# Lonetree



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

Dear Lonetree- 

As i sit behind my computer giggling at all of the threads on this forum I read your replies and to be honest I am quite intrigued as to what goes on in that mind of yours......

Most of your replies not only blame SFW like many on the forum, you also throw the UWC, RMEF, UDWR, Questar, etc, etc, under the bus, in fact you have even went as far as saying that all of them have done far more to destroy heritage/hunting than even the bottom of the barrel environmental wack job orginizations........you sir have gathered the rebs full attention....

But......what I haven't read (maybe I missed it) is Lonetree's Solution???

So please lonetree, enlighten me.......What needs to be done?? 
Im eagerly waiting your reply, Thanks ahead of time:mrgreen:


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

Solutions are part of the problem duh.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> Dear Lonetree-
> 
> As i sit behind my computer giggling at all of the threads on this forum I read your replies and to be honest I am quite intrigued as to what goes on in that mind of yours......
> 
> ...


You have not been paying attention, which is no surprise.

Here it is in a nut shell: About 30 year ago we started to walk away from science, which is the foundation of wildlife conservation. 20 years ago, we completely abandoned it in exchange for politics and money. This was the dawn of the "quality era". Lots of 10 gallon hats, but no real cowboys.

At this same time wildlife was crashing across the West because of poor management practices. One of the big ones was, and is, the mass abuse of herbicides, which had led to the crashes. But because our scientific footing had already been undermined we missed it, and the opportunity to understand what had happened, let alone fix it.

We are currently under taking the largest use of herbicides across the West that has ever been seen. Much of this is at the hands of politicians and "biologists" in fish and game departments, in the form of "habitat improvements". Of course fully sponsored, payed for, and supported by conservation orgs and their convention dollars. The blind leading the blind, only not proverbially.

The only reason wildlife has seen some what of a reprieve and a rebound in the last 6 years, is because of the economic down turn. Reduced revenue meant there was no money to continue poisoning wildlife. Same thing happened in the late eighties with the economic down turn then. Just like now, as the economy turned around, we doubled down on stupidity.

Solution? I don't know genius, you tell me. You are the one that thinks I can perform miracles like enlightening you.

www.westernwildlifeecology.org

https://secure.hookedonphonics.com/offers/learn-to-read-scrn-2stp.aspx?vc=EMG1&pc=SEMGCI


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

berrysblaster said:


> Solutions are part of the problem duh.


Many of them, yes.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

Hahahaha so in a nutshell....herbicides are to blame...is what your saying???


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

LT where are the wildlife biologists spraying in utah? Not being funny here. I see them cut and burn but havent seen them spray anything but frag at utah lake.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

In the mean time I will be trying to navigate the first website you sent me....maybe I should have used the second one first...as Western Wildlife Ecology website makes about as much sense as you do..other than a mission statement and some beautiful photos I am finding little data or information......but again...I'm quite interested in what your saying and am giving you the benefit of the doubt..so I'll keep digging


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> In the mean time I will be trying to navigate the first website you sent me....maybe I should have used the second one first...as Western Wildlife Ecology website makes about as much sense as you do..other than a mission statement and some beautiful photos I am finding little data or information......but again...I'm quite interested in what your saying and am giving you the benefit of the doubt..so I'll keep digging


You should probably start with the second website.

Seriously, you don't know **** about deer or deer biology. You don't even know if a collar is on too tight or not.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

Hahahaha


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

You have all the answers lone tree....I'm awaiting for you to share them with us mere mortals....


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

IM so sick and tired of these posts:!:Cant you guys find something you all like (maybe bowling)and just agree to disagree.Quit digging each other.Really guys this gets old.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

I also give up on your website...let me know when you get it finished or updated...


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

I'm sorry dunkem...seriously you too lone tree...I seriously want to know more about lone trees thoughts/ideas regarding management...no more bs from reb


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> LT where are the wildlife biologists spraying in utah? Not being funny here. I see them cut and burn but havent seen them spray anything but frag at utah lake.


The revisions have begun. :mrgreen:

On this page: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/service/25-stansbury-mountains-ut/ This link: http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/salt_lake/fire/fire_and_fuels_management/stockton_area_projects.html Use to list the herbicides used in the project, and the "partners", ie. SFW, MDF, DWR, RMEF that were involved in this project.

If you note at the bottom of that last linked project page, it was "updated" since I linked to it. "Last updated: 11-25-2014"

We have info being pulled in Wyoming and Washington as well. No surprise, that's how folks like this operate. Veiled, with no debate.

There is still a picture of "pretreatment" cheat grass. They don't burn, or bull hog cheat grass. Maybe they were going to have fairies pick it all.

At that site, and many others in Utah, and other Western states, they used Imazapic on cheatgrass. The other links on my page are good.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Dunkem said:


> IM so sick and tired of these posts:!:Cant you guys find something you all like (maybe bowling)and just agree to disagree.Quit digging each other.Really guys this gets old.


I'm sick and tired of all the loss of wildlife and hunting. Can't we just get rid of it all so we don't have anything to argue about anymore?

No, no, no, don't communicate on social media!

BTW, have you read Neils "Waging Heavy Peace", you'll like it, its good.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> I'm sorry dunkem...seriously you too lone tree...I seriously want to know more about lone trees thoughts/ideas regarding management...no more bs from reb


Its really hard to take you seriously, you speak from both sides of your mouth, and then expect credibility......Really?

The path to real solutions on this is to go back to science, and fix the problem. The folks that have had the reins for the last 20 years, have done nothing but reduce wildlife and hunting, so we kinda know where to start, we already know what does not work. So I guess we should thanks them for that?

We have to put conservation back in the hands of science, rather than the politicians, anything short of that will be our demise as hunters.


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

Listen L.T. I dont have a dog in this fight,just trying to keep it civil.I appreciate your knowledge,although sometimes you lose me.JUst try and keep it friendly and we shouild be fine.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Interesting links. I have friends that have noticed the cactus buck trends in some of those areas. 

So it says the herbicide lasts three years. Do you think it lasts longer? Also does it actually work on cheatgrass?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

NBR

Accepted, I don't do back rooms. 

The vast majority of us, you and I, want what is best for our wildlife and hunting. Given the last 20 years, turning this ship around won't be easy, so I pull really hard.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

Good deal...and in all fairness now that I'm not on my iPhone and have a computer at my hands your website is full of links that I am now reading...and im intrigued enough that I turned off my television...my wife will think I'm sick...


----------



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

The herbicide works well on cheat grass. I've seen areas they e used too much of it and very little grew back. Cheat grass is a real killer of the west , to get rid of it where spraying poison, if we don't fire cycles are completely out of whack and we burn up. 

I have read many of lonetrees links, put time into looking at the issues he brings up and a lot of it's scary because we are talking about tough issues and hoping for the easy way out to work with wildlife now. It's sort of like why we no longer spray our forests or that we changed what we spray for Mosquitos because of the negative affects and persistence these poisons have in our ecosystem, when are we going to decide feeding our wildlife poison isn't a good idea? Would you feed your child fruits and vegetables that had the same things we are feeding our wildlife while they are developing? If your answers no then why would you think a deer that is a living, developing creature is any better off being fed the poison? Surely no one on here will debate the fact pesticides and deadly chemicals arent good for the world we live in and yet we use them freely.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> Interesting links. I have friends that have noticed the cactus buck trends in some of those areas.
> 
> So it says the herbicide lasts three years. Do you think it lasts longer? Also does it actually work on cheatgrass?


Cactus bucks are trending up across the West, over the last few years. They were thick in the early '90s just before, and contemporary with the crash. All the taxidermists I have talked to, keep referencing that area, and Kennett for increased cactus bucks the last few years. There are a lot more clusters, and more than just cactus bucks.

Yeah it kills cheat grass, and everything else, including the deer.

Below is some more about this herbicide. Its not the only one, there are many more, and they all create their own set of circumstances. One thing many have in common is the disruption of carbohydrate metabolism, which is the root of many mineral deficiencies that have been seen over the last 20 years.

http://www.pesticide.org/get-the-facts/pesticide-factsheets/factsheets/imazapic

The fact that they damage the range as well as the deer, sheep, antelope, moose, etc. compounds the problem. Imazapic reduces protein content of plants it does not kill, and reduces their seed count and weight. Other herbicides also work as chelators locking up minerals.

Edit: When the herbicides break down, they turn into other things, metabolites. Many of these metabolites are more toxic and last longer than the parent chemical. DDT was banned in 1972, and they were still finding its metabolite DDE in deer fat in Montana in 1996, and in deer brains in Washington in 1995 and 1996.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Glimmer of hope on cheat grass:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/s...n-against-cheatgrass.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

In all honesty though, I'll take deer and cheat grass, over no deer and no cheat grass.

