deer hunts. You may be floating down a river in Egypt my friend. ;-)

Now cougar and the houndsman. Time after time study after study shows that cougar kill deer. And they kill lots of them. What has been posted on this thread backs the approx 1 deer per week figure. So as always it defies me to understand why we don't do a better job at knowing how many cougar are out there. I know we will never know an exact number but I'd rather see the DWR spend a million per yr to find that out then some of the do nothing habitat work that has taken place. If you knew how many cougar you had then you could make a plan that facilitated a general hunt and still let houndsman do there thing. Instead we do a BS acreage extrapolation to get an estimation that has really little to no true bearing on the cougar population. Oh yah then we ask houndsman if things are good. That's fine and dandy because they know far far more about whats going on cat wise so it makes sense to get there input. But I've never heard a hondsman publicly say that we have plenty of cats. Only in the past tense will they say something like that. So we need to understand the interest of houndsman in the past is a direct detriment to the general deer hunters interest. Having maximum or capacity cougars does not facilitate a large general deer hunt as we have had in the past. So if we continue on this path we will have less cougar and less tags to fight over because there are less deer. It's simple math really. We only recruit so many fawns per yr to into the herd cant have predators and humans killing more than that number. And thats if we dont have bad weather. Sadly the human hunter is the first one we look to to take from. 

Lets not forget the 2000 cougar in Utah are killing around 100,000 deer per year.

I also figured we should be killing females and young toms instead of old toms in terms of what would be the best for the deer and controlling or reducing the cougar population.

Weather? Really Klbzdad? So has the rest of the states deer herd increased across the board? As much as 50%? Or was the weather exceptional on the Monroe? Just 3 yrs ago supposedly the Monroe had a terrible winter kill. (BS!) Problem with the weather theories are you can easily see that weather patterns have not varied that greatly in the past 75 yrs. Utah has always had hot dry summers and cold wet winters. But for some reason Mule deer are extremely susceptible to weather while all other species are not. Give me a break. Mule deer are as hardy as they come. They can carve out a living in just about every single acre in Utah except for pavement and salt flat. Which is more than can be said for any other big game species. ;-) :grin: 


Lastly coyotes. I'm still not totally convinced that coyotes play as big as a role that some would have us believe. I do however believe they are worth addressing. I'm satisfied with the bounty program. I donate $20 every yr to the predator control program. I like it when a heli crew comes and kills 50 yotes out of my hunting grounds. But I do believe it takes a heli crew plus lots of pressure from the public to keep the coyotes in check then I'm still not sure it can be sustained. I wonder if capacity cougar helps or hinder coyote populations. Cougar are putting about 1 ton of meat on the ground per week on Monroe. Mentioned was coyotes being killed by cougars while stealing food. I bet it does not happen at that great of frequency otherwise I would think the coyote would avoid such a life threatening meal. So does that 2000 pounds of meat contribute to a higher coyote population? 

Anyways thanks for the update on the studies. 8);-):grin:


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

What is killing most of the deer in the transplant studies? Roads? Habitat? Poachers? Hunters? Housing? Weather? ATV's? 

Oh yah its predators. Just sayin.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

One of the things we have to realize regarding predation is that predators take the easiest ones they can get to and that may, indeed, involve the weather and /or habitat. A deer caught in a deep snow drift is easier pickens as is a malnourished deer or an exhausted deer who's traveling in deep snow or a hypothermic deer or a dehydrated deer or a solitary deer having to feed in the open. The actual cause of death? Cougars or coyotes, obviously! Or is it? The biologists have to attribute the cause of death to the FINAL cause of death, but there are underlying causes leading to it.

The current Parowan/Pahvant transplants aren't telling us that there are 5 times as many cougars and coyotes just for the transplanted deer, as there are for the resident deer simply because 50% of the transplanted deer have died while only 10% of the resident deer have died. It's the difference in the deer, not the cougars and coyotes.

These studies have targeted only the north area for 2 relatively mild weather years and have indeed shown some differences in the north and south areas, but we need to continue the studies for 2 more years targeting the south area before we make further decisions regarding deer management, especially statewide.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Sorry to upset the houndsmen and cougar hunters but the quickest and easiest way to restore/improve deer and elk herds are to take out at least half of the cougar population in the state. That isn't conjecture, that's fact.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

EFA, Yes it is very complex. In the same token that poor habitat may result in poor body condition leading to increased predation on certain segments of the herd. High predator populations too contribute to poor body conditions in winter. 

If one thinks a **** hillbilly looking for sheds during daylight hours on the weekends for a month causes deer stress imagine what a cougar lurking 24/7 all winter does to the tranquility of a deer herd. A cougar that actually makes kills not stumbles around the sage looking at the ground with a cig hanging out its mouth.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

LostLouisianian said:


> Sorry to upset the houndsmen and cougar hunters but the quickest and easiest way to restore/improve deer and elk herds are to take out at least half of the cougar population in the state. That isn't conjecture, that's fact.


THAT ALREADY HAPPED ! TWICE OVER !!!!!!

Were u been?


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

The study areas where hard data shows deer population increases, yes, WEATHER! Not sure about the rest of the state other than to say that the mild winters over the last two years haven't been killing deer. Even sfw clan admit that the population crash, at least the largest crash for our mule deer was the harsh winters back in the 90s. We have great habitat where there aren't any deer yet in those places, coyotes thrive because their diet isn't ungulate exclusive. Hell, they like grasshoppers A LOT! Still, once hard data is published, then we can have a "told ya so" session.

I'm going to do something painful here and agree with goofy. While lions kill their share (pun avoided....kinda) there are far fewer cats than just five or six years ago. I've just now started reading about lions and learning about them, but I'll hold out on them until the current study concludes.

Its Friday, time for pie.

EDITED: Wanted to add this article written by the Division's Anis Aoude. Note that extreme winter weather is the primary cause stated by some pretty smart people as Anis points out. Follow the references, pay for the material, enjoy:

http://news.wildlife.org/twp/2012-winter/working-group-takes-on-mule-deer/


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

^^^ It wouldnt be "painful" to agree if you had seen what I have in 40 + years of
of hunting in Utah.... Kinda funny on this forum, I post ALOT of facts some
folks dont like......And dis-agree with,,,,Glad to see your on board with this KLB^^


----------



## reb8600 (Sep 8, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> 8) A few thoughts.
> 
> I feel a bit vindicated.
> 
> ^ (reb) Wow a coyote hunter that thinks we should just leave it up to the "pro's" to do the killing for us. That's a shock. Sounds a lot like vanwilder and a few other big yote guys around here. Then they say it has no effect on the populations and its a waste of money. BS! Then why do they hate the program so bad?


