# Paunsaugunt cactus buck study



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

I started this thread on the MM Forum, but I thought I'd present it here to some more civil minds for a different perspective.

At this last Wildlife Board meeting the DWR proposed a "temporary" 10 permit increase to study, and hopefully cure, the cause of the cactus antler malformations on the Pauns. The hunters will pay $80 for the permit and will be accompanied by either a DWR employee or an Alton CWMU person who will decide which buck will be taken. The hunter will provide samples for the study (blood, tissue, hair, sperm, urine, stool, velvet, etc.), but will get to keep the animal otherwise. The hunters will be selected from the depredation hunt pool.

What say you? I'll answer what questions I can, but I don't know any more about this than those of you who listened to the meeting. However, I can speculate as well as any of you, and I do have a tainted opinion as usual.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Hopefully they can find a connection. Maybe the toxin theory that Lonetree has been pushing.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

> The hunter will provide samples for the study (blood, tissue, hair, sperm, urine, stool, velvet, etc.)


The hunter will provide the samples from the deer, right... ? Not sure I'm ready to poop and "donate" into a cup in order to shoot a deer with messed up balls...


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

johnnycake said:


> The hunter will provide the samples from the deer, right... ? Not sure I'm ready to poop and "donate" into a cup in order to shoot a deer with messed up balls...


Oops! Sometimes my English ain't so comprehensativel! Yes, they're from the deer. However, maybe you'd be more interested in donating your sperm depending on how you'd have to do it? :grin:


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

I think it's a good idea. Dollars to donuts says it's genetic


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

I think I'd rather see it as an option in the regular draw, so it could spread out the competition for tags. It sounds like it's pretty much a guided hunt for a buck with some pretty cool antlers, so I'm sure it would attract a lot of interest.

I like the premise behind it. I think it's worth looking into the causes of antler deformation, and if it's related to other health problems.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

elkfromabove said:


> Oops! Sometimes my English ain't so comprehensativel! Yes, they're from the deer. However, maybe you'd be more interested in donating your sperm depending on how you'd have to do it? :grin:


Lol, couldn't help myself... And yeah it's 2016, so no judgment here, but as long as colorcountrygunner and his twinks got nothing to do with the donation....

Err, right, uh, deer hunting. Yup. <Belch, scratch>


----------



## muleymadness (Jan 23, 2008)

The PAUNS is full of Cactus bucks, I think it's a lot more than just genetics. Here is an example...

Demise of a big ole buck, top 2 photos are from 2013, he also has a hooked cheater off his right side that can't be seen in trail cam photos. Bottom left is 2014 pic and bottom right is 2015 from last week. What the heck happened to this cool buck in your opinion? He did not or does not shed all of his antlers, but about 1/2 of them from the 2014 year fell off the top or shed and them some grows back from what's left or remaining from previous years. 2015 year he lost almost 3/4 of his horns. What a bummer. &#128078;&#127996;&#128078;&#127996; I think he might have lost his reproductive parts on a fence? Just a thought though not sure.


----------



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

muleymadness said:


> The PAUNS is full of Cactus bucks, I think it's a lot more than just genetics. Here is an example...
> 
> Demise of a big ole buck, top 2 photos are from 2013, he also has a hooked cheater off his right side that can't be seen in trail cam photos. Bottom left is 2014 pic and bottom right is 2015 from last week. What the heck happened to this cool buck in your opinion? He did not or does not shed all of his antlers, but about 1/2 of them from the 2014 year fell off the top or shed and them some grows back from what's left or remaining from previous years. 2015 year he lost almost 3/4 of his horns. What a bummer. &#128078;&#127996;&#128078;&#127996; I think he might have lost his reproductive parts on a fence? Just a thought though not sure.


Lonetree who doesn't seem to frequent here as much anymore has some decent ideas on the issue. It is not his junk got caught in a fence it is that exposure to pesticides used in habitat treatments affect the endocrine system a great deal, which would explain why he has no, or disformed testicles. As you look deeper into it, exposure to what is used inhabitant treatments to prevent noxious weeds like cheatgrass from growing makes a lot of sense that if it's being consumed by our deer and elk, it will have negative affects on them. Here is some information if you are interested in researching this point of view

http://westernwildlifeecology.org/service/malhuer_or_deer/
http://westernwildlifeecology.org/service/13-hotchkiss-co/
http://westernwildlifeecology.org/service/14-paunsaugunt-ut/
http://westernwildlifeecology.org/service/1-hanford-wa/
http://westernwildlifeecology.org/service/25-stansbury-mountains-ut/


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

If its pesticides related the same phenomenon would be occurring all over Utah since pesticides are used all over the state. When a problem is localized the chances are very high that it's genetic or due to some localized environmental factor.


----------



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

LostLouisianian said:


> If its pesticides related the same phenomenon would be occurring all over Utah since pesticides are used all over the state. When a problem is localized the chances are very high that it's genetic or due to some localized environmental factor.


Im not saying it's a one size fits all answer. I'm saying if you don't believe pesticides with toxic chemicals in them aren't going to have affects on wildlife, then you're in denial. Lonetree doesn't convey his point in a friendly way, but much of his information is useful to look at and is much more science based than many others I've heard. Cactus Bucks aren't localized and are found throughout the entire state and beyond.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

LostLouisianian said:


> If its pesticides related the same phenomenon would be occurring all over Utah since pesticides are used all over the state. When a problem is localized the chances are very high that it's genetic or due to some localized environmental factor.


It is happening all over the West, not just Utah. It plays out differently depending on what area you are looking at, and what pesticides are being used. It then also depends on whether the conditions related to antlers are congenital or brought on later in life by said exposure.

And it is not "genetics" per se, it is epigenetics, read here: https://deerlab.org/Publ/pdfs/48.pdf We have learned allot since that was written. Cervid antlers are the quintessence of epigenetic expression.

Cactus bucks and crazy antlers are just the extreme end of the spectrum of what is going on. Simple asymmetry of a 3x4 typically is an indicator of some sort of epigentic disruption. In one animal it is just that, a single disruption, but when you see it over and over again in multiple animals, clustered around pesticide application, there is more to it.

An example beyond antlers: http://rutalocura.com/deer3.html The fawn at the bottom of that page has a multitude of issues, and if it had survived it would have had abnormal antlers. But beyond the antlers and lack of teste descent, that fawn has mandibular mesiocclusion(class III), a cleft palate, and a specific genetic abnormality of hair growth(not mentioned on the page). All three of those malformations are specific to, and associated with the disruption of one single gene(Foxe1), and taken together would constitute a very specific endocrinological diagnosis in a human known as Bamforth-Lazarus syndrome. This syndrome is defined by thyroid dysgenesis. That fawn was was hit on road that is treated with lots and lots of 2,4-D, which just happens to target the thyroid specifically. And it is not just highways, here is what happens on most FS and BLM dirt roads: http://rutalocura.com/wridge

Well the same disrupted epigenetic pathways that lead to null Foxe1 genetics, are the same ones at play when it comes to antler abnormalities. Here are some examples of how that looks, and some of the underlying pathways: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/antlers/

I can show you a very direct path from the application of glyphosate and/or 2,4-D that leads to these genetic disruptions. They both activate and disrupt some of the same epigenetic pathways but via different routes. This is one of the reasons we see differences from area to area, depending on what is used, and when it is used. Which accounts for the specifics of the timing and the pathways activated by the specific compounds.

And guess what else you see with all these other things? Copper and selenium deficiencies. That is because depending on the pathway being influenced, you disrupt specific groups of genes that are zinc(copper and zinc are biochemically inseparable) and selenium specific. Some compounds are more specif to one or another of these, but some can influence both. Either glyphosate or 2,4-D can induce a selenium deficiency by disruption and knock out of Dio genes, which are both genes and selenoprotiens. Activation of Gli genes(zinc finger structures) involved in copper deficiencies is not elucidated quite as well, but is easy to see in the same way that selenium response disorders associated with Dio disruptions are, and that is by the response of supplementation: http://www.jnutbio.com/article/S0955-2863(15)00108-4/fulltext The readers digest version being that copper supplementation has a positive affect on Gli genes, and conversely exposure to several pesticides has a negative affect.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

What are the specifics of the proposed Pauns study? Without the right reference information it may be difficult to ascertain anything valuable ie. anything that could bring change. Which I hate to say, seems to almost be the goal some times.

the Pauns is a good place to start, you have a few specific phenotypes, and it is pretty localized.

But depending on what you are trying to find out, you need to have a good plan in place. The specifics of Pauns cactus bucks has changed over the years. You use to see very specific cases like this buck: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/maxresdefault.jpg In this case you are looking at some very specific epigenetic expression and epigenetic patterning. Where as much of what I have been seeing lately, like what has been posted on this thread, is probably the result of very related issues, but by different pathways.

When you are looking at abnormal antler growth, you have to classify it into at least three distinct categories. 1) Congenital via sex differentiating genes such as Sox9. 2) Congenital via endocrinological disruption, such as Shh disruption, which is just more nuanced and direct from the first type. and 3) exposure later in life which tends to express via simple testicular atrophy. Regardless, these all influence the Ihh gene/s that pattern antlers.