I have been an ardent anti weed guy for years, it needs to be rethought, like most of our approach that has not got us to where we want to go.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

NBR

You mentioned firefighting, I have only briefly touched on that on the webiste on this page: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/service/28-hopland-ca/

You can explain the scale and methods of this better than most of us here.

Two fold, what do you know of recently, I'm always building the catalog. And, give us the run down with regard to this.

Edit: If you read a lot of literature about wildlife, and especially deer that are cryptorchid, (Undescended testicles, causes cactus bucks). You will note that there are many people that have propsed that it is chemicals from forest fires that cause this, because you see large incidences of this after forest fires. Its chemicals, but not from wood burning. The affects of herbicide application on wildlife are not always immediate, and because animals travel, you don't always see the affects on the animals, where they came into contact with the herbicides. Deer eat treated vegetation in the fall in one location, and have fawns born with malformations in another area the following spring, makes some of it hard to follow.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Can I formally request this thread be moved back into biggame?

Or maybe upland game?

From "Colorado Division of Game, Fish, and Parks...........Special Report Number 13......1968"

"Residues of 2,4-D have been found in sage grouse brain tissues. There is no evidence 2,4-D may adversely affect the reproductive ability of sage grouse"

Current science says other wise, and that was tucked in the back of the report after this statement:

"Higby (1965) measured a 5% decrease in a sage grouse population 4 years following sagebrush control with 2,4-D."

This was back in the day when the "projects" were small, 40 acres here and there, not thousands of acres over Every Western state. And this was before the advent of all the new chemistries and combinations, many of which were introduced in the early '90s.

Edit: This was the beginnings of much of what was to come though.


----------



## polarbear (Aug 1, 2011)

Back to cactus bucks, here's a paper just published out of Colorado.

http://www.jwildlifedis.org/doi/abs/10.7589/2014-03-067

Apparently, there is some association between cactus bucks and the detection of EHDV. The authors suggest that the abnormal antlers are caused by testicular lesions, degeneration, and a resulting decrease in testosterone, likely initiated by vascular damage and inflammation similar to what you'd see with EHDV or bluetongue. 71% of testes that were positive for EHDV had testicular lesion scores above the median.

p.s. I know Karen (lead author). She's a smart cookie.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

polarbear said:


> Back to cactus bucks, here's a paper just published out of Colorado.
> 
> http://www.jwildlifedis.org/doi/abs/10.7589/2014-03-067
> 
> ...


Yes, a compromised immune system from chemical exposure would explain both EHDV, Blue tongue, and cryptorchidism.

In Hanford, Washington they found the same association with being seropositve, and ruled it out as a cause. http://nerp.pnnl.gov/docs/ecology/reports/PNL-11518-deer.pdf

I have a piece on Hotchkiss on the website: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/service/13-hotchkiss-co/ Those deer are clustered around a lot of "habitat improvements"

It was theorized that sea weed was responsible for cryptorchids on Kodiak island as well: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/service/26-kodiak-island-ak/  These deer have been witnessed eating herbicide treated plants.

Edit: From this report http://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Region_7/NWRS/Zone_2/Kodiak/PDF/ea_ipm_kodiak.pdf "Elk, goat, marten, red squirrel, muskrat, and beaver do not occur in any areas known to support invasive plants. On the other hand, field observations indicated that deer and hare have used areas that support invasive plants for foraging and, in some cases cover, including sites subjected to active management."

Active management meaning pesticide application. Deer on Kodiak island have been observed ingesting plants treated with herbicides.

There are some very interesting similarities with bighorn die offs and cryptorchid deer as well. The occurrence gets higher on granitic soil, and where pesticides have been applied.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Antler abnormalities of deer and other cervids often result from testicular lesions and decreased levels of testosterone, inhibiting normal cycles of antler growth. Affected males have antlers with retained velvet, numerous short, misshapen points ("cactus bucks"), and failure to shed these abnormal antlers annually. In Colorado, we observed a high occurrence of "cactus bucks" in mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) populations_* after management efforts to increase the number of mature male deer in the state.*_ Affected males consistently had antibody to epizootic hemorrhagic disease virus serotype 2 (EHDV-2), and examination of the testes of these animals demonstrated nonspecific end-stage lesions of chronic inflammation, fibrosis, and mineralization. To examine more acute stages of testicular lesions, and to screen for EHDV specifically within the testes, we sampled 16 male mule deer from affected herds, but with essentially normal antlers (_n_ = 14) or retained velvet only (_n_ = 2). Testicular and epididymal lesions identified from these samples included necrotizing vasculitis (_n_ = 2), hemorrhage (_n_ = 6), edema (_n_ = 2), seminiferous tubular necrosis (_n_ = 5), orchitis (_n_ = 5), epididymitis (_n_ = 10), hypospermia (_n_ = 6), and end-stage lesions of seminiferous tubular loss (_n_ = 2), fibrosis (_n_ = 2), and _*mineralization*_ (_n_  = 2). Each of the 16 cases was blindly scored on the basis of number of histologic lesions, with a median score of two. Five of seven (71%) testes that were PCR positive for EHDV had lesion scores above the median, whereas none of the nine (0%) EHDV PCR-negative testes had lesion scores above the median, suggesting an association between testicular lesions and detection of EHDV RNA in the testes (_P_ =  0.003). Although the role of EHDV infection remains unconfirmed, the association between testicular and epididymal lesions and presence of EHDV RNA in the affected tissues suggests that cactus buck antlers may be a sequela of EHDV infection.

The red highlights are a very important piece of this.

And just to clarify, the testes did not have EHD in them, the deer had anti bodies to EHD. Meaning they had been exposed. Just like with pnuemonia die offs in bighorns, you see increases in disease.

The mineralization is what we commonly reffer to as "atrophied", they are shrunk up, this was the case in Hanford as well. Technically cryptorchids do not have descended testicles, this happens in the womb. Where as atrophied testicles happen after birth, at any point in life. They are small, and hard(mineralization) I have seen this here in Utah many times. I see this and one partially descended testicle more than full blown cryptorchids.

Edit: Its been a long day, yes there was EHD in the testes, at least EHD RNA, meaning it had been there. Glad someone pointed that out to me.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Been waiting to here LT's answers to these problems for LOOOONG time!


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

Lonetree- I'm not even sure what to say except you of all people have got me a little shell shocked with this.

I had a meeting tonight and brought my iPad along and have not paid one bit attention to my meeting (I have a short attention span) and am frankly blown away and extremely intrigued after reading a lot of this data...I am glad, truly that I asked and can guarantee you I will continue to divulge in this...

If any of you have five minutes...please read some of these links.....I'm as big of skeptic as anyone (ask lone tree)but some of these studies are not only quiet interesting but kind of mind blowing scary....

I'm afraid of just how true some of it appears to be and to why this is the first time I have heard/read about much of it....I will continue to divulge...


----------



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

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> Lonetree- I'm not even sure what to say except you of all people have got me a little shell shocked with this.
> 
> I had a meeting tonight and brought my iPad along and have not paid one bit attention to my meeting (I have a short attention span) and am frankly blown away and extremely intrigued after reading a lot of this data...I am glad, truly that I asked and can guarantee you I will continue to divulge in this...
> 
> ...


This was me as well. After reading and studying the information, you begin to realize how scary the problems are we face to fix in the name of our wildlife.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> Been waiting to here LT's answers to these problems for LOOOONG time!


:mrgreen: I told everyone a long time ago, its selenium.

And it is, its just a matter of putting it into context, that is where the work is.

I'm coming at much of this very differently than most. Most people have their specialty, and do one thing, deer, or moose, or plants for example. This involves a very specific approach that is narrow and precise. Its easier to control variables, and look at specifics this way, its good methodology.

I on the other hand stepped back, and cast a very large net, trying to get many things to fit into it. This broad, integrated approach is problematic, but is good in that it keeps sending you back to the beginning. After you ask why 5 times, you are supposed to do it again. But Its all too easy to get to why number 3, and head in a different direction, without completing whys number 4 and 5.

I would say we(me and the voices in my head) are working on why number 5 at this point. This needs to be answered, and then reanswered. Then we have a good basis to make change, and implement solutions.

As was pointed out to me by someone else the other day. You are not going to find too many conventional academics willing to play their theories and processes out in public. It was described to me as being a "terrifying idea". And I guess it probably should be.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

Burn areas-

In my years hunting/fighting fire there are a few facts that I would like to point out.

When fire happens in an area, it without a doubt, will attract animals for miles. In fact my favorite place to hunt elk/deer in is recent burn areas, the new vegetation that grows has a way to draw animals in for miles, it has always amazed me how they seem to gather in burn scars.