Where in any of my posts did I say "leave it up to the pro's". Maybe you should read my posts again. I said I dont believe that the 94 coyotes they killed is the reason for the increase. In fact I believe that was the "pro's" as you put it that killed those. In fact here it is right out of your post about using "pro's"



Iron Bear said:


> Lastly coyotes. I'm still not totally convinced that coyotes play as big as a role that some would have us believe. I do however believe they are worth addressing. I'm satisfied with the bounty program. I donate $20 every yr to the predator control program. I like it when a heli crew comes and kills 50 yotes out of my hunting grounds. But I do believe it takes a heli crew plus lots of pressure from the public to keep the coyotes in check then I'm still not sure it can be sustained.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Sorry Reb, For some reason I thought you were poo pooing the coyote bounty program. My bad.

Sure there are less cougar then ever before. Umm there are less deer then ever before. We learned or confirmed that the cougar population mirrors the deer population although there can be a lag as many as six years. 

So cougar have a tendency to over populate while deer herds are in decline. Exacerbating the decline of prey until populations and alternative prey dry up then cougar starve or move out. And this is not accounting for all the other factors that kill deer like coyote hunters road winter ect.

Fine and dandy if we weren't trying to let 100,000 hunter go afield every fall. Let's face it the deer are not really in trouble biologically speaking. They are not endangered threatened or anywhere near it. The issue with the deer herd is with hunters. Not enough for hunters. So If the DWR isn't going to make policy to help facilitate hunters. I'd lobby to have the DWR dissolved and let counties issue a few hundred tags. Like 5000 statewide. More like the number of deer that humans killed per yr presettlement. Let local law enforcement handle poaching and if the universities in Utah wanted to put on studies they would be welcome to it. Although we would have to still issue a whole bunch of elk tags unless we get some wolf down here to do culling as hunters do today. Like hunters used to have to do with deer before LE cougar and a ban on 1080. 

Anyways the cougar population needs to be manged on a per deer basis not per acre. I like a ratio of 1 cougar per 500 deer maximum. And then let hunters harvest to herd objectives. 

Again lets not forget the 2000 cougar in Utah kill 100,000 deer per yr here.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Goofy,

Wasn't as painful as I may have made it sound. Spoke with an outfitter yesterday. He suggested the same thing IB is suggesting concerning the lion population mirroring what is happening with the deer population. HOWEVER, he also said that running through the trees with the dogs he has see more deer and elk in the last two years on ground his family have hunted for decades and anticipates a slight uptick if outfitters and tagholders will hold out for more mature cats. 

I also asked him what he thought about cats being educated. He said that some cats do get wiser to the dogs and human sounds and are very good at avoidance, but they don't ignore being hungry. That gets them every time. Reading some interesting biology on cats including bobcats. I'll never ignore that, "I'm being watched" feeling in the woods again!


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

It's always kinda fun to read so many views on predator/prey relationships, especially when another study is in the works. I'll wait until this particular one is completed before I coment on it specifically.

There are, however, two indisputable facts regarding predators (specifically cougar and coyote) and mule deer: 1: They both kill deer, from fawn to adult. 2: NO ONE knows for sure how that predation effects long term mule deer population dynamics.

In addition, NO ONE knows for sure how HUNTING effects the population dynamics of cougars. What happens when the oldest, most stable Toms and Females are taken out of a sink population? What happens when most mature Toms are taken from a source population? Does that effect overall population growth on a metapopulation/spacial scale? And if so, is it due to cub recruitment only, or do other perameters become involved? And, when the overall source population age of the cats drops as well as the number of females increase, how does that effect deer population dynamics?

Predator population dynamics understanding is still in it's infantcy state with regards to relating that knowledge to management with ungulates in mind. The problem is that game agencies are being forced to make decisions that are realistically decades away-NOW-even though they simply don't have enough information to make the best science based decisions. Predators are tangible, and can easily be pointed to as an immediate 'fix' to help deer populations, or so it would seem according to some conservation groups, individuals, and government agencies.

Some evidence is pointing to predators negatively effecting mule deer population growth under certain circumstances; but nothing has been shown that predators can effect spacial wide deer populations enough to substantially reduce or stagnate growth, but who knows?

Let's just say that it is finally scientifically PROVEN that...umm...just cougars are the reason for the mule deer decline and retarded growth. Just what exactly do we as hunters expect our game agencies to do about it, given the politically active move of many, many radical and not so radical 'green' groups, and the current 'attitude' of the general pupulace towards predators? I don't think it would turn out so well for hunters, but I could be way off base...:shock:


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> elkfromabove drove up from Cedar, I hope he will share what he found significant as well.
> 
> From EFA: I've numbered the questions to make it easier for me to respond. See my previous posts.
> 
> ...


 Sorry, but I'll have to get back to this later this evening. Lee


----------



## 5pointbull (Mar 4, 2014)

I've got to say, I've hunted the plateau boulder are for deer for the last 13 years(dedicated hunter) the first 3 years in the early 2000s were phenomenal, and then the quality started to drop, to the point in 2012 we were seeing 10% of the deer we saw when we started hunting there, Than came 2013, and wow what drastic change. It was like a light switched more bucks, more does, and most impressive of all, the fawns! I'm buying in to this coyote program.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

^^^^again, unprecedented summer vegetation with almost daily rain with mild winters and light snow on winter range have nothing to do with fawn survival? And from 2013 to the following year a sudden "explosion" of mature deer and fawns? Nope, not the weather at all.


----------



## Roadlesshunter (Mar 2, 2012)

You habit freaks are just as bad as climate change freaks. Man made global warming is a hoax plan a simple. Predators kill deer if we kill more predators then we have more deer that is simple math. Quit blaming the deer decline on habitat that is also a hoax. The deer population is too low to even have an impact on the current habitat.


----------



## 5pointbull (Mar 4, 2014)

You also are having a year following a coyote bounty, ooohh but that must have nothing to do with it, I got news for you in the last 13 years there have been other years of weather and they weren't followed by a population growth.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

It would be much too simple-minded for anyone to conclude that the mule deer population is on the decline pretty much everywhere in the west only do to predators. Just like it would be much too simple-minded to conclude that it is all due to habitat, or changing climate. (or any other single reason that can be factored in, for that matter) 

The fact of the matter is that it is "all of the above." However, predators are one thing we have the ability to control. We can't control habitat for the most part (unless you are planning on knocking down a hundred thousand houses along the Wasatch Front) and you certainly can't control harsh vs mild winters and how the forage grows. But we can impact predators. So the question becomes: Is the effort worth it? I don't have the answer to that. But this study on the Monroe when it is all said and done might shed some light upon that. So why not wait and see the final results?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

5pointbull said:


> You also are having a year following a coyote bounty, ooohh but that must have nothing to do with it, I got news for you in the last 13 years there have been other years of weather and they weren't followed by a population growth.