The specifics of this matter because it can tell you what you are looking for, if you don't already know. One of the differences between the congenital varieties is whether or not you are looking at sex determining genes(patterning) or more basic endocrinological disruption where something like an estrogenic mimic has simply disrupted morphogenesis. An example of what estrogenic disruption can look like would be cryptorchidism, like what is seen in Kodiak island black tailed: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/kodiak/ Although this case upon further review with the researcher has a greater epigentic component, the abnormal antlers are caused by the cryptorchidism and associated testicular issues ie. testosterone. Where as congenital cases that involve sex determining genes and activation of hedge hog genes can express very similarly in antlers, but have different underlying etiologies. Specifically the testicles are not cryptorchid, but rather "misaligned"(genetically mispattened) with varying degrees of other reproductive organ malformation, such as very short penises and misplaced nipples. Because of the association of other very related genes and epigenetic pathways, you many times see allot of asymmetric antler and testicular development. This can get complicated when you see the same sort of thing with bilateral cyrptorchidism, which may be more related to these later malformations of sex determining genes I am explaining right now, that look more like the deer at the top of the page here: http://rutalocura.com/deer3

Then you have things like testicular atrophy, which can be brought on later in life via pesticide exposure. There is no genetic component here, but the way this may play out in antler development, may look very much like the antler dysgenesis expressed by deer with congenital abnormalities.

Different compounds, used at different times, and in different combinations, dictate how this plays out. Which is important if you are looking to actually fix this.

Regardless, all of these can be caused by pesticide exposure, or other estrogenic compounds(You show me what those are). The Pauns intrigues me because I have not zeroed in on the source. I found it for Kodiak island, and several other places, I am running much of it down in Yellowstone right now. Just a preview: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/yellowstone/


----------



## hossblur (Jun 15, 2011)

I know I was one of the less civilized minds from MM, but I will ask the same question here, WHY? The cactus headed bucks on the Pauns are nothing new, not a new phenomenom, not some explosion of a freak population. As long as I can remember, (42) the cactus heads have been coming off this unit. So again I ask WHY? If this was a study being conducted by private individuals, or by the local outfitters, then great, it would possibly answer "i wonder why" questions. However, given the fact that the DWR is so underfunded, why are they wasting a single dollar on something that isn't a problem? Science for science sake is interesting, but the DWR isn't a research entity, its a management entity, and as such it has to maximize its money. Spending money, on a tiny population, on a tiny portion of the state, for something that isn't affecting anything but antler growth, IMO is a complete waste of the taxpayers money. The question trying to be answered will lead to nothing, other than answering curiousity questions. THe Dwr doesn't spend money(I hope) investigated Bigfoot, or chupacabra. So again, WHY?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

While LT's study's are interesting , and have my attention,
I wonder the same thing.

I was on the Paunsy in the late 80's early 90's,
The 'cactus' bucks were there then!

Nothing new about them being there now.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> While LT's study's are interesting , and have my attention,
> I wonder the same thing.
> 
> I was on the Paunsy in the late 80's early 90's,
> ...


Bingo....give the man a ceeeeegar. As Doug Deming says, without data it's simply you're opinion. I will stand by my original post, dollars to donuts it's genetic.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

LostLouisianian said:


> Bingo....give the man a ceeeeegar. As Doug Deming says, without data it's simply you're opinion. I will stand by my original post, dollars to donuts it's genetic.


Until you can say which genes, you have nothing. Name me one single gene that you think is involved. I have been hearing the "genetics" stuff for years, just tossing around the term genetic does not get us anymore deer, or fix anything.

Here is but a few of the genes involved in the epigenetics of all of this: http://rutalocura.com/images/Glyph-genes.jpg

Name me just one other gene that is involved in these "genetics" I keep hearing about.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

hossblur said:


> I know I was one of the less civilized minds from MM, but I will ask the same question here, WHY? The cactus headed bucks on the Pauns are nothing new, not a new phenomenom, not some explosion of a freak population. As long as I can remember, (42) the cactus heads have been coming off this unit. So again I ask WHY? If this was a study being conducted by private individuals, or by the local outfitters, then great, it would possibly answer "i wonder why" questions. However, given the fact that the DWR is so underfunded, why are they wasting a single dollar on something that isn't a problem? Science for science sake is interesting, but the DWR isn't a research entity, its a management entity, and as such it has to maximize its money. Spending money, on a tiny population, on a tiny portion of the state, for something that isn't affecting anything but antler growth, IMO is a complete waste of the taxpayers money. The question trying to be answered will lead to nothing, other than answering curiousity questions. THe Dwr doesn't spend money(I hope) investigated Bigfoot, or chupacabra. So again, WHY?


WHY? Because we can't "manage" what we don't know and understand, which is why the last 20 years have gone the way that they have. We don't know what makes deer numbers go up and down, therefor we can't "manage" those effects up or down. This is why we have done nothing but driven population numbers and hunter numbers down over the last 4 decades.

This is one of those things that drives those trends, so if you understand the who, what, where, when, and why of it, then you can "manage" it. Otherwise we are just pissing in shifting winds.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> While LT's study's are interesting , and have my attention,
> I wonder the same thing.
> 
> I was on the Paunsy in the late 80's early 90's,
> ...


Same goes for the blacktailed deer on Kodiak island, same thing for the last 20 years, nothing new, same old cactus bucks and low populations.

The same can be said for many places, and there is a reason why. We quit doing real meaningful wildlife science that produced game and hunters. If you want to change the later, you have to fix the underlying conditions that dictate this.

To do that, you have to understand the science that is driving our population trends. We can manage hunters all we want, in the end it does nothing to get us more wildlife or more tags. That can only come about one way...........


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

I also question the Why. To what end will this research serve?

You won't get herbicide use banned on every road and right of way, should it prove to be the cause and you won't be able to administer a vaccine type "cure" to every animal showing symptoms.

Abnormalities and mutations occur in all species across the globe to varying extents, not everything needs to be known nor "fixed" in this world. 

Some things just are.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

KineKilla said:


> I also question the Why. To what end will this research serve?
> 
> You won't get herbicide use banned on every road and right of way, should it prove to be the cause and you won't be able to administer a vaccine type "cure" to every animal showing symptoms.
> 
> ...


So I guess you are another person that does not think we have a problem with low tag numbers and low populations? You don't have any problem with net losses of hunter recruitment? You draw everything you want every year, and there is no point creep, or other related issues?

Rationalize it however you want, if you like to hunt, these things matter.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Fun stuff, eating my popcorn just hanging onto ever cervid-teste laden word. But the Kodiak Island cactus buck theory in vogue for the past decade (and still well supported by the ADFG--but what do AK bios know about Alaska deer?...) is about the pregnant females eating kelp with high estrogen compounds leading to funky nuts and weird racks. 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1874179/

and it has been observed for quite some time more than 20 or even 40 years. But let's not let facts get in the way of a good story.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

johnnycake said:


> Fun stuff, eating my popcorn just hanging onto ever cervid-teste laden word. But the Kodiak Island cactus buck theory in vogue for the past decade (and still well supported by the ADFG--but what do AK bios know about Alaska deer?...) is about the pregnant females eating kelp with high estrogen compounds leading to funky nuts and weird racks.
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1874179/
> 
> and it has been observed for quite some time more than 20 or even 40 years. But let's not let facts get in the way of a good story.


The photos in this article: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/kodiak/ that I wrote about Kodiak, came from one of authors of that study. If you read my article, it documents not only the application, but the ingestion of herbicides by those deer. Both of the herbicides used, that the deer eat, have documented estrogenic effects.

The uses of herbicides on specific areas of Kodiak increased 20 years ago, synchronous with the exponential rise of cactus bucks.

What the study you posted does not go into is the laminitis, mandibular mesiocclusions, or signs of insulin resistance also documented in that population of deer. Those other conditions go hand in hand with the observed cyryptorchidism and antler dysgenesis.

But what do I know, I only communicate with some of these people, and work with others who's studies are cited in the study you posted.

And the kelp angle is not well supported, the malformed deer don't exist in all coastal settings, just the ones where herbicides are used......

Edit: Just a side note about the original Kodiak study. The main research effort was not conducted by AK F&G, but a "citizen scientist" like my self. Same goes for some of the reference material cited by that study. Although one of the cited supporting authors is a retired MT wildlife biologist(someone I know, and have worked with).


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

...and the adfg use the study regularly and have accepted it as part of their management philosophy. But yeah, that remote back side of nowhere Kodiak island pesticide aerial spraying must be really covert and egregious...and kelp species and nutrient content in location X are always identical to those in location Y. But enough tilting at windmills, I just thought I'd post up a well respected piece for the general populace to read a different source and perspective. There are always mores sides than one to a story.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

I think it's radiation from Nevada. I have relatives in that area and they is some interesting folk. Type that had too much radiation exposure...