One thing that ALWAYS happens is "weed management", herbicides will be heavily applied. In fact the Forest Service/BLM watches these areas like hawks with spray guns at the ready. My favorite elk spot in Idaho burned 4/5 years ago. I have ran into the forest service spraying weeds every year I have hunted it including this past year. I never gave a whole lot of thought to it except I always was upset that it smelled like 2 4d everywhere I walked.

In fact any time dirt is even touched on BLM/Forest Service Land, weed management (herbicide is right up on the top of the list) is carried out, this inlcudes road closures, logging areas, road widening etc. Not only are they applying herbicide, they are also planting new grasses/vegetation that mule deer/elk love, spraying away right over top of it. Interesting.....


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Animals flock into burns for minerals as well, I've seen deer eat burnt bark off of junipers. Ash is just the minerals that are left over and not volatilized in the fire.

Like NBR points out, it is very targeted. Fires bring them into the treated vegetation for example.

On highways salt and minerals bring them down to the road, where they eat treated plants. The treated plants induce conditions requiring more minerals, so they hang out on the road for longer periods of time licking salt, mag chloride, and selenium. The pesticides cause an array of health problems, and the deer die at higher frequencies on road sides. And the whole reason they spray the side of the road, is to create a zone for motorists to see wildlife entering the highway, ie. prevent collisions.

Then you have things like power line and pipeline right of ways, the brush gets cleared, palatable plants come in their place, which draws deer, moose, antelope, sheep, etc. , that eat the the treated plants. Many of these are treated in sections at a time, and the right of way creates a highway, funneling animals to the treated sections. 

Habitat improvements: These don't get anymore targeted, they typically go for winter ranges, which concentrates the animals onto them. 

You always hear me say deer, moose, sheep, antelope, and rarely elk. That is because elk avoid roads, they winter higher, further from people and infrastructure, and they target grasses, rather than the browse species most of the others target. With the exception of cheat grass most invasives targeted with herbicides are broad leafs, or at least not considered grasses. Elk are doing very well in most of the West, with a couple of exceptions. Those exceptions are the places where timber harvests occur, with large spraying programs on the clear cuts. You can see these from space easily, Its Targhee National Forest, Lolo zone, South Western Washington, and parts Oregon. The elk can't exscape these larger treated areas, and in many cases are drawn into them. Herbicides can make plants more desirable to animals.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

This one is very intriguing to me as well-

From Western Wildlife Ecology


> Magnesium deficiencies: Wildlife in many parts of the West have been observed targeting magnesium chloride on the side of the road. Magnesium chloride is a soluble and available form of magnesium for these animals. Diabetes and other metabolic and endocrine disruptions induce magnesium deficiencies. To complicate matters, magnesium increases the absorption of sulfonylureas. There is a clear association between sulfonylureas and magnesium. When sulfonylureas attach to the enzyme acteolactate synthase, it affects the way in which magnesium(Mg2) is attached to the ALS enzyme.


Interesting, to me for a few reasons but everywhere, across the entire west "mag" is getting used more and more, as dust control, for dirt roads....and no **** the day after this stuff is applied I will see deer by the dozens licking the road....many of them in the spring, the same deer eating the weed free grass growing on the right of way that was sprayed the week before with herbicide.....I never thought much of it except I hated seeing all the deer that were attracted to the roads because of this mag mucked out by vehicles.

Im digging quite deep and have yet to find any information contradicting Western Wildlife Ecology......I highly recommend reading through some of this:shock:


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

The magnesium study I was doing, when I myself was convinced of pesticide use being the root problem, is simple and basic on the surface. But in the bigger scheme of things it changes a lot of paradigms. We are always taught that sodium thirst(salt craving) is the only drive for minerals, this view is rapidly changing, along with our understanding of its role.

I'm waiting for some one to get back with me about a study in Africa last year that was similar to my mag study. The individual could not remember what they proved the animals were gong after, but the big deal is that they proved it was not sodium that was driving the craving, which is exactly what I was seeing as well.

The study was based around a species experiencing health problems, that was seeking out mineral licks. It all sounds very familiar.


----------



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

Lonetree I'm wondering, are biologists with the DWR just ignoring these things or are they not paying enough attention. The same with SFW, MDF, etc. are they just uninformed about it or are they ignoring it? If there all interested in cash, wouldn't they want more deer and be interested in fixing the issues out wildlife face?


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

It would be nice to have a control. And it would be nice if it was universal. It would be nice too if it didn't stop at the Mississippi River. It would be nice to have a contrast.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

1eye have you seen how technically inept the guys on the wildlife board are? Half of them don't know how to use a cell phone. It will be years until they learn about any of this stuff. 

The biologist were taught in school how to use the chemicals to treat fires and roads. You won't be able to convince them there's a problem with them. 

My guess is it will be 10's of years before sfw or anyone does anything different. Besides why would sfw want to do things different. Think about it, If there actually were a million deer in utah it would bring the cost of sfw's tags down. High demand for few tags equals people willing to fork out big money $$$ to play.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

^^^^^ everyone at the table does not want 1 million deer in Utah. That is the single biggest reason for us having 300,000 deer. 

Honestly, Utah supports more domestic sheep in our hills then deer. And yes sheep need winter range as well. There are 3 cows for every deer in Utah. These figures don't fluctuate greatly. My point is it's not like 300,000 is capacity for deer. 300,000 is by design. And many people benefit from 300k and will loose if we get 1 million. IMO the sky is not falling deer are not even in trouble as a species. I just want to hunt 3 seasons every yr without having to draw a tag. I figure I can get that 3 ways 1. Be rich 2. Get rid of hunters. 3. Increase deer populations. And I'm having a heck of a time with all three.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> It would be nice to have a control. And it would be nice if it was universal. It would be nice too if it didn't stop at the Mississippi River. It would be nice to have a contrast.


 It does not stop at the Mississippi river, Eastern white tails are in decline as well, and they see plenty of malformations, Google Bullwinkle syndrome. Different terrain, different plants, different chemicals, different problems.

Affects are being seen and studied in cervids Norway and South America as well.

The control is that when herbicide use is down, wildlife goes up. When herbicide use is up, wildlife goes down.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Not debating that herbicides are bad for wildlife at all. Not debating that herbicides are bad for anything living. 

What are the known effects to domestic animals? Humans?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> ^^^^^ everyone at the table does not want 1 million deer in Utah. That is the single biggest reason for us having 300,000 deer.
> 
> Honestly, Utah supports more domestic sheep in our hills then deer. And yes sheep need winter range as well. There are 3 cows for every deer in Utah. These figures don't fluctuate greatly. My point is it's not like 300,000 is capacity for deer. 300,000 is by design. And many people benefit from 300k and will loose if we get 1 million. IMO the sky is not falling deer are not even in trouble as a species. I just want to hunt 3 seasons every yr without having to draw a tag. I figure I can get that 3 ways 1. Be rich 2. Get rid of hunters. 3. Increase deer populations. And I'm having a heck of a time with all three.


 Agreed on hunting 3 seasons with out winning the lottery.

Mule deer may not appear to be in trouble as a species, as a whole, but we are heading that way. Moose, sheep, and sage grouse are a whole other story though. Moose in the upper Midwest are down 90% in some places, and we have lost the ability to transplant sheep from some of the best herds that remained in the west. The current model on bighorns shows a path to more local extirpation, and eventually extinction.

More deer could certainly create problems, more elk has. But dealing with those problems should be our goal. Cutting a little more off the board, is always easier than trying to put some back on.

This affects a lot more than just deer, it affects all wildlife, just some more than others.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> Not debating that herbicides are bad for wildlife at all. Not debating that herbicides are bad for anything living.
> 
> What are the known effects to domestic animals? Humans?


 I make some of that case on this page: 
http://westernwildlifeecology.org/service/15-highway-39-ut/ and else where on the website.

--Diabetes
--Thyroid disease
--laminitis
--Reduced birth weight
--Poor coats
--Mineral deficiencies(primary and secondary)
--Muscular skeletal deformities
--Testicular malformation/degeneration
--Increased disease, both primarily and secondarily
--Rumenitis
--Muscular dystrophy
--increased parasite loads, secondary problem
--Reduced fecundity

The under bites, hoof rot, and testicular issues that I am looking at, are only the most extreme manifestations of this. These are easy to see, all of the subclinical issues, like mineral deficiencies, or energy deficiencies(disrupted carbohydrate metabolism) that lead to summer die offs, these are the really hard things to see, and keep track of. Looking at a few animals that succumb, it appears random out of the larger context.

All of these things build over time with increased use. That is what we saw in the early '90s, and that is what we are seeing now. We are just stacking rounds in the clip right now, mother nature is going to pull the trigger though, we won't get a say in that part.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

SW, The WB is always an issue, but they should not be. They should be taking their lead on wildlife science from the biologists. That is where the problem lies, that process is currently going the other way, and its being done that way intentionally. Then you have things like the mule deer committee, that only adds political cover to this already broken process.