Actually, there have been&#8230;.go back and reexamine the numbers.


----------



## 5pointbull (Mar 4, 2014)

I am talking about the area I hunt? Based on 3 weapon seasons, I ain't talking about number sheets? I'm talking about personal field experience, I know what I've seen, and last year was the only improved deer numbers in the last 13 years, that was also noticed by my whole hunting party. By the way the boulder doesn't have issues with habitat loss. And I am not saying that water is void of the improvement. I am saying I seen the only improvement year for deer numbers followed a coyote bounty year. Plus, it's the first year I didn't see a coyote, I usually see multiples, perhaps they were eating flowers.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

So what caused the rise in deer numbers in the late '80s, early '90s, followed by the big collapse? What about the same thing happening in the early 2000s? They looked like smaller mirror images of the early '80s, no?

Mule deer are currently on the rise across the West, and increased fawn survival on part of the Monroe does not mean squat, if it does not extrapolate long term. You can have increased fawn survival after the removal of coyotes in one area, and still not see increases over all, over your control group. This has been shown over and over again. This is why predator study after predator study show coyote and cougar predation to be compensatory. For those that choose to keep ignoring this, this means predation is not the limiting factor of Mule deer. 

Mule deer increased the last 3 years across the West. That includes areas with rising predator numbers, coyote bounties, micro hunt units, general tags, limited entry, cougar objective, wolf areas, the opposite of the before mentioned, etc. Mule deer issues are a macro problem. Yes there is an endless list of things affecting Mule deer, but when collectively, these things begin to look compensatory, just like predation, you have a larger, more singular issue driving all of your smaller issues. This is just the way the world works, and understanding this, and how to trouble shoot these issues using real science, verses repeating 18th century alchemy, is the only way we are going to fix the Mule deer(and many other related) problem. 

Looking to predators to fix the deer problem, or even a piece of it, is akin to pissing in the wind.

And just to keep one step ahead here: "Well then what do you propose we do?"............My answer: This forum has a search function.

Ultimately, sportsmen just don't have the fortitude, to do what needs to be done, on behalf of deer and wildlife. Lets be honest, we don't currently have any Roosevelts, Muirs, Leopolds, or Muries among us. Only sold out politicians that compromise not on behalf of sportsmen and wildlife, but bottom lines, and power structures. And who allows this to continue, as our wildlife and heritage continue to decline? Well, us sportsmen of course. Under the guise of "At least we are doing something", or "At least we're not...insert name of boogie man here...." We falsely worship ash, rather than preserve fire.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Lonetree said:


> Ultimately, sportsmen just don't have the fortitude, to do what needs to be done, on behalf of deer and wildlife..


Lonetree, I have a question and in no way is it intended to start an argument. I guarantee that I will not pursue on or engage into one. It is a legitimate question.....without searching for hours on end and sorting through the many posts you have made regarding this subject....

What is it in your opinion that needs to be done?


----------



## 5pointbull (Mar 4, 2014)

So 6000 coyotes are taken in the program for one year, even if that was one fawn spared per dog taken, I'm not seeing the negative. Even though I didn't see coyotes last year, there are plenty out there. I talked to one particular CWMU operator who can't control the critters no matter how many they kill. I loved his quote: "at the end of the world and the last humans dies there will be coyotes around to clean up the carcasses." Plus that 6000 isn't even the total, there were numerous trappers and hunters who felt the $50 was not worth giving up the gps address of their hunting hot spots.


----------



## reb8600 (Sep 8, 2007)

5pointbull said:


> You also are having a year following a coyote bounty, ooohh but that must have nothing to do with it, I got news for you in the last 13 years there have been other years of weather and they weren't followed by a population growth.


And in those 13 years there were still people hunting coyotes yet no significant increase until a study is done!!!



5pointbull said:


> So 6000 coyotes are taken in the program for one year.


And how many were taken each year prior to the bounty??


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Lonetree, I have a question and in no way is it intended to start an argument. I guarantee that I will not pursue on or engage into one. It is a legitimate question.....without searching for hours on end and sorting through the many posts you have made regarding this subject....
> 
> What is it in your opinion that needs to be done?


It is actually not a legitimate question, because I have directly answered this question from you already.

A question for you: What is the difference between prefacing, and fronting?

BTW, thanks for helping me win _that_ bet. :roll:


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

I recommend standing up wind.

There is some folks that's a seen sumpin.

FYI, and you can look this up for specifics. There were not that many more coyotes killed last year, even with the added 6000 by bounty hunters, compared to USDA numbers for prior years. 

Also, as I have already stated, deer numbers rose everywhere across the West, not just in places with coyote bounties.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Lonetree said:


> It is actually not a legitimate question, because I have directly answered this question from you already.
> 
> A question for you: What is the difference between prefacing, and fronting?
> 
> BTW, thanks for helping me win _that_ bet. :roll:


Other than saying something to the affect of changing the current paradigm, you have never answered that question in a direct manner that I can remember. Could be wrong. Doesn't matter.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Other than saying something to the affect of changing the current paradigm, you have never answered that question in a direct manner that I can remember. Could be wrong. Doesn't matter.


Changing the current paradigm is part of it, so good news, your memory is not completely shot.

"Doesn't matter" That sounds kind of.........anyone......anyone.......:mrgreen:

I will repeat myself again. Lacking definitive evidence of what causes declines, you must first establish that start point, before, anything can be "done". Plenty of emerging science on the subject, but none coming from Utah of course. We just keep recycling the same outdated studies and concepts from the 18th century. And to be fair, that is kind of insulting to many great 18th century scientists.

On a related note of emerging science, and to have some fun on the subject, what causes Pinyon and Juniper encroachment? I have $50 for the correct answer, I will pay cash, check, PayPal, barter, etc. Answer due by midnight. The point of this exercise is multifaceted. It relates to Mule deer, and the speculative answers and ideas about it, verses the factual answer will high light the problems with the current predator debate.

Fortitude: Much like in the 1880s, the answers won't be easy, and the solutions progressive. Like I said, no will or fortitude to do the right thing.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Just to be clear, the $50 offer is open to everyone.

No taxpayer funding involved, and the education of sportsmen actually benefits the sport, wildlife, and our heritage, unlike bounties.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I was hoping for something more concrete rather than more rhetoric. No need to reintroduce me to the same line over and ever.

So to summarize.........sportsmen lack the fortitude to do the right thing.........problem is you and nobody else seems to know precisely what the right thing is other than to change the current approach and course of action.