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

johnnycake said:


> ...and the adfg use the study regularly and have accepted it as part of their management philosophy. But yeah, that remote back side of nowhere Kodiak island pesticide aerial spraying must be really covert and egregious...and kelp species and nutrient content in location X are always identical to those in location Y. But enough tilting at windmills, I just thought I'd post up a well respected piece for the general populace to read a different source and perspective. There are always mores sides than one to a story.


Johnny, the study mentions kelp as a "possible" estrogenic source, no one has looked into whether it holds any water. It was the only "possible" known source for an estrogenic compound at the time of that study. Since the 2011 tsunami, there have been tons and tons of garbage wash up on the shores of Kodiak(I donate to the locals that removal all of this stuff).

One of the things that has come out of further study is the plastic pollution. This involves PCBs and several other endotoxicants, that also act as estrogens. This is documented in marine mammals there, just not terrestrial mammals at this point. So as to what is currently "in Vogue" that is the current word around the proverbial campfire WRT "possible" estrogenics.

The affected deer are not off the beaten path. They are in the low lying Western end, and very near many inhabitants, and the documented spraying. And the spraying is not aerial either, it is targeted at very specific invasive species. This is done with backpack sprayers, and looks like page 37 here: https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Region_7/NWRS/Zone_2/Kodiak/PDF/ea_ipm_kodiak.pdf

From that same publications: "_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._"

And as for those plastics and PCBs, we currently don't have deer ingesting them any more than kelp, and the known effects on the testes differ anyway. Where as in Kodiak black-tailed deer exposed to pesticides we see "_hyperplastic Sertoli cells, often arranged in rosettes and sometimes with neoplastic changes, in several abdominal testes_"

This looks very much like the cell damage that glyphosate has been documented to induce: See Study here. And lets not forget, these deer have been documented eating glyphosate......so yeah it must be the kelp........?


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

Lonetree said:


> So I guess you are another person that does not think we have a problem with low tag numbers and low populations? You don't have any problem with net losses of hunter recruitment? You draw everything you want every year, and there is no point creep, or other related issues?
> 
> Rationalize it however you want, if you like to hunt, these things matter.


You might be correct.

I don't see an issue with low tag numbers and populations, I have no problem with net losses of hunter recruitment, I never draw everything I want and yes there is a lot of point creep.

Your reply did not specify to what end this research was going to be used, it simply lashed out at someone that doesn't want to pay to determine why some deer have deformed antlers.

Are the deformed antlers causing the animals to vanish or die (like CWD does)? Does it taint the meat so they can no longer be consumed? Do they not still make for some cool campfire stories and taxidermy?

What the heck do cactus bucks have to do with low hunter recruitment and point creep? Are kids saying "Heck no I don't want to hunt because there are some deer with strange antlers, and they scare me!" Are people buying up preference/bonus points (point creep) because they are holding out to shoot a non-cactus buck? I'm not sure what cactus bucks have to do with either of those two items in your argument.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

The spraying started in 2003 in those regions. The cactus bucks occur in higher than normal concentrations throughout kodiak, and have for decades and decades prior to the spraying, fukushima, etc. The point being, unless there was some other covert pesticide spraying operation occurring throughout the island and heretofore undocumented since roughly 1940-60 (when the 9 deer transplanted in the 30's finally 'took off' and began to be harvested regularly unlike the prior 2 transplants of 14 and 2 in the 1910-20s), then Kodiak isn't really a good place for you to point the finger at pesticides "just like [insert anywhere any animal has funny balls]". The funky balls problem on Kodiak predates any regular pesticide use by a lot, and yeah adfg bios do tend to think there is something special in the kelp there. But maybe it is really all started/caused by Hiroshima fallout and a general lack of tinfoil jockstrap use by the "cool" bucks in the early 40's?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

johnnycake said:


> The spraying started in 2003 in those regions. The cactus bucks occur in higher than normal concentrations throughout kodiak, and have for decades and decades prior to the spraying, fukushima, etc. The point being, unless there was some other covert pesticide spraying operation occurring throughout the island and heretofore undocumented since roughly 1940-60 (when the 9 deer transplanted in the 30's finally 'took off' and began to be harvested regularly unlike the prior 2 transplants of 14 and 2 in the 1910-20s), then Kodiak isn't really a good place for you to point the finger at pesticides "just like [insert anywhere any animal has funny balls]". The funky balls problem on Kodiak predates any regular pesticide use by a lot, and yeah adfg bios do tend to think there is something special in the kelp there. But maybe it is really all started/caused by Hiroshima fallout and a general lack of tinfoil jockstrap use by the "cool" bucks in the early 40's?


The spraying and areas sprayed is not static, and it all increased exponentially in the early 1990s, along with an increase in spraying. So regardless of back ground levels of cryptorchidism, something changed in the early 1990s, which increased these things.

Did the kelp increase at that time???????

NO, the AK bios do not think that there is something special with the kelp. AK F&G never proposed that, and has never followed up on it as a possibility. Why then, if they think that it is a possibility do they not test it as one?????, they are testing other endotoxins in the region, why not that one??????

Edit: Did the other malformations exist prior to the early '90s????? Sources please for any answers.. BTW, Those would be the same things seen in the Stansbury bighorns that died off this spring. Were they eating kelp too????????


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

KineKilla said:


> You might be correct.
> 
> I don't see an issue with low tag numbers and populations, I have no problem with net losses of hunter recruitment, I never draw everything I want and yes there is a lot of point creep.
> 
> ...


Seriously??????? Yeah, N/M, you are right, the Pauns herd is doing awesome!, no problems there????????

What does 40 years of deer declines have to do with linearly correlated reductions in hunter recruitment????? I guess nothing.

What do suppressed herds have to do with point creep????? Nothing, apparently.

I frankly don't know where to even start. Try here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deer

And then we can move to yes, the deformed antlers are bad for deer populations. And if it is bad for deer, it is bad for deer hunters.

There can be plenty of character and malformations when we grow big sustainable herds, that grow big old deer that prime out and get funky naturally(accrued epigenetics) like they did in the good old days.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

I have a few questions.
1) What is the percentage of cactus bucks in the area of concern?
2) What is the percentage of cactus bucks in each of the other areas of the state?
3) How much of the suspect pesticide is used in the area of concern?
4) How much of the suspect pesticide is used in each of the other areas of the state?
5) What was the percentage of cactus bucks prior to 1974 when the suspect herbicide was first introduced to the US?
6) What have tissue samples of cactus bucks shown as far as being contaminated with the herbicide in question?
7) Are all areas of the area of concern equally distributed with cactus bucks or is it just some areas of the area of concern?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

LostLouisianian said:


> I have a few questions.
> 1) What is the percentage of cactus bucks in the area of concern?
> 2) What is the percentage of cactus bucks in each of the other areas of the state?
> 3) How much of the suspect pesticide is used in the area of concern?
> ...


Why don't you answer my last question, and give me just one single gene that is involved in the "genetics" you keep referring to, then I'll play. You can cast all the doubt you want, you don't know the subject matter, nor can you demonstrate other wise. That is why you toss around basic generic terms and concepts.

#1 Which area, there are many???
#2 Which state????? I have cases in several.
#3 Read the provided documents One eye and myself have posted several references, we can't read them for you.
#4 It would be plural, pesticide/s and again, you would need to be more specific. 
#5 does not count, because at least 8 other herbicides that go back to the '40s can do everything that glyphosate(introduced in 1974) can. Additionally, we can demonstrate an increase in ALL herbicide use in the 1990s. 
#6 there is not a single one in question. But there have been several found in several studies, in several states, including chlorothalonil, DDT metabolites, as well as several others. Myself and others have documented the ingestion, that is not in question. 
#7 Which area, what state???? there are many examples.

From the mouth of a Yellowstone National park representative, speaking about herbicide use: "_These techniques are already in use in the park. Reinhart said workers have been treating invasive plants for the past four decades, but the program became more active 20 years ago_."

This can be demonstrated in many places. 

So come on, give us just one gene, since you know about and are so sure about these "genetics" you keep telling us about.

BTW, are you challenging the DWR on this study, or my support for such research???


----------



## Idratherbehunting (Jul 17, 2013)

Well back on topic, I think better understanding cactus bucks is well worth it. If the goal is to get the samples sooner, the deprivation pool makes the most sense for this fall. I don't see the harm in this whether it is genetic or due to pesticides. Getting the samples to conduct sound scientific studies seems like a great idea, and could potentially help definitively identify the cause, or eliminate possibilities.


----------



## Idratherbehunting (Jul 17, 2013)

10 additional buck permits, requiring the harvest of a cactus buck is not going to impact the overall population, and will help drive science-based management.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Idratherbehunting said:


> Well back on topic, I think better understanding cactus bucks is well worth it. If the goal is to get the samples sooner, the deprivation pool makes the most sense for this fall. I don't see the harm in this whether it is genetic or due to pesticides. Getting the samples to conduct sound scientific studies seems like a great idea, and could potentially help definitively identify the cause, or eliminate possibilities.