----------



## polarbear (Aug 1, 2011)

Lonetree,
I agree with you 100% that science should be driving wildlife management, but I've also heard you say that you don't like PhDs. Could you clarify?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

I have posted this here before, but for those that missed it, here is video of a deer that has ingested herbicide treated vegetation. This was a big part of what sent me down this fork in the road.

I watched the road side get treated personally, and I then watched this deer eat the vegetation. I then followed her around for 4 days watching the affects. She had recently dropped a fawn, but was not attending to it. She eventually disappeared deep into some private property.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

polarbear said:


> Lonetree,
> I agree with you 100% that science should be driving wildlife management, but I've also heard you say that you don't like PhDs. Could you clarify?


Sure, there are bad apples in every bunch, including PhDs. We have all met them, educated idiots that went through the motions or had the time and money to put in at a university.

Of course not all of them are that way, I know plenty of folks packing degrees that are amazing at what they do. I also know people in the field of wildlife science that don't have much in the way of formal education, that have done some of the most ground breaking work out there.

You will not find those with out degrees working in institutions, like fish and game. You have to be first institutionalized, before you can become part of an institution. It is here where I make, and see the distinctions. Independents are not under the same political gun as those working in institutions. They meet all of the same challenges and road bumps, but they have options when it comes to paying their mortgage, or doing other research.

For example, when a researcher I know had his project funding cut by fish and game and some conservation orgs, because they did not like the results, he carried on with private funding, and his own time and resources anyway. You will rarely if ever see that kind of dedication to the field coming from those within institutions. Some great work and minds there for sure, but there are some marked differences that have affects on the out come of the work.


----------



## polarbear (Aug 1, 2011)

Thanks Lone,
I mostly agree with you, just curious. Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Or as I just had pointed out to me, I'm not "qualified" to do what I have done. :mrgreen:


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

LT if your correct and the game rabbits, deer ect are dying because of these herbicides it doesn't suprise me the coyote and bear numbers are up. They are scavengers and we would benifit from dead or dying game.


----------



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

swbuckmaster said:


> LT if your correct and the game rabbits, deer ect are dying because of these herbicides it doesn't suprise me the coyote and bear numbers are up. They are scavengers and we would benifit from dead or dying game.


Chemicals are very persistent in our environment. Things such as DDT were real teachers we must not have learned from. The deer eats the vegetation treated with herbicides and then the coyote, cougar, eagle, magpie whatever have you, eats the deer affected by the chemicals and the chemicals stay persistent and probably affect predators as well. Chemicals don't just go away they stay a part of the environment for years. This is why poisoning animals to kill them is a bad idea, because you don't just target that animal anything that eats it could get sick and die as well . Education is the only way to fix this, and not always via degrees, but there's about 90% of people involved that would have to walk away from what they believe is true and money for our wildlife to benefit.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> LT if your correct and the game rabbits, deer ect are dying because of these herbicides it doesn't suprise me the coyote and bear numbers are up. They are scavengers and we would benifit from dead or dying game.


In several of the cases I've looked at, you see additional predation, with several factor coming into play.

Scavenging like you mentioned for sure, and then there are more subtle things like changes in movement that increase predation. When sheep and deer are forced to frequent certain places or travel to certain places more often, they face additional predation.

At the same time, if you remove the predation, numbers don't improve because the predation is a secondary symptom.

When the deer crashed above Ogden after the winter of '93, we wiped the coyotes clean, but it never made a difference.In fact we shot most of them before the crash, because the snow made them very vulnerable. With hind sight being almost 20/20 now, I know that all the cactus bucks we saw, and the following crash were precipitated by more than a harsh winter. The deer had been browsing herbicide treated foliage on the side of a road, and drinking irrigation water that had been treated with herbicides.

Today the most marked increase in deer numbers above Ogden have been in the area where that irrigation canal has been covered over, concurrent with a reprieve of herbicide use on that road, coupled with my selenium salt supplementation. Areas North and South of there have seen large uses of herbicides on FS lands, road cuts, and power line right of ways. You don't see the same increases in those areas, and you see clusters of cactus bucks.

I saw a bear in there 2 years ago, the last time I saw sign of bears in there was in 1994.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Chemicals are very persistent in our environment. Things such as DDT were real teachers we must not have learned from. The deer eats the vegetation treated with herbicides and then the coyote, cougar, eagle, magpie whatever have you, eats the deer affected by the chemicals and the chemicals stay persistent and probably affect predators as well. Chemicals don't just go away they stay a part of the environment for years. This is why poisoning animals to kill them is a bad idea, because you don't just target that animal anything that eats it could get sick and die as well . Education is the only way to fix this, and not always via degrees, but there's about 90% of people involved that would have to walk away from what they believe is true and money for our wildlife to benefit.


The affects on predators may be disproportionate as well. We have seen far more declines in felines, than in coyotes or bears as has been mentioned. I have not looked into this, but there are probably some reasons why.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Thoughts on the impacts of herbicides vs. shifts in fire management practices?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Here is what that Ogden situation looks like on a map. The red lines are herbicide applications, everything else is labeled. The deer that utilize summer range, and untreated winter range, with mineral salts available to them, had the largest increases over the last several years, and produced the largest bucks.


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

Great thread. Very informative...thank you.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

GaryFish said:


> Thoughts on the impacts of herbicides vs. shifts in fire management practices?


Increased fire suppression on winter ranges, with a policy of letting some summer range fires occur in some places.

The dogma of more fire, and the manta of disturbance I believe are a big part of the problem, not the solution.

Look at Hart Mountain National wildlife refuge: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/service/hart-mountain-or/ and read deeper into it.

They burned 20% of Hart, got rid of cattle, and used lots of herbicides. Everyone agrees, the habitat looks better than it ever has, along with the streams and the water table, but the deer, sheep, antelope and sage grouse don't seem to agree, they have remained suppressed.

The problem with fire, as has been pointed out here by NBR, is that weeds move in after. We have to look at habitat restoration differently. We have to repair the soil and the microbial life that should be there, not kill more of it. Herbicides kill the native mycorrhizae(dirt fungus) that native plants use to defend them selves from weeds. So the very killing of weeds, has the consequence of making natives more susceptible to encroachment from weeds.

There has been plenty of fire and disturbance over the last 20 years, it has not create deer.


----------



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

Another question lonetree, oil and gas I believe have negative affects because of the disturbance they cause but is it possible that the herbicides used to reclaim well sites and roadways are a reason for deer declines in oil and gas areas? When you have wells every give hundred feet and reclamations of those sites I would thing it could have a significant affect in those areas as well .


----------



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

Lonetree said:


> Increased fire suppression on winter ranges, with a policy of letting some summer range fires occur in some places.
> 
> The dogma of more fire, and the manta of disturbance I believe are a big part of the problem, not the solution.
> 
> ...


And yet another question . This one on cheat grass. Is cheat grass as bad as it's put out to be? On winter ranges with strips of cheat grass that have burned you see far more deer and elk in those areas than in sage brush areas right next to them?


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I'm talking about the far more reaching effects of 100 years of fire suppression efforts that completely transformed sage steppe communities into mono-age class communities. Single age class stands of anything - sage to lodge pole - lack the diversity necessary for good habitats. And fire management from about 1900 through the late 1980s - early 1990s, transformed mass acreages and total landscapes. Herbicide application is very small scale in comparison it seems.

Clearly, the answer includes many things - herbicides, the bad practice of planting cheat grass for short term erosion control, use of DDT, grazing practices, encroachment, conversion of winter ranges, acid rain, any a number of other things you can point to. So it clearly isn't an either/or discussion.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

How many deer died in the transplant study due to poisoning. Or even evident starvation? Or the fawn study up on Monroe? How many deer mortalities are being identified as malnutrition or unexplained?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> How many deer died in the transplant study due to poisoning. Or even evident starvation? Or the fawn study up on Monroe? How many deer mortalities are being identified as malnutrition or unexplained?


I doubt anyone was looking at it. With sub clinical mineral deficiencies for example you can't just look at it, and even blood tests won't tell you most of the time. The only reliable way to test for these is through supplementation studies. These have been done, and have demonstrated that deficiencies exist, but that is only part of the picture, you have to look at the root, underlying cause in order to fix that problem, which is the source of several other problems itself.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

GaryFish said:


> I'm talking about the far more reaching effects of 100 years of fire suppression efforts that completely transformed sage steppe communities into mono-age class communities. Single age class stands of anything - sage to lodge pole - lack the diversity necessary for good habitats. And fire management from about 1900 through the late 1980s - early 1990s, transformed mass acreages and total landscapes. Herbicide application is very small scale in comparison it seems.
> 
> Clearly, the answer includes many things - herbicides, the bad practice of planting cheat grass for short term erosion control, use of DDT, grazing practices, encroachment, conversion of winter ranges, acid rain, any a number of other things you can point to. So it clearly isn't an either/or discussion.