When you come up with specific methods and concrete ideas you will have my ear. I play enough games with my kids.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> I was hoping for something more concrete rather than more rhetoric. No need to reintroduce me to the same line over and ever.
> 
> So to summarize.........sportsmen lack the fortitude to do the right thing.........problem is you and nobody else seems to know precisely what the right thing is other than to change the current approach and course of action.
> 
> When you come up with specific methods and concrete ideas you will have my ear. I play enough games with my kids.


Same old Brent, nothing new here.

The Pinyon and Juniper encroachment angle is very solid, relates to the issue at hand, and is anything but rhetorical. The answer holds specifics, with possible solutions attached. But as usual, you jump in, and then back out, and then waffle some more, we've seen it over and over again. You will say you are done, and then you will come back in, etc. etc. etc.

We can speculate all about the road we should be on, we know we are lost. But in all practicality, that won't get us anywhere right now. Until we stop heading down the wrong road, and get back to a point where we can change direction based on sound information, here we are.

In other words, throw out the last 30 years of how we have been going about this, and get back to basics. I have posted plenty of information on the subject, more science than most people that read this forum will ever come across. That is not rhetoric, that is fact. There is an ecological collapse that is, and has been occurring across the West for the last 30 years. Where problems of environment, ecology, biology, and weather all merge to create a couple of severe problems, that appear to be hundreds of isolated, smaller problems. Understanding this, what causes it, and what we can do about, gets us where we need to be as sportsmen, with plentiful wildlife, and a future. Continuing down the same road we've been on for the last 30 years, gets us more of the same, it makes things worse not better. That's not rhetoric, and there are plenty of specifics. Selenium, summer rains, nitrate deposition, the loss of Armetesia Frigada, mycorhizea cycles, selective browsing drivers, forb diversity and its affect on protein uptake, habitat lag, and million other rhetorical non specifics I've mentioned here over the years.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

That easy $50 is still up for grabs, $25 a word.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Knowing the name of somebody and knowing the person is two different things. You are trolling without a hook, line or sinker.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Knowing the name of somebody and knowing the person is two different things. You are trolling without a hook, line or sinker.


Because its so easy, you just jump in the boat.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

What causes Pinyon and Juniper encroachment? The correct answer is worth $50. The answer relates to the debate at hand, and how we have been wrongly going about Mule deer management.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

True. I'm always hoping the skipper has something I can sink my teeth into rather than the garbage he continually spews overboard.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

As the west was settled it started to impact the habitat. The loss of sagebrush has opened areas for piñon and juniper encroachment. Humans change an entire ecosystem not just the obvious.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> True. I'm always hoping the skipper has something I can sink my teeth into rather than the garbage he continually spews overboard.


I was expecting better, this is going to be a short night. So you've already said you were done once, already said you were not going to argue once. This is deja vu all over again, typical progression, and off subject as always. Just like with the bigger issue of Mule deer, the current subject matter has nothing to do with reality, or the actual subject, but rather some ones feelings on the matter, or related ideology, or childhood hang ups, or what ever the deeper unrelated issue is. But technically, still part of the problem, while attempting to appear, to be a part of the solution.

Tell your brother Vern says hi!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> As the west was settled it started to impact the habitat. The loss of sagebrush has opened areas for piñon and juniper encroachment. Humans change an entire ecosystem not just the obvious.


Thanks for the reply, not the right answer, but yes we change the entire ecosystem. I'm just looking for that specific change that snow balls from there. I have been told some others that are similar. Also it is the P&J encroachment that ultimately decimates the sagebrush, not the loss of sagebrush that opens the door for the P&J. But yes, the two are very related, and it has an affect on deer.

Thanks.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Of course it does. It's all connected. We all just chose to pull out bits and pieces that happen to support the point we are try of to make at the moment.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Livestock grazing? Fire suppression? Some of both? Soil morphology?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> Of course it does. It's all connected. We all just chose to pull out bits and pieces that happen to support the point we are try of to make at the moment.


What I am getting at is that there is a direct cause and effect mechanism, that drives P&J encroachment. There is one thing that causes the encroachment, and the encroachment then has its own affects, which then have their own affects. We can be looking at 20 things, a loss of sagebrush, no visibility for Bighorns, monoculture, a stunted hydraulic cycle, and wildlife declines because of these things. But ultimately, there is one mechanism that causes the encroachment, and many things that drive that one mechanism. But at that nexus, it is simple, an easily understood crossroads, and explainable phenomenon, that affects and causes affects upon many other things.

The Mule deer issue undoubtedly follows a similar or interconnected course. That is just the way of the world K=K(3) To understand the bigger picture, or affect change upon it, we have to find that point, where it becomes simple. where two things cross, and change is being affected. Until then we are just looking at lots of seemingly unrelated issues, without ultimate solutions.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

nope not part of the solution. I asked out of pure ignorance to it and genuinely hoped for a solution other than "change" and a quiz to further reinforce my ignorance of the plight of the mule deer. Other than knowing that "habitat" is the problem, I won't and haven't pretended to have the answer or answers. If you had it I would think that it wouldn't take too many trips to those in control to convince them. 

Hand me a shovel I will dig. Give me a shrub I will plant it. Give me a plan I will build. Tell me that a fence needs pulled down I put on my gloves. Define the cause I will donate. Tell me I don't have the answers I will agree.

If you have found a solution provide one. Or many. Otherwise I am calling BS. Recognizing problems and providing solutions are two different steps.

I am sure you expect better. I on the other hand expect ANYTHING. Please do share your S O L U T I O N.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Howdy LT, been a while. Hope things are going well for you. Seems to me the proliferaton of PJ was the result of a 'perfect' storm, so to speak. A period of unusual wet years in conjunction with livestock being introduced to the land and a reduction in fire frequency, all occurring at the right time for the woodlands to thrive for a few decades. What we ended up with over of period of about 50 years was the PJ encroaching into big sagebrush steppes resulting in a huge loss of perennial herbacious plants (sagebrush), forbs, etc. and a change in the fire frequency. Once the trees reached around 50 percent cover, it was nearly impossible for the understory plants to rebound after soil disturbance. Instead, the existing soil moisture and nutriants was an open invitation for weeds like cheatgrass to take hold. There's talk about co2 levels having a role, but I don't see the correlation through the entire processes.

Anyway, don't know about the 25 bucks a word thing, but I'll have to go with a period of above average moisture (water) and soil disturbance (livestock). The change in fire regime is the third part. It's all a big jigsaw puzzle with all the pieces related to the completed work, from one end of the board to the other... ;-)


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

TS30 said:


> Livestock grazing? Fire suppression? Some of both? Soil morphology?