I can see this value yes, but my hesitation and concern is the inclusion of a private interest in the selection of the bucks. Shouldn't it simply be the first encountered/able-to-be-harvested qualifying funky-rack/weird nutz buck? That might be what happens, but I suspect the bucks taken for this study are not going to be "aesthetically pleasing" to the trophy minded eye.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

So here are what the Kodiak cactus bucks look like:
Buck 1
Buck 2

And here are what declining Stansbury cactus bucks looked like in 2011 and 2012 in the build up of herbicide use in Tooele county, just before the Stansbury bighorns died off.
Buck 1
Buck 2
Buck 3 

Beyond any testicular malformation, these are very specific epigenetic expressions of very particular genes acting on the patterning of these antlers.

So can Lost tell me what gene, or can Johnny tell me where the kelp is that the Stansbury deer were eating? For that matter where is the kelp that the Pauns deer are eating?????


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

johnnycake said:


> I can see this value yes, but my hesitation and concern is the inclusion of a private interest in the selection of the bucks. Shouldn't it simply be the first encountered/able-to-be-harvested qualifying funky-rack/weird nutz buck? That might be what happens, but I suspect the bucks taken for this study are not going to be "aesthetically pleasing" to the trophy minded eye.


I can see this both ways to an extent. If the DWR or other qualified entity gives guidance on what is considered a "cactus buck" this should not matter too much. But it could prove problematic if you don't know what you are looking for. I would be doing some other investigating first to narrow things down.

Blood work for example could be very cost prohibitive, if you have not done your homework, you could miss some things entirely, and spend a fortune in lab work that gives you nothing.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

And just to be clear, because of questions I was just asked in an email. I do NOT think that glyphosate is responsible for what is seen in Paunsaugunt cactus bucks. 

Lets just say there is a reason I use the umbrella term "pesticide". 

But like I said before, there are either two relatively separate events that occur with the cactus bucks on the Pauns, or things have changed over the years. Meaning that what ever is responsible is either two different things(or more), that cause two(or more) distinct mispatterning events, or the influential agent has changed up, which could be valuable knowledge, if it has a defined time frame.

Edit: Something else that is defining about the Pauns. Many of the deer exhibit small skull caps and "bulging" eye sockets. These are much more distinctive and much rarer phenotypes in comparison to other cactus bucks in other areas. There will be a reason for this.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Lonetree said:


> Why don't you answer my last question, and give me just one single gene that is involved in the "genetics" you keep referring to, then I'll play. You can cast all the doubt you want, you don't know the subject matter, nor can you demonstrate other wise. That is why you toss around basic generic terms and concepts.
> 
> #1 Which area, there are many??? The area in question...Pauns
> #2 Which state????? I have cases in several. Utah only, I am not concerned with other states
> ...


See above for questions.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1 It is much higher than normal which should be under ~2% depending on cause. You will need to question the DWR on these specifics.
#2 If it is noticeable, like I said above ~2% it is abnormal, which is what is of concern. no one has done counts in Utah, but there are numbers for two areas in Montana with very similar conditions that have been from 25%-50%. And cases in Washington with similar numbers. Again none of this is static.
#3 In Utah. On a per road, per application, per mile basis???? A single application off 250 gallons of 2,4-D could be 10 miles of spot sprayed dirt road, or only five miles of highway. Again which pesticide are we talking about. A gallon of glyphostae is not much compared to 2oz of metsulfuron.
#6 I already said I had not zeroed in on any compound on the Pauns. You will need to ask the US Fish and Wildlife service about how they determined that deer were eating treated vegetation on Kodiak. They documented seeing it. 
As for my documentation in Utah here are examples: http://rutalocura.com/wridge and http://rutalocura.com/onemile One of these was already posted.
#7 All of the areas in Northern Utah and other states that I know about are clustered on areas that are treated with pesticides.

Cactus buck eating 2,4-D treated vegetation

Treated vegetation, black circles are on areas showing the auxin effects of the 2,4-D. The red circles are where the deer was selectively feeding on these shoots.

More treated vegetation.

Are you going to tell us about the "genetics", I have donuts.......


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

To the OP and everything else aside, I think that simply asking hunters that harvest a "cactus" buck on the Pauns this year (or anywhere else for that matter) to voluntarily provide the needed samples would suffice and that 10 special, accompanied hunts is not necessary.

We harvested a cactus buck many years ago in Huntsville, UT. but there were no efforts at that time to look into the cause.

Just my $.02


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

10 more people get to "hunt" the Pauns due to this. It's not going to negatively impact anything. 

Yes, a private interest is likely driving this. But for those that know and understand how the Pauns herd works, a lot of these bucks will likely be on that CWMU, and if not on at the time of execution, have at least likely spent significant time on or around it. 

I'm not against this, and would love to be 1 of the 10! Can I apply for the depredation pool and select Kane County only? How do you even sign up for this special depredation pool?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

KineKilla said:


> To the OP and everything else aside, I think that simply asking hunters that harvest a "cactus" buck on the Pauns this year (or anywhere else for that matter) to voluntarily provide the needed samples would suffice and that 10 special, accompanied hunts is not necessary.
> 
> We harvested a cactus buck many years ago in Huntsville, UT. but there were no efforts at that time to look into the cause.
> 
> Just my $.02


It would be nice if people that drew Puansuagunt tags would volunteer there deer for such a study. But if you had to rely on just this alone, you could come up very short in your effort to study this.

For people anywhere else to volunteer would be a nice sentiment, but if you are looking specifically at issues on the Pauns, you need deer specifically off the Pauns. Many times these things are more specific than just one unit. There are several examples I can think of where you have several of these kinds of issues within a single unit, with some of them overlapping. This may well already be what is going on the Pauns as well. A multiyear study, that looked at things more broadly would help to flesh some of that potential out. I know that in 2004, there were several other related issues documented near Hatch. I would think that these were separate but possibly compounding issues for what is seen on the Paunsuagunt itself.

I have been offering camping gear for the last two years to people that provided me with pictures of specific malformed animals. And one of my efforts in all of my studies besides trolling for road kill and active observation of animals, is to engage hunters. So I can attest to some of the things you come up against trying to look at animals people have killed. There are many people that are very opposed to such science, and this gets even more complicated if you are the F&G(I have my own biases here as well). I have seen the full range of responses on this, from being invited into camp, fed, and given gifts, to having people clam up as soon as they find out what I am asking about.

I must say that most hunters have been amazingly gracious and helpful in my efforts the last couple years, and many have gone out of their way to help me engage other hunters, to survey their animals. I had two hunters that were new to the unit I am archery hunting this year help me survey camps and look at deer that people had shot. These guys had already met everyone in the area, so they made the introductions for me which helped. These guys went out of their way to do this for me, so I got them onto some private property and put them on my water hole.

I have similar cooperation above and beyond this in other areas, and it can still be very hard to gather "statistically significant" amounts of data. So the way this is being proposed on the Pauns, sounds about right having undertaken similar efforts. The 10 animals is very modest, but combined with other things may help to elucidate some of what is going on. Though I have my doubts given the usual methodology that may be employed here. But I am hopeful at the prospect something scientific being done here.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Vanilla said:


> 10 more people get to "hunt" the Pauns due to this. It's not going to negatively impact anything.
> 
> Yes, a private interest is likely driving this. But for those that know and understand how the Pauns herd works, a lot of these bucks will likely be on that CWMU, and if not on at the time of execution, have at least likely spent significant time on or around it.
> 
> I'm not against this, and would love to be 1 of the 10! Can I apply for the depredation pool and select Kane County only? How do you even sign up for this special depredation pool?


I am not one bit surprised that it is a private interest driving this. It is probably the only reason this is getting done. Some of the best wildlife science ever done has been by independents, rogues, and "citizen scientists".

I was trading some information with a biologist in Canada recently that quit a stable and good paying job with the goverment so he could make as he put it "real progress" with his work on deer. The parallels to what we see here in the West on some of this are unreal.

These are Eastern whitetails he is working with. They have seen a 70% across the board decline(In New Brunswick Canada) in their deer populations over the last 30 years.

Here is video with a piece of how herbicides play into part of this. It is far more complex than this, but this angle is much easier to explain in his case:


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

> These are Eastern whitetails he is working with. They have seen a 70% across the board decline in their deer populations over the last 30 years


Just to be clear, you are claiming whitetail deer have experienced a 70% decline over the past 30 years across the board?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

johnnycake said:


> Just to be clear, you are claiming whitetail deer have experienced a 70% decline over the past 30 years across the board?


Watch the video.......He has charts and pictures.......

Edit:
Here, I edited the above post with this: (In New Brunswick Canada)

The only place they are seeing increases, and not decreases of these proportions in Eastern Canada, is in Quebec, where they banned spraying.