We have seen huge successional set backs in the last 30 years, due to fire, with no corresponding wildlife increases, in fact we saw the opposite. I'm not saying monocultures are good, but what has caused the increases in deer, sheep, and moose that we have seen over the last several years? You have to able to account for both sides of the ledger.

Here is the break down on acreage from the '20 to the '90s, in millions of acres.

'20s 26
'30s 39
'40s 23
'50s 9
'60s 4
'70s 3
'80s 4
'90s 3.6

The 50s, 60's, and 70's were good times.

As for the scale of herbicide use, its much, much larger than most can imagine, and easily competes with fire on a per acre basis, over time. Additionally, it is in many cases very targeted, affecting some wildlife more than others, while also making wildlife more susceptible to many of the other things you mentioned.

Yes there are many factors, but when you start to prioritize the affects, certain things start to stick out. Herbicide use compounds highway mortality, while also making wildlife vulnerable to things like acid rain. Some of these things are weighted differently than others, working synergistically with each other, to produce exponential results. Remove one, and this collapses.

Figuring some of this out is kind of like wading through a cesspool trying to figure out what stinks the most, or rather makes everything else stink too.

Here is the model always get sent back to. Starting in the early '90s we saw huge declines in wildlife, across multiple states, and multiple species. All of these species suffered, and suffer from very similar things, ie. malformations, and mineral deficiencies. It is this context, and synchronicity that make this unique. Sure individual units have their own set of unique circumsatnces and and problems, but how does that fit into the big picture in its entirety?

When we see bighorn sheep die offs from pneumonia, they are not always isolated. they come in waves across multiple herds, in multiple states. While at the same time, moose and deer will be declining synchronously. This all corresponds to West wide herbicide use, and was not seen prior to these increases in use.

Have an economic down turn, and everyone tightens their belts, and quits buying herbicides. Just like in 1987. What happens? We see increases in wildlife. As the economy comes back, we make up for "lost time" and pile on with a decades worth of herbicides in a few years. This turns what had been just population suppression into the means for a full blow crash.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Oneeye, cheat grass is bad, no doubt, but yeah I grew up watching hundreds of deer winter on cheat grass infested hillsides prior to the '93 crash. There are not 1/4 the deer in those places that there used to be, in some places not a 1/16.

Part of the disturbance mantra is some of what you are pointing out, deer will selectively feed for weeds. There is not a carrying capacity issue, or monoculture issue. Like has been pointed out we support a lot of cows, sheep, and horses. 

There is a problem with the deer food though.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

I've been in agreement with LT since the beginning. 

Nobody ever thought lead based paint was bad, or that setting off a nuke would effect areas and people for decades. 

The problem I see is with the system itself, this could be the magic bullet that would allow our herds and environment to recover and it wouldn't matter because the rule making process is so corrupt and has been so gerrymandered that this solution would be lobbied in to " telling hunters to stay home" and "Bucks giving birth"

The WB, DNR and conservation partner system needs one big mother flipping enima.


----------



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

So if we could somehow stop the use of herbicides and pesticides, specifically along roadsides and habitat projects, or on any publicly owned land, how soon would we see the affects on population, and what are other ways to do what we are doing trying to fight off cheat grass while actually making habitat improvements?


----------



## Igottabigone (Oct 4, 2007)

So then why has the whitetail population exploded throughout the midwest when that is arguably the region where the most herbicides have been used?


----------



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

Igottabigone said:


> So then why has the whitetail population exploded throughout the midwest when that is arguably the region where the most herbicides have been used?


Just because they're are larger populations doesn't mean they are not feeling the same affects. Whitetail populations are also decreasing in many areas and malformations have also been observed. The affects are felt differently depending on the species and to the extents. Part of it is because of the habitats these animals use and live in .


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

You should see a beginning to a return to normal after 3 generations. But it could be more like a decade, that seems to be the pattern. It will be a little different depending on location. This is based on some historical observations and guesses though. But, we have not ever seen the likes of, and scale of, what is currently under way. That makes it a little harder to say.

The below pictures are examples of what can be found all over the West, the last few years. When you start to do the math, its square miles, not acres.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Igottabigone said:


> So then why has the whitetail population exploded throughout the midwest when that is arguably the region where the most herbicides have been used?


Bighorns and antelope have declined in Nebraska and the Dakotas. Moose and whitetails have declined in the upper midwest. Whitetails are declining in the South East. Google bullwinkle syndrome to see what is going on with white tails in the south.

You are going to have to be more specific. What sates, over what period of time? We are talking apples and oranges here. Mule deer over 5 eco regions, verses white tails on the plains and in some hardwoods does not equate.

If they have exploded over the last 20-30 years, you tell us why. I'm not currently concerned with Iowa.

It is a huge misconception by many that just because there are lots of whitetails, that they are not declining, that is not the case. I know people in Wisconsin and Michigan, the last 30 years were not as good as the 30 before them.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> You should see a beginning to a return to normal after 3 generations. But it could be more like a decade, that seems to be the pattern. It will be a little different depending on location. This is based on some historical observations and guesses though. But, we have not ever seen the likes of, and scale of, what is currently under way. That makes it a little harder to say.
> 
> The below pictures are examples of what can be found all over the West, the last few years. When you start to do the math, its square miles, not acres.


For a variety of reasons powerline, railroad, and pipeline right-of-ways are kept clear of brush and small trees. For years maintenance crews cleared the brush from the ROWs using mechanical methods. Now they just use chemicals...Roundup or equivalent.

.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Here is a better question: Why did Norway's moose start to decline, when they changed their forest management plans and "reduced" herbicides?

Why have their moose followed the same pattern of declines as ours?

Could it be the change in the particular herbicides being used? The introduction of these, and the timeline fits perfectly. 

A big piece of this, is what, when, and where is being treated. This determines the impact on wildlife.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Goob, the power company likes a product called Garlon 4(Tryclopyr) It is chemically almost identical to, and a replacement for, 2,4,5-T, which was phased out. 2,4,5-T was one of the components of Agent Orange. 

Here becomes one of the problems in sorting some of this out. This is going to have a little bit different affect on deer, than say 2,4-D and Dicamba that is sprayed on the side of the road. And then we have the places where these 2 situations over lap.

It starts looking like 20 different things.

Edit: Here is another case of how economics play into this as well. Some of the massive powerline spraying is because of big change ups in ownership of these companies. We saw this in the late '80s as well.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I have been in Lonetree's court on the pesticide/herbicide thing since before I was on the forum and even met him but there are lots of unanswered questions and I still don't think that it is the only piece of the puzzle. I would in fact bet my life on it.

Herds in areas that have received little to no chemical warfare have not done well either. Many areas that are basically protected wilderness have seen declines over the years. Other areas such as the Midwest have seen some of the highest concentrated and prolonged uses and have had deer explosions. (BTW 1-I your answer to a very specific question was vague and general at best and did not even shade the question mark). Understandable though because the fact is you do not know how to answer it correctly.

There is no magic bullet folks. It is a combination of things and Lonetree has hit on several of them IMO. One other factor that people should look at is what led up to the golden years of the deer herds. The years that we had more deer than we knew what to do with........why did that happen? Would people have argued then that we were at carrying capacity? How would they know? How do they know now? Is it just because we have the deer that we have that we are always at capacity? A perfect storm that creates what many see as positive results does not mean that the perfect storm was in fact good or sustainable.

I personally think that while the 50's, 60's and 70's were the golden years, it doesn't make a ton of sense to use that as the standard. Why were the numbers so high back then?

You guys all know of many, many things that kill deer. Chemicals are one of them.


----------



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

(BTW 1-I your answer to a very specific question was vague and general at best and did not even shade the question mark). Understandable though because the fact is you do not know how to answer it correctly.


What answer are you referring to?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Skinner, Most wilderness areas are high elevation summer range. The animals spend the winter on benches, and closer to human activity.

And when you factor in 100 mile migrations.............

No its not a panacea, but it is as close as you can get. If you want to bet, pick a location, and a species, and then pick up or down.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

And the white tail thing does not hold up.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Just because they're are larger populations doesn't mean they are not feeling the same affects. Whitetail populations are also decreasing in many areas and malformations have also been observed. The affects are felt differently depending on the species and to the extents. Part of it is because of the habitats these animals use and live in .


this.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Lonetree said:


> And the white tail thing does not hold up.