Awesome, another adult. Without giving it away, one of those is so very, very close.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

stillhunterman said:


> Howdy LT, been a while. Hope things are going well for you. Seems to me the proliferaton of PJ was the result of a 'perfect' storm, so to speak. A period of unusual wet years in conjunction with livestock being introduced to the land and a reduction in fire frequency, all occurring at the right time for the woodlands to thrive for a few decades. What we ended up with over of period of about 50 years was the PJ encroaching into big sagebrush steppes resulting in a huge loss of perennial herbacious plants (sagebrush), forbs, etc. and a change in the fire frequency. Once the trees reached around 50 percent cover, it was nearly impossible for the understory plants to rebound after soil disturbance. Instead, the existing soil moisture and nutriants was an open invitation for weeds like cheatgrass to take hold. There's talk about co2 levels having a role, but I don't see the correlation through the entire processes.
> 
> Anyway, don't know about the 25 bucks a word thing, but I'll have to go with a period of above average moisture (water) and soil disturbance (livestock). The change in fire regime is the third part. It's all a big jigsaw puzzle with all the pieces related to the completed work, from one end of the board to the other... ;-)


Way, way, way closer. With the answer actually in there. All that of course fits in, and if I was giving partial credit, I'd owe you $25.

That's just it, we are looking at 20 different, seemingly unrelated issues, with one singular cause.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

stillhunterman said:


> co2


Greenhouse Gas.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Greenhouse Gas.


Yes, Co2, but how?


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

What he is freaking him hawing about is let
Wildfire cause CO2 not cars. Flip side though
Is cheat grass. 
sage and aspen are taking a butt whooping. 
It's as good a theory as any I guess.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

GBell said:


> What he is freaking him hawing about is let
> Wildfire cause CO2 not cars. Flip side though
> Is cheat grass.
> sage and aspen are taking a butt whooping.
> It's as good a theory as any I guess.


We are on both sides of the equation here, but not at that point where everything connects. And no theories on this one, its backed up, and supported.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

here is a link that I have found again. I am ignorant as a whole to the entire ecology of it all and don't have a solution. I read into this about a year ago while trying to learn myself up on the greenhouse effect. This explains thing better than I can for sure. Not sure if it is what you are after or not.

http://healthylandethic.com/2012/12/02/juniper-the-plant-we-love-to-hate/


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Lonetree said:


> Yes, Co2, but how?


acid rain


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Someone owes someone else $50.00. Just sayin'.....


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> here is a link that I have found again. I am ignorant as a whole to the entire ecology of it all and don't have a solution. I read into this about a year ago while trying to learn myself up on the greenhouse effect. This explains thing better than I can for sure. Not sure if it is what you are after or not.
> 
> http://healthylandethic.com/2012/12/02/juniper-the-plant-we-love-to-hate/


Yep, I owe you $50. Thanks! That didn't sound right :mrgreen: Yet the DWR "plant guy" and others that are supposed to be in the know, and actually affect policy, will tell you **** like "It all started when the steel fence post was invented" What else are they missing? And why?

So here is a group of guys on a Wednesday night, on the internet(you know someone is in their underwear), that know better.

Let me know where and how to pay up.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Copy and paste time, I wrote this earlier, I type slow. 


So with Pinyon and Juniper encroachment, the specific “thing” that causes the encroachment, is the greenhouse gas Co2. This causes the Pinyon and Juniper trees to spread. This is not because of the green house qualities of Co2, and a warmer climate, though that surely plays a role. But Co2 deposition fertilizing the soil, and causing a “green up” affect in arid regions. This phenomenon has been observed around the globe, with an increase in the last 30 years. The Co2 fertilization affect has been in affect for the last 100 years. Simply observing this “green up” does not prove anything, except that an area is greening up. Correlation is not causation. But if you time lapse that green up with satellite imagery, over several decades, come up with a metric to quantify it, and then correlate that data with the measurable rise in atmospheric Co2, you can than cite a cause. One of the particulars of this phenomenon, is that Co2 fertilization, does not cause P&J(woody green plants world wide) encroachment everywhere. But specifically in arid areas, where the addition of Co2 to the soil will have a fertilization affect. 


So its not the 20 things the DWR tells us, or all the other wives tales we have heard. This is a very big, global problem, that does not come with easy solutions. But at least we know what the problem is, no need to waste money on Pinyon bounties, or anything along those lines. The more we understand what causes this to affect one area over another, the better we can manage because of that knowledge. Rather than just stabbing in the dark.


So what does this have to do with Mule deer? Or Mule deer and predator control? Well, besides how the P&J encroachment affects Mule deer habitat directly, it has a lot in common. On one side of the coin, we have things that create Co2, and other the other side we all the things that P&J encroachment causes, and affects. A multitude of issues on either side, seemingly unrelated, with one point of intersection, that affects it all. We know that point in the case of P&J encroachment, we don't know that exact point in the case of Mule deer. But there are things, that narrow the field and get us closer to that intersection point, where change can be affected. 


Is it Co2 fertilization? Probably not, though that affect may have played into early booms. Seems to me Bitter brush, and everything else in the apple family is a woody green plant. With predator control you can produce some short term gains, but you can't affect the long term trend line. This is borne out in many studies. Habitat improvements produce better gains, but again these are short term and localized, and don't seem to have lasting power. They are at least multi year gains, unlike the much shorter(seasonal) gains of predator control, that are even realized over a year. So food, and nutrition, pretty obvious that these are important. So why aren't we offering $50 bounties to plant habitat? Well I have to admit, some of the “habitat improvements don't work” crowd, do have some things to point to. Yet we know that quality plants(food), and habitat, have the greatest affect on deer. Why do deer in some places with lots of “quality” food not do all that well(compared to past performance)?, but deer in places that don't fit the model of Mule deer quality habitat, produce lots of deer, and monsters to boot? Why are deer so much more selective in their browsing, durring years when their numbers are down, but don't seem to be as particular in their browsing, when their numbers are stable or rising? 


What makes “quality” Mule deer food? Is it just what type of plant it is, or is it the nutrition that is provided by said “quality” plant? Somewhere in all of it, there is an intersection, where two things meet, a divide where direct change is being affected, where the things flow South, verses North. We have shown ourselves over and over again, that that intersection is not where predators cross prey, and its not where deer cross plants, yet we can show that the point where deer cross habitat, is much closer to that mythical intersection we are looking for. There are many specifics that lay in this realm, that look to be much closer the point we are looking for. The last 30 years of wildlife management, and those that drive it, just like the wives tales about P&J encroachment, just don't add up.