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

johnnycake said:


> Lol, couldn't help myself... And yeah it's 2016, so no judgment here, but as long as colorcountrygunner and his twinks got nothing to do with the donation....
> 
> Err, right, uh, deer hunting. Yup. <Belch, scratch>


Haha I sit down to read this 45 post thread and one of the first posts is a comment about me and twinks. I do believe that twinks may have something to do with this.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

What are these twinks you speak of?


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

colorcountrygunner said:


> Haha I sit down to read this 45 post thread and one of the first posts is a comment about me and twinks. I do believe that twinks may have something to do with this.


Just for you color, if I ever get lucky enough to shoot a buck with funky balls I will start referring to him as the time I nailed a twink.

marty, google with extreme caution--at home--and use incognito or clear your browser history unless you want an awkward conversation with the wife...or just don't go down that dark alleyway of the interwebs to begin with.


----------



## hossblur (Jun 15, 2011)

lonetree, 

Taking a micro population and trying to use data on the population as a whole, is junk science at best. There is no baseline to base data off of, etc. What there is are a small very well connected group who what to maximize antler growth to maximize profits. SOOO, instead of financing the study themselves, or even working in conjunction with a phd candidate, or biology major to set up a research study, they lobby the DWR to do it. Meaning, you and I pay for a study to benefit a private buisness solely. I don't know the number, but I would bet its close to $80hr for DWR employee to act as a hunting guide. This isnt scientific theory, this is buisness management, and the DWR shouldn't be involved.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

The DWR shouldn't be involved in studying issues related to public wildlife that is their job to manage? 

If heard some crap in my day, but...


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

johnnycake said:


> colorcountrygunner said:
> 
> 
> > Haha I sit down to read this 45 post thread and one of the first posts is a comment about me and twinks. I do believe that twinks may have something to do with this.
> ...


HAHAHA


----------



## plottrunner (Apr 3, 2008)

Lonetree, why would a unit like Zion that has just as much or more private land than the paunsaugunt with numerous ranchers treating noxious weeds with glyphosates and has roughly the same topography as well as food sources not have a problem with cactus bucks?

Not trying to argue, I am just really curious about this.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

KineKilla said:


> To the OP and everything else aside, I think that simply asking hunters that harvest a "cactus" buck on the Pauns this year (or anywhere else for that matter) to voluntarily provide the needed samples would suffice and that 10 special, accompanied hunts is not necessary.
> 
> We harvested a cactus buck many years ago in Huntsville, UT. but there were no efforts at that time to look into the cause.
> 
> Just my $.02


Thanks for the observation/opinion. Point well taken, but please remember that I'm just relaying information I saw and heard on the internet broadcast of the Wildlife Board meeting and by the time this agenda item came up, there were NO public attendees left. (They came to argue for or against the cougar tag numbers and when that was over, they all boogied on down the road.). But wouldn't it have been interesting to have had some public questions and comments about this. In any case, the proposal was made by the DWR and it was passed by the Wildlife Board as it now stands. Personally, I'm glad they're looking into this however this got started or turns out. It's obviously a subject that that is troubling to them for whatever reason ($$$$) and it should be looked at, IMHO, of course.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

plottrunner said:


> Lonetree, why would a unit like Zion that has just as much or more private land than the paunsaugunt with numerous ranchers treating noxious weeds with glyphosates and has roughly the same topography as well as food sources not have a problem with cactus bucks?
> 
> Not trying to argue, I am just really curious about this.


I'll let Josh/Lonetree respond to your question specifically 'cause his knowledge and insight is way beyond mine, but the comparison between the Pauns and Zion has been made quite often here in South Utah and the differences in the deer herds goes beyond cactus bucks even though the terrain and weather are basically the same. The buck to doe ratios, the tag numbers, the population numbers, the rates of increases, the competition with elk, the private land percentages and the deer management strategies all play into it.

Overall, the deer on the Zion unit are doing very well even with increased objectives. The B/D ratio was increased from 15-17 to 18-20 (it's now at 26.7 and climbing) and the population objective was increased from 13,000 to 15,500 (it's now at 17,000 and climbing).

On the other hand, the Paunsaugunt isn't doing as well. The population is above objective but by only 200 deer (it's now at 5,400) and, though the buck numbers are still above objective, they are dropping and are getting near the limit. (It's now 46% of bucks 5 years or older from 63% in 2013.)
(FWIW, the Premium LE units, the Paunsaugunt and the Henry Mtn. units are managed for a 40% ratio of the bucks over 5 years old with no relationship to the number of does, so we don't actually know the B/D ratio or how many bucks there are on the unit. Maybe the DWR keeps track of that, but it doesn't show up on the stats.)

Also remember that the cactus bucks aren't counted as bucks because they don't actually know if they are breeding or what percentage that would be if they are. All the more reason for the study, huh?

How any of this plays into biological management or permit management is yet to be seen, but we can better make our cases once the DWR publishes their results. I say, "Let's get on with it!"


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

hossblur said:


> lonetree,
> 
> Taking a micro population and trying to use data on the population as a whole, is junk science at best. There is no baseline to base data off of, etc. What there is are a small very well connected group who what to maximize antler growth to maximize profits. SOOO, instead of financing the study themselves, or even working in conjunction with a phd candidate, or biology major to set up a research study, they lobby the DWR to do it. Meaning, you and I pay for a study to benefit a private buisness solely. I don't know the number, but I would bet its close to $80hr for DWR employee to act as a hunting guide. This isnt scientific theory, this is buisness management, and the DWR shouldn't be involved.


Junk science? No, looking at an affected micro population is exactly how you construct a scientific experiment.

We don't have a baseline???? Don't get me wrong, I joke all the time that the DWR doesn't even know what a deer is let alone how to manage them. But we have lots of baseline referential data about what mule deer should be, could do, can do, have been, etc.

You can't conduct a study like this without DWR approval, I am writing similar proposals elsewhere. As the regulatory agency with jurisdiction over Utah wildlife, you need DWR approval to study said wildlife on a certain level. These people are just going through the proper channels, and the DWR is for once going to do their job.

Do I have issues with the private interest? I certainly see that there could be issues here. I personally think CWMUs should be abolished, for a number of reasons. But from a science and biological point of view, I can easily temper that bias. I think the Pauns has some potentially unique issues going on. If we can learn something from this study, and apply that knowledge elsewhere, we all benefit from that as hunters.

Like I said before we can't manage what we don't understand. And there is a lot about mule deer that we do not understand. So unless you can tell us how to effectively manage the Paunsuagunt mule deer, we need more information, and this study may get us some of that. Especially considering that what we see on the Pauns is all very related to what has been seen over and over again in the massive declines of the last 20 years. Not to mention the last 40 years. This is the 40th anniversary of this: http://rutalocura.com/files/1976-Mule_Deer_Decline_in_the_West.pdf

There has not been any real appreciable measurable progress made on this in the last 40 years. And the reason for this is because we are not and have not been conducting studies that give us the understanding we need to be able to manage mule deer, which is why we manage hunters instead. And with declining resources, that gives us one of two options there.

Car analogy: What we have been doing over the last 20 years at least, is akin to taking a 1996 or newer electronically controlled car to a mechanic that works on 1950s vintage vehicles. The engine and the brakes work fundamentally the same on a 1950s or a 1990s vintage vehicle, but the additional electronic inputs that are on a 1990s and newer vehicle make working on them very different. Mule deer populations are no different, the inputs and influences have changed over the years, and therefor the management, and the underlying understanding and knowledge that guide that management has to change as well. A 1950s understanding of wildlife biology and husbandry can not guide the management of deer that are facing additional and new inputs that are on a level best understood by endocrinology and epigentics. That 1950s mechanic can tell you that you have multiple misfires, and what appears to be a fuel issue. He may even be able to hook up a code reader and tell you what codes are bing thrown, but he does not have the knowledge and understanding to then step in and correct those deficiencies via active management. Not because he is not capable of it, but because he does not understand what he is working with, and what all of those new and additional inputs do to the macro system. And that is where we are with mule deer, a serious lack of understanding about what drives their declines, subpar rebounds, and health. Proof of this: That car has not been able to get over 35 miles an hour for the last 20 years........and it never will until we understand the specific inputs that are controlling that......This is not your fathers Oldsmobile.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

plottrunner said:


> Lonetree, why would a unit like Zion that has just as much or more private land than the paunsaugunt with numerous ranchers treating noxious weeds with glyphosates and has roughly the same topography as well as food sources not have a problem with cactus bucks?
> 
> Not trying to argue, I am just really curious about this.


What says that it doesn't? First I don't know of specific glyphosate use on the Zion, but I do know about specific uses of other herbicides. Second, given the current rise in buck to doe ratios, I would say there is an issue, just like there is in most other places. Rising buck to doe ratios only parallel rising populations briefly and then those trends diverge. The buck to doe ratio may continue up, but the fawn to doe ratios will fall, as will the overall population. Tying buck to doe ratios to tag numbers is one of the most politically and unscientific piece of "management" ever rolled out.