Have whitetail evolved to the point that they are immune to the same poisons that kill mule deer? If so should I assume that the white tail mutations/malformations are purely genetic and not birth defects?


----------



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

Mr Muleskinner said:


> this.


Here is a link to a study on whitetails lonetree shared with me http://www.psmag.com/environment/more-evidence-linking-pesticides-and-malformations-30560/ this study was on the affects on whitetail deer . No one os saying that whitetails are immune to anything, what's being said is just because whitetails exhist in greater numbers does not mean they aren't experiences some of the same problems .


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

1-I

here is a better link, from within your link: http://www.psmag.com/navigation/nature-and-technology/divining-the-secret-of-deformed-roadkill-3475/

Judy Hoy is a friend and colleague. She has contributed greatly to my understanding of all of this. I have challenged her assertions on part of her work, just like I have other mentors/colleagues. Everything she has done, which started with white tail deer, is absolutely on the mark, and irrefutable, with one exception.

That exception is the means by which she proposed that herbicides were affecting wildlife 20 years ago. I have dismantled her theory of rain bringing the herbicides in. To be fair, she is one of the few that caught this happening in real time 20 years ago, while just about everyone else missed it. I had the benefit of hind sight, which is very much like cheating.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I will read it. Thanks.

Aren't whitetail populations double what they were in the 50's?


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> Goob, the power company likes a product called Garlon 4(Tryclopyr) It is chemically almost identical to, and a replacement for, 2,4,5-T, which was phased out. 2,4,5-T was one of the components of Agent Orange.
> 
> Here becomes one of the problems in sorting some of this out. This is going to have a little bit different affect on deer, than say 2,4-D and Dicamba that is sprayed on the side of the road. And then we have the places where these 2 situations over lap.
> 
> ...


Yeah OK, I'm not familiar with Garlon 4. I started in the pipeline business in 1969. We used Agent Orange, liquid and that nasty granulated stuff, up until the big Viet Nam War Agent Orange controversy. All the utility and government agencies used it then. I remember it's what the coal companies in Illinois and Missouri used as a defoliant. Some state and Federal agencies are tough on noxious weed control on utility ROWs; thistles for example. We sprayed all the thistles some places with Agent Orange and then later with Roundup. We all got the industrial strength chemicals that a lay person couldn't buy over the counter and made our own "blends" of water to concentrate. Not good, everything likes thistles; cows, deer, horses.

Let me switch gears to the Midwest. There are some issues that parallel what's happening in the West. I read that deer populations are declining in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Missouri. Some say CWD...some don't buy it. You can argue why forever, but many claim it's the increased use of herbicides and the mowing and spraying of waterways in the grain fields. Deer, and upland game, key on these islands of food and security. In the last 10 years we started mowing and spraying chemicals on the wet areas and the waterways in the grain belt and wildlife numbers, especially upland game, have plummeted. I fly all the time, window seats usually, and have watched the changes over time from the air.

They have nearly eliminated the Monarch Butterfly from where I come from; killed all the milkweed, a noxious weed, with chemicals....ah, who cares.

She was right and it's going to get worse.

To stop all this means more government. No one wants more government. So you get what you ask for.

I'm done with this. I want to thank everyone in this thread for their cool heads and valuable and insightful remarks.

.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> I will read it. Thanks.
> 
> Aren't whitetail populations double what they were in the 50's?


Not in the West they aren't. And they are in decline in the South East, upper midwest, North East, etc. They have fared better, in many places, but if you look at several places in MT, they have followed the same course as Mule deer. This is in areas where the are sympatric.

In WY they see them move in as mule deer decline. As mule deer numbers rebound, the white tails move out again. Look at white tail sighting in Utah, they correspond with mule deer declines.

Again, they utilize a lot of different terrain, so their fate will be different from other species. I do know that in Judy's studies over the last 20 years, where white tails and mule deer overlap, they have both declined, with mule deer suffering worse.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Have whitetail evolved to the point that they are immune to the same poisons that kill mule deer? If so should I assume that the white tail mutations/malformations are purely genetic and not birth defects?


They are not immune. The malformations they suffer are epigenetic just like mule deer.

It is just a matter of contact.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Adding to Goob's time line: We first saw some of these problems rear their heads in the '60s with the initial expansion of herbicide use. Like Goob said, this went hand in hand with the war.

After the issues with DDT, 2,4,5-T and other chemicals the whole regulatory regime got changed in the 1970s. Remember, the conversation about mule deer was the same back then, as it is now "where are all the deer, they are declining". This was way before 1993. 

A key point in the time line is 1982. This is where we see new registrations of new products as others go away. We see a breief combined use of old chemical as they are used up, and an expansion of new chemicals as they come on line. Then through the mid '80s with the cold war, and economic down turn we see a huge reduction in use across the board.

The next wave of registrations come in the early 1990s, with a preceding expansion of use. 

The next wave of registrations, and expansion of use was the early 2000s.

We are now in another, larger expansion of use, with new registrations of new herbicides.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

WOW. Shoulda put this on a Roll next to the throne. way to much to grasp
in front of a computer...


----------



## longbow (Mar 31, 2009)

To Lonetree. Where the crap did you learn all this stuff? Sounds like you're well-educated.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Garlon is used all over the northwest to treat Columbian Blackberry and other hearty nuisance plants. You would think that the effects would be rampant on blacktail deer that browse almost exclusively in clearcut, right of way, and other edge habitats where this chemical is deployed. Check out this big blacktail rutting around northern California.....right in the middle of a large patch of obviously treated Blackberry. He does look a little deformed but I would still eat him.---------SS


----------



## Lobowatcher (Nov 25, 2014)

California study focuses on black-tailed deer decline
From the California Department of Fish and Game

--"* A new study is under way to determine why black-tailed deer populations in some areas of northern California have declined over the past 20 years.
*
The DFG, University of California-Davis and several doctoral candidates have began a three-year study of habitat changes, predation and land use patterns affecting black-tailed deer in Mendocino County.* The decline in the harvest of black-tailed deer over the past 20 years is well-documented....*

In 2009, an estimated 164,753 hunters pursued deer in California. Approximately 38,037 of those hunted in the B zone area encompassed in the black-tailed deer study. Statewide, the* harvest* of black-tailed deer bucks has *declined from 27,846 in 1989 to 14,895 in 2009, a drop of 46 percent. In the counties in the study area zone, harvest numbers have dropped from 3,013 to 1,297, a 57 percent decline. "*

http://www.buckmasters.com/california-study-focuses-on-black-tailed-deer-decline.aspx


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Lobowatcher said:


> California study focuses on black-tailed deer decline
> From the California Department of Fish and Game
> 
> --"* A new study is under way to determine why black-tailed deer populations in some areas of northern California have declined over the past 20 years.
> ...


 I've posted this before: http://deerlab.org/Publ/pdfs/23.pdf but here it is for people that missed it. It was a study in Northern California that showed that declining black tailed deer were selenium deficient, and that supplementing them reversed their declines.

I add to that here: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/service/9-shasta-county-ca/

Black tails in CA, OR, and WA have all followed the same course as our mule deer. same with South central WA, and North central OR elk: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/service/8-south-central-wa/


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

longbow said:


> To Lonetree. Where the crap did you learn all this stuff? Sounds like you're well-educated.


 I set out ~5 years ago looking into Utah deer declines, which then led me to the larger synchronous declines of wildlife across the West. I have no formal education.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

Im still quiet dumbfounded.....like i'm literally having a hard time wrapping my brain around a lot of the information you have posted lonetree. I have read more on this today than I have read in months....

What is interesting is if any of you are like me and you truly KNOW just how much pesticides are sprayed ALL the time in places you would never even think it gets sprayed its quite mind blowing. I see it ALL the time, power lines, gas lines, water lines, water ways, roadways, burned areas, ranches, farms, croplands, parks, campgrounds, irrigation ditches, empty building lots, oil wells, subdivisions, ....as I sit and rack my little brain I can not think of a deer that does not spend a good portion of time around one of these sprayed areas anywhere in the entire western US....there is no winter range hardly left that is not around something treated, I honestly cannot think of one place....seriously and I have been around the block in a lot of states.

The biggest problem, however is its going to be next to impossible.....in fact i would argue it will be impossible, to get it corrected :shock: I know all to well just how many hundreds of different things have become dependent on them....it blows my mind and kinda scares the hell out of me. :shock:

I have not made my mind up, and plan on reading much more but there are facts that cannot be ignored in a lot of this, and I truly am glad I asked you and sorry for the BS i gave you, you very well seem to be on to something very interesting that i have NEVER heard before.

Lontree I do have a few questions- 

Have you ever showed some of this data to any state/federal biologists or any of the conservation organizations?? What about some of the Universities, like Utah State?

If so what has the response been??