And just because the issue at the root of the Mule deer problem is probably just as big as the one behind P&J encroachment, with solutions probably being even harder to obtain. Does in no way mean we don't go there, or look deeper. Not for political expedience or ease, ideology, fiefdom maintenance, or any other ridiculous reason. Did Roosevelt turn a blind eye to the rape of Yellowstone, maybe make some deals for his own gain, while allowing it to happen? No he did the hard and unpopular thing thing, he sent in the troops.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> From EFA: Well, on with this nonsense from Utah!
> 
> 14) Nobody is actually out counting mule deer to determine total population, how to you come up with your estimate of total deer on a unit? I'm asking this because I would like to know if there is any correlation between total coyote carrying capacity and the fawn survival abilities of a deer herd when it approaches total unit carrying capacity. Do you believe there is a correlation and if so, what would it be? When a deer herd reaches some thing near total carrying capacity on a unit, can it support a coyote population that has reached it's carrying capacity. Does this ever happen in the real world or only in theory?
> 
> ...


 It's late! I gotta get some sleep.
See ya later!
Lee Tracy (UWC)


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Regardless of what everyone believes, or has been told, predator reduction has been tried. It has not been shown to raise over all trend lines. We'll see where we are in 5 years. PHds don't mean ****, some of the best people in this field have been un-papered. 

Further more, if we have too many predators, why is that? Coyotes are not the primary predator of mule deer. That would indicate a larger problem, so why not look there? You can keep putting bandaids on, or stop cutting yourself.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Lonetree said:


> Let me know where and how to pay up.


 Thanks a bunch. A credit card donation to unitedwildlifecooperative.org will suffice. If that's not possible, email me at [email protected]sn.com. Lee

Now, how do we as sportsmen solve the problem? Are we gonna hafta actually cooperate? That may take a miracle, so I guess I better get started if I want to see it in my lifetime.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

elkfromabove said:


> Thanks a bunch. A credit card donation to unitedwildlifecooperative.org will suffice. If that's not possible, email me at [email protected]. Lee
> 
> Now, how do we as sportsmen solve the problem? Are we gonna hafta actually cooperate? That may take a miracle, so I guess I better get started if I want to see it in my lifetime.


If that is where Mr. Muleskinner wants it to go, that's his choice. I wasn't aware the UWC still existed.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Well look who's back out of hibernation.:shock:
Welcome back Lonetree.
How was the cabin?
Any pictures of anything you've killed since last fall?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Lonetree said:


> If that is where Mr. Muleskinner wants it to go, that's his choice. I wasn't aware the UWC still existed.


I told you to give me a shovel and I will dig. I am not looking for confrontation. If you know anything about me know this, I am 100% a solution oriented guy. I have a policy with my employees that for every one problem they bring me they also have to bring me three solutions or at least three partial remedies. I do not allow people to just bring me problems. I am more than happy to help find a solution but I require input on the solution. I have had this policy for as long as I can remember.

BTW I too thought the UWC was extinct. Until I see or hear something productive from it I will consider it to be so. I would roll up my sleeves with them as well.


----------



## 5pointbull (Mar 4, 2014)

Has anyone else seen the video, Tines Up had on Facebook of a coyote pack taking down a full grown healthy Muley doe in southern Utah?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Personally I don't think predation has had near the negative impact that many others do. Predation has been a factor for many many years prior to substantial settlement of the west by man. Deer populations go up so do cats and vice versa. The coyote can regulate it populations whether they are heavily hunted or not. They have the ability from everything that I have read to increase output as needed. Once again I am no biologist. I also thought at one time that for every dead dog or cat there was a direct correlation to the deer population. I don't believe that anymore.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> I told you to give me a shovel and I will dig. I am not looking for confrontation. If you know anything about me know this, I am 100% a solution oriented guy. I have a policy with my employees that for every one problem they bring me they also have to bring me three solutions or at least three partial remedies. I do not allow people to just bring me problems. I am more than happy to help find a solution but I require input on the solution. I have had this policy for as long as I can remember.
> 
> BTW I too thought the UWC was extinct. Until I see or hear something productive from it I will consider it to be so. I would roll up my sleeves with them as well.


 So, this thread and my attendance at the meeting, and our participation at the Parowan Front transplants (another one coming up this Saturday and Sunday) and those updates, and our representative on the mule deer 
5 year planning committee, and our attendance at the RAC's and Wildlife Board Meetings aren't productive? Or is it just that we aren't as confrontational and/or vocal and/or visible as you like? Or are we going to see you at 7:30 am Saturday morning at the Parowan Airport?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

5pointbull said:


> Has anyone else seen the video, Tines Up had on Facebook of a coyote pack taking down a full grown healthy Muley doe in southern Utah?


Did anyone necropsy the "healthy" deer. That is reminiscent of when the Canadian government sent Farley Mowat into the bush to determine why wolfs were decimating Caribou. He would watch as wolves took down seemingly healthy Caribou, that to his eye had nothing wrong with them. But after every necropsy, it was shown that there was something wrong with each and every one of them. A biologist observed the same thing in Wyoming a few years ago with coyotes and antelope. They would observe coyotes killing what appeared to be health antelope, but upon necropsy, it was a different story, the antelope all had something wrong with them. Coyotes are not the primary predator of mule deer. The bighorn sheep of Wyoming's Wind river range have been studied longer than any other sheep in the lower 48. For decades, predation was almost non-existent. But after the sheep became sick in the early '80s, the predation rate went to 50%. So they started removing predators, and as was to be expected, the sheep are no better off today. Because predators are not the problem.

So watching coyotes take down what appear to be healthy deer, is just that, watching something occur. Just like with P&J encroachment, without corroborative data, one way or another, its all speculation. Sure we can leap to the conclusion, based on such observation, that predators are the problem, and if we remove them, we are fixing the problem. But if we don't look further, if we don't find out why mule deer are being preyed upon by non primary predators, then removal of predators actually does us no good. Because the root problem still exists, and just like the last 30 years, the trend line continues its long, downward trend. Seeing something with ones eyes, is only part of the whole picture.

Do we want long term sustainability, and meaningful management, or do we want to settle on short term "action", just for the sake of doing "something"?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

elkfromabove said:


> So, this thread and my attendance at the meeting, and our participation at the Parowan Front transplants (another one coming up this Saturday and Sunday) and those updates, and our representative on the mule deer
> 5 year planning committee, and our attendance at the RAC's and Wildlife Board Meetings aren't productive? Or is it just that we aren't as confrontational and/or vocal and/or visible as you like? Or are we going to see you at 7:30 am Saturday morning at the Parowan Airport?