As for cactus bucks, these are just one of the extreme manifestations of the endocrinological disruptions that have been driving mule deer numbers. In many areas the number of these shoot up for a few years, and then the population declines. In some areas, like the Pauns and a few other places, the cactus buck phenomenon sticks around. This is because in many other cases the influence is not static. An example of this would be with what we see when a pipeline comes through an area. You see cactus bucks, and then you see the population decline, and then you see a subpar rebound, with stagnation of that population, and the cactus bucks disappearing. This is because a pipeline has a typical 5 year treatment plan that starts with the initial ground breaking. And to further complicate things, it will look different depending on the area the pipeline came through, because the herbicides used many times will be dictated by local jurisdictions.

So on the Paunsuagunt we have more of a static situation, where the cactus buck part of the problem has remained, in some form or another, for several decades. So if you want to study what is going on, this would be a good population to do it with, because the influence appears to be ongoing.

Looking at many of the Pauns bucks, I have my reservations about how any info may translate to other areas, but that in no way negates the need for this study.

I guarantee you some of the same epigenetics is involved in the Pauns deer as is involved in other populations, but via different mechanisms. Those small skull caps and the wide set and bulging eyes are very specific developmental genetics at play. So at least in those cases we are looking at congenital conditions. And depending on what(and when) the underlying mechanism is that is being influenced, ie. cholesteraol, bile acid, or retinoic acid influence on Hedgehog genes, you should see a corresponding malformation of the genitals or urinary tract as well. Those will also be specific to the underlying influences. The blood work could shed some light on some of what is going on, but here is where I start to get concerned. For example, if iron levels come back low, how do you interpret that? I highly doubt that anyone will drill down deeper, look at ferritin numbers, and start doing liver work of HepG2 liver cells and cholesterol, which is where your epigenetic influence could be playing out(in both the liver and testicles).

But like I said, the cactus bucks are just examples of the extreme end of these things playing out. When mule deer experience subclinically related issues for years, their populations declines, and then experience subpar recoveries, followed by stagnation and suppression of those herd numbers. That is what we have seen for 40 years, with a sharp uptick 20 years ago.

Recoveries of these populations has been shown through two separate but albeit related studies, both involved nutrition. In this case: https://deerlab.org/Publ/pdfs/23.pdf it was specific selenium supplementation that turned around these populations(temporarily). In this case there were not extreme manifestations like cactus bucks documented, but the researches did not look for them either(private correspondence). And in another case in Colorado it was more generic "nutritional" supplementation that raised the trend line. So why do these things change the trend line??? Because nutrition influences genetics. So if you have specific influences on the genetics of a given population, then certain nutritional inputs will have an effect on that population. Example: Pesticides have a negative impact on many genes, that may be expressed epigenetically. Pesticides have been shown to have a negative influence on Dio genes. Dio genes are selonprotiens, so if you supplement an affected population with selenium, you will see a positive response in said population, just like they did in the before cited study, where they increased fawn recruitment by 260% by supplementing Se. Here is how that plays out on a cellular and genetic level: http://www.oarsijournal.com/article/S1063-4584(12)00070-2/pdf

Bottom line on all of this, things changed 40 years ago, and then again 20 years ago. We have not been able to positively influence deer population numbers for 40 years, with two exceptions. And without an understanding of what is driving those dynamics in mule deer populations, we never will be able to positively influence mule deer populations. And that means we have no control over our future as hunters, tag numbers, hunter recruitment, etc.

Back to your main question, what says that the Zion is doing any better than anywhere else. Over what time frame, and by what metrics are we making that comparison. Because across the board, for 40 years, mule deer have not been doing good anywhere.

Edit: Like Lost tried to point out when he brought up genetics and location, there may be localized compounding factors that contribute to what we see in the Paunsuagunt deer. In fact I would expect it. They could be nutritional, or additional toxicities. In my favorite bighorn sheep case, it was shown that nitrates played a role in the selenium deficiencies and die offs experienced by these sheep. Later, I then documented correlating pesticide exposures. And now we know there are specific epigenetic synergies between nitrates and one of the pesticides used, which explains why some of these things are "weather" driven.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

elkfromabove said:


> Thanks for the observation/opinion. Point well taken, but please remember that I'm just relaying information I saw and heard on the internet broadcast of the Wildlife Board meeting and by the time this agenda item came up, there were NO public attendees left. (They came to argue for or against the cougar tag numbers and when that was over, they all boogied on down the road.). But wouldn't it have been interesting to have had some public questions and comments about this. In any case, the proposal was made by the DWR and it was passed by the Wildlife Board as it now stands. Personally, I'm glad they're looking into this however this got started or turns out. It's obviously a subject that that is troubling to them for whatever reason ($$$$) and it should be looked at, IMHO, of course.


Thanks for passing this along. I have frankly been completely ignorant of what has been going on in Utah(at least on this level) for months now. I only came over here because someone gave me a heads up.

I have been talking with some people that are in favor of what would essentially be a privatized and commercial model for fish and wildlife management. This is something that I have been very against. Allot of us are business owners, so some of the benefits of this get sold in such terms, ROI, sustainability, growth, dividends, etc. It is not privatization of land or wildlife, just the principals for management and especially the responsibility(which holds the path to reward). Under such a model there are real goals and consequences tied to said management, just like there are in the free market.

I'll be honest, I am getting my a$$ handed to me in the debates on this, because my position is essentially ideological. And I can feel that ideology shifting. My best retort is about the current privatization and commercialization of wildlife. But I keep getting hit with my own words about "results" and "responsibility", and reminded that those current private and commercial efforts do not indeed differ from state management, and are only extensions of them. The sales pitch to me is about the scientific end of things, and how the results of such efforts are used to drive management. This is where we are all in agreement. Currently the state F&G departments say they can't afford the science, and much of what has been funded privately has not been results driven. When it comes to fish, much of this has already been proven and is still driving things in many places. But there are some new faces that want to expand this concept.

I have not made up my mind on this, but I am interested to see how it may play out. Given a few years and the inevitability of certain courses we are on, it may be the only good solution left.


----------



## hossblur (Jun 15, 2011)

Lonetree, first I 100% agree with your CWMU belief. And I too would be curious about outcome, if for just a trivia question answer. I still believe you have to have some sort of baseline from which to start. I also believe that you don't have a population that stays in one place. There is no real way to know unless they are collared if this population of bucks is migratory, or if they live year round in one spot. In a study like this you have way to many variables and not nearly enough control.

But, and this is one of my arguments. MONEY. The DWR cannot be in the buisness of research. They can be involved, they can offer expertise, but every officer "guiding" for this hunt isn't catching poachers, isn't bettering habitat, etc. Money makes the world go round, and if we are to believe the DWR, they never have enough. The state gets it LE fee for a deer. The CWMU gets whatever they want to charge. If they are that worried about their product, let them raise the funds and support the science. They aren't that concerned or they would have done so a long time ago. Again, yet another issue with the CWMU, when there are profits to have, the CWMU owns the animals, when there is work, science, etc to be done, they are the states. At the least, they should supply all the guides.

I still don't see what the results will equal. Is it genetic? If so are we going to destroy the genetic line? Is it external toxins? If so are you going to get it banned? Is it nutritional? Then what? I think the answer is interesting, but again, 5400 deer, of which a tiny minority are cactus, when compared to the total deer population in the state, is in the margin of error. 

I find it nearly impossible that there isn't a PHd candidate that you could have conduct the study, and lets face it, SFW(you knew it was coming) is all about saving the mule deer, they can fund it.


----------



## plottrunner (Apr 3, 2008)

hoss, migration is what really makes me curious. The Pauns deer and the Zion deer migrate to the same place on the Arizona Strip. As far as lonetrees earlier statement about not knowing the usage of glyphosates on the Zion unit, my family has been using roundup and similar products for 10+ years to spot spray our meadows for thistle and larks spur. The only defect I have noticed on our property in the deer heard is the occasional carry over 2 point that just gets bigger and older but does not gain any more forks.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Migration: My understanding is that these deer are not all that migratory, but the local Bio may know better. In all the pictures I looked at years ago, the people I talked to, and what I read, said that these deer where not that migratory. Not that there could not be a component here. Ultimately if that is a piece of it, that comes into play later, as we currently see these cactus bucks predominantly on a specific part of this unit.

Base line data: There are reams and reams of base line data for mule deer, we have base line data, the mule deer genome is written a very specific way. These deer are exhibiting epigenetic expression that is well out side of what mule deer DNA(or any mammal) is supposed to. I don't know what the percentage of these cactus bucks is, but an underlying condition(cryptorchidism) associated with these kinds of antler abnormalities should not exceed 2%. We have way more deer than 2% that would be considered cactus bucks. And this is just those deer that are expressing this extremely. There is easily 1-2 more bucks with testicular anomalies for every cactus buck, that would not be considered cactus bucks. This is way out of the nrom,and can not be accounted for by genetics alone. Why? becasue we are talking about bucks that by their very conditions are far less likely to not be able to pass their genes on to the next generation. So if it were genetic, it would "burn itself out", by its very nature. But we don't see that happening.