Also I would think that some of the different problems would be seen in domesticated animals, I wondered if many case studies had been performed looking into similarities between the two as in my digging i did find some things on cattle/pesticides but I didnt find anything comparing the two side by side??

One of the largest "trends" that has become very popular as of late is Pyrethrin Fogging, in fact i do not think there are any counties left that are not fogging from spring to fall constantly, from aerial to ground spraying I see it everywhere I go. Any studies on this? Effects it could have?? I find it amazing how mosquito's in my day to day life over the past few years have virtually become non-existing in places that had a history of being full of them.....crazy to me......

You mentioned that this is very hard to articulate and i do understand after divulging in a lot of this that it is quite hard to "relay" and is not something that can simply be passed along in a simple conversation....I was mentioning this to a good friend of mine with a degree in horticulture and he was extremely intrigued, he had never heard of studies/problems with pesticides/wildlife, but was sure he had heard some things in regards to domesticated wildlife.


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

I have found this thread very informative,some good reading posted.I would also like to thank all of you for keeping this a good open dialog.Funny when we take the time to investigate someone elses thoughts sometimes good things come from it.Thanks,Dunkem


----------



## Charina (Aug 16, 2011)

A few random thoughts:

1) It would seem to me if the issue of declines is caused by herbicide use, it would be fairly simple to produce a correlation between sales/production from industry statistics, and population estimates/trends. If, as you say Lonetree, there are direct delayed correlations between economic downturns (impacting herbicide use) and population fluctuations, then it should be very simple to show in a manner that is verifiable, and able to convey the message. I'm sure that manufacturers and industry groups have sales/production information, but I wonder how easy it would be to get this info (esp if they know the intended purpose). 

2) If selenium supplementation in blacktail reverses declines, that seems contradictory to the hypothesis there is an underlying causative agent of the deficiency. IOW, if ingestion of herbicide and herbicide residues caused selenium deficiencies, then supplementation likely wouldn't have caused reverses. 

3) Herbicide ingestion effects, if as significant as alluded to, should be extremely simple to show in an environment of captive cervids with controls. Why is there no information on such studies? 

4) I'm not so inclined to gloss over macro issues of wildfire and suppression impacts. Perhaps a year ago there was some information posted on wildfires and population trends. The highs spoken of as the glory days may well have been a delayed impact from high fire periods the previous couple decades. Think in terms of decades of delay in cumulative impacts, and there does seem to be a correlation to up and down trends. And the decline from the glory days very well could be the shift in practices, but again, have taken many decades to reveal themselves, and are continuing to worsen.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

NBR

Domestic animals: Yes, everything we have seen in wildlife has been seen in cattle, sheep, goats, etc.

The under bites for example have been seen in cattle, goats and horses all over the place in the Western United Sates and Canada. These showed up at the same time as they did in wildlife, along with weak calf syndrome. We know from the work done with horses that suffer from under bites that it is hypothyroidism. They have found a connection to high nitrate levels in feed and water in these cases. This is important, because there is a connection between nitrate deposition(acid rain) and bighorn sheep die offs, in conjunction with pesticide use. You see mineral deficiencies in these cases, and laminitis(hoof rot) in the hooves of horses as well. We also see hoof rot in elk, sheep, deer, moose, and antelope.

We are working with a small and select group of individuals, researchers, and biologists in Washington, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, and Argentina. Many of these people are in contact with, and are working with other groups and orgs in other places as well. Some of my work has been reviewed by people at Purdue and MIT, working on related issues. Most Western game and fish departments, governors, congressmen, right leaning conservation orgs, and left leaning preservation orgs, have been skeptical at best, to very hostile at worst.

Here is a piece from an org that has supported some of these efforts: http://www.cascwild.org/rachel-rachel-where-art-thou-the-need-for-a-noisy-spring/ The org is hunting neutral, and the author is a wildlife biologists and avid fisherman.

I am open to working with anyone that is serious about fixing the problems of the last 20 years of the "quality era". But that does not mean that I'm coming to the table, or that I will quiet my criticisms of those responsible for much of this. I have been critical of, and challenged the work of just about everyone that could be considered on "my side" of this. Many walked away, some still won't talk to me, while others reluctantly looked at what I was saying, and yet others have came back years later after finally seeing it for themselves. Like I said, that's the people I agree with. This is about moving wildlife conservation forward, plain and simple. The conventional routes for this have not worked over the last 20 years, because they have been cut off.

The "political realities" argument is a very false one at best. It is not a justification for abandoning wildlife science, or real conservation, its just a business model for exploitation by some people and orgs.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Charina said:


> A few random thoughts:
> 
> 1) It would seem to me if the issue of declines is caused by herbicide use, it would be fairly simple to produce a correlation between sales/production from industry statistics, and population estimates/trends. If, as you say Lonetree, there are direct delayed correlations between economic downturns (impacting herbicide use) and population fluctuations, then it should be very simple to show in a manner that is verifiable, and able to convey the message. I'm sure that manufacturers and industry groups have sales/production information, but I wonder how easy it would be to get this info (esp if they know the intended purpose).
> 
> ...


1) I already laid out the case for that, its rough yes, but the information supporting exists. There is a graph in my previous link that shows the correlation of glyphosate and autism. The vast majority of people that suffer from autism also suffer from gut dis-symbiosis, and are selenium deficient because of it.

2) It is not contrary at all. Selenium plays a protective role from oxidative stress, that herbicides induce. While herbicides them selves cause rumenitis, that much like gut dis-symbiosis makes the adsorption of selenium nearly impossible. Add nitrates to the rumen, and you compound this problem. They had to use 2 selenium boluses to get results. In the typical selenium deficient sheep they use one. The bolus is an iron "pill" that is impregnated with selenium that release continuously for over a year. Having these in the rumen constantly over comes the adsorption problem, while also providing protection from being poisoned by herbicides. This has been shown in bighorns as well, but with salt blocks containing selenium, rather than boluses: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/service/11-whiskey-mountain-wy/

3) The mercke vet manual spells out the immediate acute affects, and I have documented those, via video, in areas where we see the long term chronic affects. The longer term affects are not studied as well, with regard to ruminate animals. So much is extrapolated from other animals and humans. Nothing else can expain the multiple affects seen in these animals. Can you explain what causes hypothyroidism in deer some other way? Or why many show every indication of being diabetic? Are they eating twinkies? These are all signs of endocrine disruption, which has to be induced across the entire West some how.

4) Explain how fire, or a lack there of it, induces mineral deficiencies, causes cactus bucks, laminitis, hypothyroidism, diabetes, hair growth disruption, higher parasite loads, etc? DOes fire play a role in wildlife ecology, sure it does, but that WAFWA manual argument won't hold up in the face of the direct issues that are suppressing deer, and other wildlife. That dog won't hunt. Explain the last several years of increases, coupled with what we are currently seeing in deer and other wildlife right now, in that context. There thousands of habitat projects from 20-30 years ago that have shown amazing results, there is no corresponding uptick in wildlife, it is at the high of where they wanted the successesional setback to be, with no results. Read the my Hart mountain piece and the corresponding links in detail: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/service/hart-mountain-or/ it explains much of this.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

I think this is all a conspiracy theory to drive down the price of my Monsanto stock!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

bigbr said:


> I think this is all a conspiracy theory to drive down the price of my Monsanto stock!


You would.


----------



## elkmule123 (Aug 14, 2013)

swbuckmaster said:


> LT where are the wildlife biologists spraying in utah? Not being funny here. I see them cut and burn but havent seen them spray anything but frag at utah lake.


I was talking to a dedicated hunter asking what he had to do for his hours, and he mentioned that he had to spray/poison the hounds tongue weed/plant.


----------



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

Thinking about it I can't think of many places that haven't had habitat work done on them. I bet nearly every unit in our state has seen one of two things. 1)Habitat work done by roughing up and replanting areas while using herbicides or 2) fire and cheat grass infestation. Now the question is how do you pressure money driven groups/agencies/people to do or at least try in some areas whats best for wildlife in the name of science based solutions. By eliminating the use of pesticides and herbicides in land projects that currently use these harsh chemicals. There are so many harsh chemicals we all use without a second thought of what these things really are. I'm not an environmentalists but there are plenty of things you we regularly use that we shouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole due to there potency, yet we all use them and release them freely into the world we live in. I've watched plains spray for mosquitos many times in the last few years, herbicides be used on habitat projects, etc. And like many I never gave it a second thought that, that could be the major issue for many of our problems. We've all hoped for something simple to stick out as the fix, trying over and over failed policies and tactics that just haven't worked or given different results yet we keep doing them because so many are unwilling to think outside the box.


----------



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

It sounds so simple. Who would have thought spraying poisons onto the very ground out wildlife depend on and use most could be the issue.