If the UWC has someone on a mule deer planning committee, then yeah, its not productive. SFW already has that view point covered.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Personally I don't think predation has had near the negative impact that many others do. Predation has been a factor for many many years prior to substantial settlement of the west by man. Deer populations go up so do cats and vice versa. The coyote can regulate it populations whether they are heavily hunted or not. They have the ability from everything that I have read to increase output as needed. Once again I am no biologist. I also thought at one time that for every dead dog or cat there was a direct correlation to the deer population. I don't believe that anymore.


Brent, thanks for participating, my schtick does not work without a boogie man. Just like all the rhetoric coming out of the policy mongers at the alphabet soup groups and the DWR. All good story lines require the full cast of characters, accurate or not  I believe in your willingness to find solutions, others and myself are looking at a few things, more to come.

Where do I send that $50


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

ridgetop said:


> Well look who's back out of hibernation.:shock:
> Welcome back Lonetree.
> How was the cabin?
> Any pictures of anything you've killed since last fall?


Thanks for the welcome.

I'm taking the uni-cabin mobile this year. Chevy astro van, with furnace, water tank, propane, battery bank, sink, stove, bed. Just need to get the lift installed, bigger tires, and cut out the roof for a poptop install.

I did not kill anything, since the last time I was here. I've been watching deer with the glasses, from the house, all winter. But have been busy otherwise.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Lonetree said:


> Brent, thanks for participating, my schtick does not work without a boogie man. Just like all the rhetoric coming out of the policy mongers at the alphabet soup groups and the DWR. All good story lines require the full cast of characters, accurate or not  I believe in your willingness to find solutions, others and myself are looking at a few things, more to come.
> 
> Where do I send that $50


I didn't answer the question for money. I just wanted to see if it was the correct answer to your question. Say the words "Greenhouse gases" and a lot of images come up of many different people and groups. Most if which I don't want to be associated with.

No need to send me anything. Maybe sometime we can just meet up, punch either in the face and then have a civil and productive conversation over a cold one.

When I do get to the point that I can start my second career in life and this daily grind becomes a work that I choose to do rather than something that chose me, chances are it will have something to do with conservation. I am just learning as a I go right now. Have always hunted and fished but never really got into the ecology of it all until the past couple of years.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

I sure wish the DWR would stock Kamloops rainbows. Those things get huge, and fight better than any other kind of rainbow.








Oh, wait. Lonetree, are you suggesting that throwing darts may not actually correct the bottleneck? That the possibility that kamloops (coyotes) won't mean anything if the actual problem isn't first identified?? And if that problem has nothing to do with strain (ie: kamloops, or predators) then how will you fix that problem by trying to control strain (or predators)? You mean we can't solve the mystery if we don't know the problem to begin with?

amazing.

I appreciate the info you've shared.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

PBH said:


> I sure wish the DWR would stock Kamloops rainbows. Those things get huge, and fight better than any other kind of rainbow.
> 
> Oh, wait. Lonetree, are you suggesting that throwing darts may not actually correct the bottleneck? That the possibility that kamloops (coyotes) won't mean anything if the actual problem isn't first identified?? And if that problem has nothing to do with strain (ie: kamloops, or predators) then how will you fix that problem by trying to control strain (or predators)? You mean we can't solve the mystery if we don't know the problem to begin with?
> 
> ...


We can get you some Kamloops. You have to look at the other side of the wildlife "management" equation to make that happen. I would first start with a political action committee, then a 501c. Now you are going to need a separate business, and lobbying arm to go along with those. By the time we're done, you'll be making $100k a year, and transplanting Kamloops, at tax payer expense, faster than they die. 

Funny you should mention fish, because this affects fish too. Talking with some fish org people right now.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> I didn't answer the question for money. I just wanted to see if it was the correct answer to your question. Say the words "Greenhouse gases" and a lot of images come up of many different people and groups. Most if which I don't want to be associated with.
> 
> No need to send me anything. Maybe sometime we can just meet up, punch either in the face and then have a civil and productive conversation over a cold one.
> 
> When I do get to the point that I can start my second career in life and this daily grind becomes a work that I choose to do rather than something that chose me, chances are it will have something to do with conservation. I am just learning as a I go right now. Have always hunted and fished but never really got into the ecology of it all until the past couple of years.


Co2, global warming, carbon footprint, Republican, Democrat, Independent, Socialist, the deer don't care. I was raised conservative, but conservation by principal and nature, is a progressive endeavor, not anyway around it. I just go where the science takes me.

I'll be in touch, Thanks.


----------



## huntfishlive (Oct 22, 2013)

LostLouisianian said:


> So if we do a little extrapolation we see that 22 cougars will kill approximately 25-26 deer per week. When you look at an annual basis that is about 1300-1350 deer per year. With an estimated herd count of 7800 that means cougars are taking out about 17% of the herd per year. I may have missed it but I didn't see predation numbers for yotes. We can reasonably suspect that they are killing at least that many. So it's highly likely that cougars and coyotes are killing a number in excess of 33% of the deer herd on a yearly basis. For our esteemed colleagues at the DNR to say that the jury is still out on whether or not reduction in predators will have any effect on the deer herd is, well laughable. I earned my degree in wildlife management over 35 years ago and these clowns never cease to give me a good chuckle.


I have to disagree with what has been said here. From my experience and my own observations, it is an unfair assumption to assume the rough calculations that you have provided above. These numbers aren't accounting for the fact that cougars are eating more and more elk, that several cougars could feed off of the same elk (or according to this study, deer [even though this contradicts what I've seen in the mountains myself]) for longer than a week when possible (generally during the winter months), and that a cougar's diet is not limited solely to big game; small game animals account for a large portion of a cougar's diet. If we look at the ecosystem from a tunnel-vision perspective, we could draw these conclusions, but considering the ecosystem is much more complex than even the greatest scientists could understand, quick assumptions such as "cougars are killing too many deer, we must kill them all" is rather erroneous and neglects many biological truths. The "predators are killing all the game animals" excuse is a sorry excuse for the neglect or oversight on the part of many people of some essential factors that contribute to the quality (or lack thereof) of a deer herd. I'm in no position intellectually to form a game management plan, but common sense tells me that something much more complex is going on with the deer herd numbers/quality.
This is not meant to sound harsh, but rather a fact check that will hopefully allow some people to see through a lot of the rhetoric that is spouted off by our highly revered wildlife management.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

:O—–-:


Read the queastons and answers at this meeting carefuly .......