As for whether it is toxins, nutrition, or genetics? the answer is yes! The real question is what are the details that surround all of that. You can only do so much with the situation if you don't have any of those answers.

As for the DWR not being in the research business, that is why we have the problems we have. They have not been in the business of research. And because of this, they do not understand what they are managing. If the DWR is not supposed to do the research, who is?? Don't get me wrong I've been doing their job for years. But seriously, how do we get the understanding about wildlife that we need to manage it? PHD candidates are all fine and dandy, but come on many of them are still wet behind the ears headed straight into a "technician" job that they are over educated for, but still can't competently complete.

I'll put my money where my mouth is. I have $1000 that I will throw at the effort, and anything else I can offer. And I would have no objections to SFW ponying up a few bucks either.

To say that the DWR should not be studying wildlife is exactly why they started having these meetings in 1976: http://rutalocura.com/files/1976-Mule_Deer_Decline_in_the_West.pdf The science got away from Fish and Game departments decades ago, and they can't possibly return to the roots of science that brought us the gains of the early 20th century soon enough. Go back and look at the very early charters of F&G departments, science is central to their implementation. Like I said, when the science was being done we had copious wildlife, after that slipped away, so did the wildlife, and so did the hunting.

Less wildlife, less hunters, less DWR revenue, less money for research..........you can continue the cycle, or do what needs to be done to fix the problem, and ultimately increase revenue on the supply side, because the demand side can not sustain the current budgetary deficiencies. The current demand side is at a minimum the most egregiously structured fiscal waste every implemented, it is quite simply fraudulent by both means and results alone. Returns(wildlife numbers) require investment(research). Not spending money in these situations is not fiscal responsibility, it is fiscal suicide, and huntercide.........The whole "It's some one else's responsibility", is nothing but liberal hippy bull****....


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

plottrunner said:


> hoss, migration is what really makes me curious. The Pauns deer and the Zion deer migrate to the same place on the Arizona Strip. As far as lonetrees earlier statement about not knowing the usage of glyphosates on the Zion unit, my family has been using roundup and similar products for 10+ years to spot spray our meadows for thistle and larks spur. The only defect I have noticed on our property in the deer heard is the occasional carry over 2 point that just gets bigger and older but does not gain any more forks.


Casual observation is fine, but still requires some greater reference. Have you looked at dozens of specific health conditions across that entire population for those ten years? Do you know what you need to be looking for? Have you done follow up research to see if the deer are eating your sprayed vegetation? Your small localized spraying may not have a greater measurable effect, I don't know. I do know that deer and other wildlife will eat treated vegetation(specifically sprayed thistle), and where they do, they have specific problems that can be tied to those herbicides. BTW, deer love Lark spur, I have yet to see this myself, but have had it relayed by two different sources. This chart: http://rutalocura.com/images/Glyph-genes.jpg has part of glyphosate's proven effects on genetics. Each one of those lines on that graphic represent multiple peer reviewed studies, not just **** I made up. If the deer eat herbicides, which they do, there are health consequences and very specific genetic damage that happens. And what we are seeing on the Pauns looks very much like what we see in other areas where deer eat herbicides. It may well be an insecticide, or other toxin, and it may well be complicated by specific locational factors. And that is why we need to study it, because unless you can tell me what is going on with those deer we don't know for sure. I can tell you that it is a pretty narrow developmental window, and suspect list to have some of the malformations seen keep showing up.


----------



## plottrunner (Apr 3, 2008)

I'm not arguing with you as you seem to know what your talking about. I am just asking questions by throwing in variables. The area I mentioned that we spray is 4500 acres and we are not the only ones. We are in the North Fork drainage and if not contained, the thistle will overtake all the meadows. I am sure some of the spray ends up in the water which ultimately ends up in the Virgin River. The deer in this drainage all migrate and you can set the calendar by when they go. The 2nd week of October it is like a cattle drive with all the deer heading South. The reason for my curiosity is this. If spraying these herbicides has negative effects on the local wildlife population, it also has negative effects on livestock. If that is the case, it would be better if ranchers knew the effects of these studies as well and if they are negative, a better source of invasive weed control might be necessary. I have found that roundup is not the most effective thing on thistle anyway and a shovel works better.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

plottrunner said:


> I'm not arguing with you as you seem to know what your talking about. I am just asking questions by throwing in variables. The area I mentioned that we spray is 4500 acres and we are not the only ones. We are in the North Fork drainage and if not contained, the thistle will overtake all the meadows. I am sure some of the spray ends up in the water which ultimately ends up in the Virgin River. The deer in this drainage all migrate and you can set the calendar by when they go. The 2nd week of October it is like a cattle drive with all the deer heading South. The reason for my curiosity is this. If spraying these herbicides has negative effects on the local wildlife population, it also has negative effects on livestock. If that is the case, it would be better if ranchers knew the effects of these studies as well and if they are negative, a better source of invasive weed control might be necessary. I have found that roundup is not the most effective thing on thistle anyway and a shovel works better.


Chopping thistles is way more effective, that's what we do, much less ground than 4500 acres though. 2,4-D and 2,4-D combos are what is preferred for thistle. And yes the cattle eat it as well, and suffer from the same ill effects: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01545126 (I can't legally post the whole paper here) much of what goes on plays out through these: http://www.electronicsandbooks.com/...ology/1986 (Vol 35)/No02(123-360)/289-295.pdf and other mechanisms.

Many of these pics: http://rutalocura.com/onemile are of herbicide treated vegetation fed on by both cattle and deer. I had to shoot in enclosures and off the allotment to know it was deer and not cattle that had fed on some of it.

The problem with cattle, is that ranchers rely on the distributors and the extension offices to give them good info on pesticide use, and now days everyone says, "oh, its safe as table salt". Tell that to the Northern Utah rancher that sprays his property to clear brush to expand his business because cattle prices are high, only to experience a 60% still birth and first week death rate, aka weak calf syndrome. There is a bad practice in the cattle industry of SSS, and I am not talking about predators. Many operators think burying(quite literally) some of these problems will fix it, it's cultural, and it is very detrimental. There are plenty of "studies" and "reviews" that will tell you that herbicides are safe for animals, and there is just as much or more solid research and evidence otherwise. It definitely takes some wading through the BS to flesh out what is what.

Edit: As for invasives, I still struggle with this one. Go back and look at my views right here 5 years ago. We are entrenched in the idea as conservationists that invasive weeds are really bad for wildlife. I still have that visceral reaction when I see certain "weeds". But when you get right down to it, we have to choose between some weeds or having wildlife to hunt in many of these situations. The most recent numbers out of MT say the best efforts don't touch 5% of the weeds over any given time frame, meaning we are going to have them regardless. So we need to focus on what makes for healthy ecosystems overall. Additionally, the roots of much of this weed madness as it relates to conservation starts with massive increases to eradicate weeds 20 some odd years ago in this realm. Those weed efforts parallel declines in populations, not increases. And as we double down on those past efforts, as we are doing now, we are going to reap the same thing, declines.


----------



## hossblur (Jun 15, 2011)

Lonetree I still don't necesarily disagree, however....
This summer I did my dedicated hours at Farm. Bay. Talked to the manager a bit, asked him about his job, etc. He is the manager, or the second most important WMA in utah(I know BRBR is federal but). He has a masters and is in charge. He doesn't make $50k.
A bigger problem on the Pauns than any cactus is POACHING. The DWR simply doesn't have the money to recruit and keep the best and brightest, nor to be GAME WARDENS. I know your excited about this study. I know your well versed on the subject, much more than I. However, I own a small buisness, and am married to an accountant. MONEY. Thats not hippy bs, that is real world. If your boat is sinking, you don't spend time and money researching the best patching systems and their longevities, you plug it with whatever you have and do what you can. Money. My wife previously worked for a company called Boart Longyear. They are a drilling company that developed some of the best bits on the planet. They spend/spent millions on R&D. Long story short, they are nearly bankrupt because they didn't watch the bottom line. And again, I have made he point 3 times now, here it is again. 250,000+ deer in Utah. Why is the money spend on less than 100 deer a good use of funds? You misread my point as being anti research, its not, but its not wasting research dollars on something that isn't a problem. You do not have massive die off. You don't have a sudden outbreak. Most if not all the "data" isn't data, its wifes tales. In the meantime, the Pauns is still being poached. Yeah, in the perfect world the DwR would be only biologists, but the world isn't perfect and the DWR needs to worry more about protecting what we have, then chasing something that quite frankly, seems to only be affecting outfitters. I personally would rather have a cactus over a non. This is just another in a long line of DWR projects, that solely and completely benefit a commericial enterprise. Pretending its about raw science, and not profits for a commercial enterprise is plain disingenuous. Yes they should be involved, but that involvement should be on the interpretation side, not the collection side. The data collection can be done cheaper and just as effectively by another entity.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

hossblur said:


> Lonetree I still don't necesarily disagree, however....
> This summer I did my dedicated hours at Farm. Bay. Talked to the manager a bit, asked him about his job, etc. He is the manager, or the second most important WMA in utah(I know BRBR is federal but). He has a masters and is in charge. He doesn't make $50k.
> A bigger problem on the Pauns than any cactus is POACHING. The DWR simply doesn't have the money to recruit and keep the best and brightest, nor to be GAME WARDENS. I know your excited about this study. I know your well versed on the subject, much more than I. However, I own a small buisness, and am married to an accountant. MONEY. Thats not hippy bs, that is real world. If your boat is sinking, you don't spend time and money researching the best patching systems and their longevities, you plug it with whatever you have and do what you can. Money. My wife previously worked for a company called Boart Longyear. They are a drilling company that developed some of the best bits on the planet. They spend/spent millions on R&D. Long story short, they are nearly bankrupt because they didn't watch the bottom line. And again, I have made he point 3 times now, here it is again. 250,000+ deer in Utah. Why is the money spend on less than 100 deer a good use of funds? You misread my point as being anti research, its not, but its not wasting research dollars on something that isn't a problem. You do not have massive die off. You don't have a sudden outbreak. Most if not all the "data" isn't data, its wifes tales. In the meantime, the Pauns is still being poached. Yeah, in the perfect world the DwR would be only biologists, but the world isn't perfect and the DWR needs to worry more about protecting what we have, then chasing something that quite frankly, seems to only be affecting outfitters. I personally would rather have a cactus over a non. This is just another in a long line of DWR projects, that solely and completely benefit a commericial enterprise. Pretending its about raw science, and not profits for a commercial enterprise is plain disingenuous. Yes they should be involved, but that involvement should be on the interpretation side, not the collection side. The data collection can be done cheaper and just as effectively by another entity.


Hoss you NAILED IT! When I was at LSU we did these studies all the time. I can't even remember how many studies I worked on as a student and the DATA was given to the DWR. I am quite sure we could have U of U and BYU students doing these studies for their PhD's and Masters along with undergraduate support as I did. I will stand by my initial assertion until the DATA proves me wrong....dollars to donuts this is genetic.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I'm going back to elkfromabove's first post and I'm wondering where all these assumptions are coming from?

1- That law enforcement attending these hunts will be unable to go out and catch poachers while these 10
Tags are being filled. He mentions that the hunters will be accompanied by a DWR *employee* OR an Alton CWMU employee. Nowhere does it say this will be the law enforcement officers employed by the DWR (referred to as COs or game wardens, by most) will be out of their usual responsibilities. In fact, it's much more likely that this will include the biologist than the law enforcement personnel.

2- That DWR is conducting the study and funding it and we should have PhD students do it. Who says PhD students aren't involved? Who said that the DWR is funding this?

I could go on, but these two illustrate my point well enough. It is amazing to me that a poster admits the deer are migratory and don't stay in one place, then insists that the CMWU operator should pay for this alone and the state agency charged with managing wildlife shouldn't be involved. Again, I've heard some crap in my day, but...


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Vanilla said:


> I'm going back to elkfromabove's first post and I'm wondering where all these assumptions are coming from?
> 
> 1- That law enforcement attending these hunts will be unable to go out and catch poachers while these 10
> Tags are being filled. He mentions that the hunters will be accompanied by a DWR *employee* OR an Alton CWMU employee. Nowhere does it say this will be the law enforcement officers employed by the DWR (referred to as COs or game wardens, by most) will be out of their usual responsibilities. In fact, it's much more likely that this will include the biologist than the law enforcement personnel.
> ...


Go back to my list of questions which have never been answered on this thread and you'll understand. There is no actual data to support even doing a study unless you want to look at studies done hundreds of miles away and deduce this is happening here. As Doug Demming said...without data it's just an opinion. I asked if there was certain bits of data and the overwhelming answer was NO. Until we have data this is all just BS.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

That was totally unresponsive to my questions about the two specific assumptions I've seen in criticism of this study.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

LostLouisianian said:


> Go back to my list of questions which have never been answered on this thread and you'll understand. There is no actual data to support even doing a study unless you want to look at studies done hundreds of miles away and deduce this is happening here. As Doug Demming said...without data it's just an opinion. I asked if there was certain bits of data and the overwhelming answer was NO. Until we have data this is all just BS.


And you of all people have nothing but an opinion, or so says Demming. Speaking of unanswered questions, when are you going to tell us about the genetics you are so sure are involved???

Maybe you could tell us what genes are involved in the truncated and blunted points seen on Pauns deer, and how those genes are related and co-expressed with the genes involved in the abnormal skull development seen in those same deer?????

I post more data than anyone on this site, you either don't bother to read it, or can't grasp it.

If you don't understand the biological and statistical reasoning for doing this study, you quite simply do not understand the basics of wildlife management or biology, which is not a surprise, I'm just pointing it out again.......

You are a fake wildlife biologist, and fake forester, hiding behind a fake name on the internet spreading falsehoods about science that you don't even understand the very basics of, and this is all very bad for wildlife and hunting, which is why I take umbrage with it.

Again mister "I have a degree in wildlife biology", name us one single gene involved in the genetics you are so sure are involved here, but should not be studied(only because I say they should).


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

hossblur said:


> Lonetree I still don't necesarily disagree, however....
> This summer I did my dedicated hours at Farm. Bay. Talked to the manager a bit, asked him about his job, etc. He is the manager, or the second most important WMA in utah(I know BRBR is federal but). He has a masters and is in charge. He doesn't make $50k.
> A bigger problem on the Pauns than any cactus is POACHING. The DWR simply doesn't have the money to recruit and keep the best and brightest, nor to be GAME WARDENS. I know your excited about this study. I know your well versed on the subject, much more than I. However, I own a small buisness, and am married to an accountant. MONEY. Thats not hippy bs, that is real world. If your boat is sinking, you don't spend time and money researching the best patching systems and their longevities, you plug it with whatever you have and do what you can. Money. My wife previously worked for a company called Boart Longyear. They are a drilling company that developed some of the best bits on the planet. They spend/spent millions on R&D. Long story short, they are nearly bankrupt because they didn't watch the bottom line. And again, I have made he point 3 times now, here it is again. 250,000+ deer in Utah. Why is the money spend on less than 100 deer a good use of funds? You misread my point as being anti research, its not, but its not wasting research dollars on something that isn't a problem. You do not have massive die off. You don't have a sudden outbreak. Most if not all the "data" isn't data, its wifes tales. In the meantime, the Pauns is still being poached. Yeah, in the perfect world the DwR would be only biologists, but the world isn't perfect and the DWR needs to worry more about protecting what we have, then chasing something that quite frankly, seems to only be affecting outfitters. I personally would rather have a cactus over a non. This is just another in a long line of DWR projects, that solely and completely benefit a commericial enterprise. Pretending its about raw science, and not profits for a commercial enterprise is plain disingenuous. Yes they should be involved, but that involvement should be on the interpretation side, not the collection side. The data collection can be done cheaper and just as effectively by another entity.


I don't think you have made the case that this is costing anything, as Vanilla pointed out.

So who should do deer counts?? If the DWR does not collect that data who should? We can't afford to hire some else to do it. Who is going to collect data at road side checks? Who is going to check licenses? There is a data collection factor involved there as well. Collar studies? I have been bumping into DWR personnel sweeping radio collars for two years now. I watched one last year go check fishing licenses about an hour after sweeping and pencil whipping his clip board. So he should not have been collecting data? I want to see these guys out in the field, and engaging wildlife, which includes collecting data, that is the job.

I can give you several other examples in other states and two Canadian provinces, where this is the job, that is what needs to get done. I have spoke with several guys over the last few years that lament that they can't put more time and effort into those studies and data collection. One of them, a BC biologist does his regular 40+, and then gives it another 20 off the clock. And a whole lot of that is collecting data, because that is where the deficiencies are.

Boart was in trouble years ago, they never paid there bills. 10 years ago they were hitting our 120 days file every month. Eventually those temporary patches start adding up, and if a permanent fix is not implemented at some point they all fail anyway, and you sink, it is just a matter of whether it is short term or long term, the underlying reasons are all the same.


----------



## bossnutz (1 mo ago)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Lonetree who doesn't seem to frequent here as much anymore has some decent ideas on the issue. It is not his junk got caught in a fence it is that exposure to pesticides used in habitat treatments affect the endocrine system a great deal, which would explain why he has no, or disformed testicles. As you look deeper into it, exposure to what is used inhabitant treatments to prevent noxious weeds like cheatgrass from growing makes a lot of sense that if it's being consumed by our deer and elk, it will have negative affects on them. Here is some information if you are interested in researching this point of view 3 Malhuer, Oregon - Western Wildlife Ecology 13 Hotchkiss, CO - Western Wildlife Ecology 14 Paunsaugunt, UT - Western Wildlife Ecology 15 Hanford, WA - Western Wildlife Ecology 25 Oquirrh Mountains, UT - Western Wildlife Ecology


 when i was a kid we knew that it was related to the testicles and would catch and cut one nut or two and also earmark them... we did probably 100's


----------