----------



## phorisc (Feb 2, 2011)

interesting post, wish i had more time to read it...
Sounds like a more detailed version of what Steven Rinella says in his book "Meat Eater"...he basically claims farmers have killed off the hunters

He used the bible example of Jacob and Esau http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_and_Esau
how Esau the hunter lost the birthright to Jacob the farmer son...


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Nutritional context:

If you look at the very few things that have been shown to reverse wildlfie declines of the last 2-030 years, they all have several things in common. 1. A declining or suppressed population 2. A nutritional component 3. herbicide use

Keep in mind, whether it is fire, predators, forage production, etc. that one sees as the the suppressing factor, you have to be able to show the other side of that coin, and increase populations by manipulating that condition. Very few things have done that. And even some of those that created these increases, are convinced that those measures are only addressing a secondary symptom of something else.

Example 1.) This is kind of where I started. Whiskey mountain bighorn sheep have experienced episodic pneumonia out breaks and population declines with the wosrt of these being in 1990/91. Subsequent studies were able to identify a selenium deficiency, and a connection to nitrate deposition(acid rain). These sheep have suffered several die offs over the last 20 years, with the last 2 years showing the only increases across the whole herd. After a selenium deficiency was discovered, it was also demonstrated that selenium supplementation via salt blocks could increase fecundity, which as Mr. Bell so rightly points out is the only way to increase herd numbers. This was done with a control group, that was not supplemented.

Did I mention their winter range was sprayed with herbicides? 
http://westernwildlifeecology.org/service/11-whiskey-mountain-wy/

Example 2.) The Black tail study I already mentioned. http://deerlab.org/Publ/pdfs/23.pdf Using selenium boluses, the fecundity of a declining herd of black tail deer herd was increased 260%. There was of course a control group for reference.

These deer have also suffered from summer die offs attributed to "energy deficiencies", this can be best explained by carbohydrate disruption,like what is seen in diabetic moose in Norway, that live in herbicide treated areas. Thyroid disorders can play a role here as well.

Did I mention that the state forest where this was conducted was the sight of a lot of clear cutting and herbicide use. Some of it very experimental. http://westernwildlifeecology.org/service/9-shasta-county-ca/

Example 3.) Uncompahgre plateau Colorado. There was nutrition study conducted where deer over a very large area were supplementally fed pelletized food. The fecundity of this group of deer was increased compare to deer that had not had their feed supplemented.

More context on this example: This area has seen massive habitat improvements, and seen increases in cactus bucks _* "after management efforts to increase the number of mature male deer in the state."*_ ie. they cut tags, and started spraying winter ranges.http://westernwildlifeecology.org/service/13-hotchkiss-co/
If you look at carbohydrate metabolism disruption, and how it affects animals, this makes sense. In much the same way as selenium supplemnetion, it treats the symptoms, causing a positive correlation of increased fecundity.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

phorisc said:


> interesting post, wish i had more time to read it...
> Sounds like a more detailed version of what Steven Rinella says in his book "Meat Eater"...he basically claims farmers have killed off the hunters
> 
> He used the bible example of Jacob and Esau http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_and_Esau
> how Esau the hunter lost the birthright to Jacob the farmer son...


I've shipped my products to Rinella's place in New York, I still have not read "Meat Eater", I need to.

He has a good point to make with the farmer, but it is much more insidious than that, WE are killing ourselves off as well.

It is hard to ignore the politics, money, and power structure that has allowed this to happen. You can not make scientifically based decisions, or come up with scientifically sound solutions, when you have sold that basis off to politics and money. And once its gone, it is much harder to get back.

Phorisc, I'm a Renaissance guy, I believe religion and science should coexist. On the ceilings of renaissance churches, engineers, scientists, and philosophers are depicted along with religious icons, and saints. Much like in ecology, it is a holistic approach that brings balance.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> It sounds so simple. Who would have thought spraying poisons onto the very ground out wildlife depend on and use most could be the issue.


This is not new, we have seen this before. Some say history repeats itself, while others make the distinction that it just "rhymes". Either way, that's where we are.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

elkmule123 said:


> I was talking to a dedicated hunter asking what he had to do for his hours, and he mentioned that he had to spray/poison the hounds tongue weed/plant.


You can find these kinds of projects everywhere. And this is part of how this has such an impact. Where were they spraying? In some vacant field down town? No, it was on a particular piece of ground that is known to have significance for wildlife. When I say it is targeted, I mean the wildlife is targeted. Some hunting/conservation websites have prominent displays of herbicides being sprayed, as an act of "conservation".


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Have you studied the Antelope Island herd much? If so what do you believe has caused the mule deer population to quadruple since 2001? Or better said what has allowed it? The 2001 report estimate the herd to be at 200 deer. The last count put the herd at over 800 all of which were actually deer seen and counted.

I am curious as to whether they use herbicides on the island. Might be worth a call to Steve Bates if he is still the biologists out there.


----------



## Charina (Aug 16, 2011)

Lonetree said:


> 1) I already laid out the case for that, its rough yes, but the information supporting exists. There is a graph in my previous link that shows the correlation of glyphosate and autism. The vast majority of people that suffer from autism also suffer from gut dis-symbiosis, and are selenium deficient because of it.
> 
> 2) It is not contrary at all. Selenium plays a protective role from oxidative stress, that herbicides induce. While herbicides them selves cause rumenitis, that much like gut dis-symbiosis makes the adsorption of selenium nearly impossible. Add nitrates to the rumen, and you compound this problem. They had to use 2 selenium boluses to get results. In the typical selenium deficient sheep they use one. The bolus is an iron "pill" that is impregnated with selenium that release continuously for over a year. Having these in the rumen constantly over comes the adsorption problem, while also providing protection from being poisoned by herbicides. This has been shown in bighorns as well, but with salt blocks containing selenium, rather than boluses: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/service/11-whiskey-mountain-wy/
> 
> ...


1) That is sloppy at best. If the information is available, then make the case with it. Don't just allude to it in anectdotal impressions. I have yet to see something verifiable, or presentable in a way that would convince anyone with professional skepticism.

2) It is contrary given what I have read you state before regarding the mechanisms. The story is evolving, understandably. Not all possibilities are accounted for from what I can see from what little time I can devote to the topic.

3) Your video, while very very interesting, is, unfortunately, just an anecdote. There are no controls there, and you have no idea where that doe, or the others observed, have been, or what was in their system. There is no necropsy or tissue analysis. Again, sloppy with tons of inferences being thrown around, but nothing of what is needful to convince decision makers.

4) I'm not suggesting I have answers, I'm pointing out how a significant factor has not been adequately addressed. Still don't believe the complexities of it have been addressed. It's just one of the many complex factors that cause doubt about the finality of your hypothesis with the missing components that would add real credence to it.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Have you studied the Antelope Island herd much? If so what do you believe has caused the mule deer population to quadruple since 2001? Or better said what has allowed it? The 2001 report estimate the herd to be at 200 deer. The last count put the herd at over 800 all of which were actually deer seen and counted.
> 
> I am curious as to whether they use herbicides on the island. Might be worth a call to Steve Bates if he is still the biologists out there.


I have not looked at Antelope island at all, and it has been years since I have been there. What does the trend line look like? Can you point me to the report?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

No report per se. I just know that when the pulled 98 head off of it for the transplant that they stated that there were over 800 head and that the population was too high. The report below states that the population was sitting at 200 in 2001. In 2012 Bates was quoted as saying that the population was at 504+ in the second article that I posted.

http://static.stateparks.utah.gov/plans/AntelopeIslandWildlifePlan.pdf

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/54667521-90/antelope-bighorn-board-deer.html.csp


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> No report per se. I just know that when the pulled 98 head off of it for the transplant that they stated that there were over 800 head and that the population was too high. The report below states that the population was sitting at 200 in 2001. In 2012 Bates was quoted as saying that the population was at 504+ in the second article that I posted.
> 
> http://static.stateparks.utah.gov/plans/AntelopeIslandWildlifePlan.pdf
> 
> http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/54667521-90/antelope-bighorn-board-deer.html.csp


OK, that makes sense. It fits with the bigger picture.

I'm generalizing here a bit, but in the late '90s/early 2000s we had low numbers of deer, sheep, moose, etc. This goes for sheep in WY, Deer in 
UT, etc. While we have seen the numbers increase in the last several years. This is plus or minus several years if you look at the big, big picture, verses specific locations.

From some quick searching, they do a lot of weed pulling on antelope, along with some mentions of herbicide spraying, and biological control(bugs, fungus, etc.)

Much of the biological control methods have been developed in Utah, "Black fingers of death", "woad warrior", etc. I hope there is some promise in these.

A quadrupling is impressive, and an example of what mule deer are capable of.


----------