Credit is given "specifcaly" to coyote removal to "fawn survival" in study areas..:!:


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> :O---:
> 
> Read the queastons and answers at this meeting carefuly .......
> 
> Credit is given "specifcaly" to coyote removal to "fawn survival" in study areas..:!:


Yes credit is given, and you might be able to make that case in the short term. But how it plays out over the next five years, in relation to other areas, is what matters. In other, more extensive studies, during deer declines, predator removal could not be shown to increase the population, even if you could increase fawn survival in the short term. We currently have favorable and/or increasing deer numbers in Utah, regardless of predators, so an increase in fawn survival, with the removal of predators, is not a surprise, this has been demonstrated in other studies. It is not ground breaking, that is how it works. The way it plays out over long periods of time, as demonstrated in multiple large Western studies, is what matters. In those studies, predator removal increased the short term survival of fawns, but could not increase the over all population. In this case, deer numbers are already rising, and it is not because of predator removal. The deer were already increasing, before the predator removal. So, if in five years you have higher overall deer numbers, and even higher numbers where predators were removed, it does not show that predators are the limiting factor of declining deer ie. the deer numbers were already improving. Do the same study, when the numbers are declining, you wont be able to raise the over all numbers.


----------



## osageorange (Nov 20, 2010)

Human's are amazing, aren't we?

When we have a problem we can't solve we make up a cause we can't see or explain. 

Some times you can dry up the puss in your nose by is just wasting the biology off your hands. 

While your all sniffing dirt and filtering air, we'll keep wacking the known biology. When you lock down a cure for cancer, you'll have no problem finding buyers. More power to ya! I'm cheering for you, in the mean time, if you'll let us, we'll try ta shoo a few flies out a'the barn.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

osageorange said:


> Human's are amazing, aren't we?
> 
> When we have a problem we can't solve we make up a cause we can't see or explain.
> 
> ...


Not only can we see the causes, we can explain them. People fear the known, more than they fear the unknown. That's why they make up things, that don't exist. It is quite easy to hold dominion over that which does not exist, and that you yourself have created.

You should probably change "known biology" to currently accepted Bull ****. Because with regard to mule deer declines, over the last 30 years, there is no biological basis, to support predator control, as a means to increase deer numbers. It has been tried, and it is still being tried. And that trend line is still pointed down, regardless of any snap shot of the present.


----------



## osageorange (Nov 20, 2010)

It's not my intent to offend you LT.

You said:

"Not only can we see the causes, we can explain them."

I believe you can LT. Are there any in the know that care to do that?

Knowing and correctly explaining the cause is a tremendous break through, but developing the solution has pretty far reaching consequence too, don't you agree? 

Do you and others know the solution?

Knowing the solution would be worth a lot of heavy lifting satisfaction......or revenue recovery, which ever is more important to the group with the assets. 

In as much as sharing the knowledge, the more that know can more quickly tip the decision makers in your favor, according to the mob mentality success theory. 

After these many years, is holding back, for any reason, a wise choice? Couldn't wildlife benefit now? Why do those that have the cause/solution choose not to be more forthcoming? Do they dislike the system and sportsmen more than they want to benefit wildlife?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Your last sentence is telling, because that seems to be the perception from some folks. And no, that is not the case at all. When they offer up help, to "the system", they are received with disdain. We are not talking about people like me, that jump on desks. We are talking about people that have dedicated their lives and careers to wildlife. It is the current system that is hostile, not those working on behalf of wildlife. Simple fact, is that the current political structure, and wildlife market, has been shown to be incapable of implementing, or even looking at management that is scientifically sound. This goes back a very long ways. The great strides that were made in wildlife conservation, in the first part of the 20th century, were made hand in hand with hunters, wildlife managers, and those driving the sound scientific understanding, that gave us a foundation from which to manage from. If you start with guys like Roosevelt and Muir, and work your way through to guys like Leopold, and Muirie, there was a lot that was learned and accomplished. The works that were produced through the 50s and 60s, would be very hard to rival today. None of it was done for monetary gain, it was done, because it needed to be done. The last 30 years has not seen that kind of work, or gains, with regard to wildlife, even with all the technological advances of GPS collars, an VITs. And especially not with all the monetization of wildlife. 

Lots of people know the problems, lots of people have solutions. But everyone has their own little corner of the world and specialty, which makes seeing the big picture difficult. Same with big solutions.

Solutions: The Big one, Quit toxifying the environment that we, and the wildlife live in. Very big undertaking, yes. Not doable in any quick sense. But ultimately, before it is us too, we have to do something. So, first we must acknowledge these bigger problems, and how they are driving wildlife declines, and destroying hunting. With that acknowledgement, and the acknowledgement, that there are no quick fixes, we have to get down to the details of things. Are there specific substances, or practices that are causing a greater affect than others? etc. As we dig into things and better understand the particular dynamics, and how they directly and/or indirectly affect wildlife, we can then formulate shorter term management, that takes the big picture into account, while we work on the larger, long term solutions. Is it big? Yeah, but big is kind of an American, specifically Western thing. We are fully capable of it.

It is only the West, its wildlife, and our hunting at stake......


----------



## osageorange (Nov 20, 2010)

No argument from me about the need for improvement. 

You must be encouraged, to some degree? 

I've seen the air quality improve, not enough, but better than when we all burned coal, in the 20's through the 90's. Still do, but less. I see less toxic dumping in water sheds, cleaned streams, rivers and lakes. No enough but better. I see less emissions from factories and vehicles. Not enough but better. I see better agriculture practices, not perfect but better. Better timbering practices. Less mine tailing issues. And so forth. Not fast enough for you and I, but better. You learn more, you share more, you push more, you move more. 

If I can use some short term, temporary measures, to preserve wildlife for the hunting and fishing lifestyle, while those that know how to correct more long term problems, we should. I don't see that as dangerous, misguided, or wrong. I figure it helps keep the fires burning and promotes a desire to work on more complex problems. If we can't grow them and hunt them, who's going to be interested in investing in them, over this long haul you've identified?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

osageorange said:


> No argument from me about the need for improvement.
> 
> You must be encouraged, to some degree?
> 
> ...


I don't know where you got your numbers, but we have burned more coal in the 30 years, than all previous decades combined, we just don't burn it at home. Utah had the highest air pollution in the nation in 2012.

Again, on this front, we made a lot of strides through the 50s. 60s, and '70s, and then abandoned much of it, over the last 30 years. Think there is some correlation?

As for investment, it is long past the point where we could have invested in this. This has become a debt management problem, and the current solution seems to be to pay off one credit card with another.


----------



## muleymadness (Jan 23, 2008)

Excellent post, thanks for the info. Very informative and interesting. I'm looking forward to the next 2 years and final analysis/results of the study.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I didn't take the time to read out this entire long drawn out thread/argument…so, I apologize up front if this question has been answered. BUT,….just out of curiosity, has any of the research/talk/discussion on the Monroe talked about the acreage of land where the habitat work has been done comparing the north end to the south end and looked at the correlations/implications this might have on increased/decreased predation as it relates to coyotes? My guess is that there has not been….but, shouldn't there be?


----------

