# Mule Deer Population; the problems, and the solutions



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

After much heated debate over in the "other kinds of animals forum", I would like to start a thread about our deer populations here in Utah. What are the problems, what are the solutions? What are the solutions to balance good hunting opportunity, with some larger bucks, and have a good healthy stable and sustanable population of deer here in Utah. We will only live on this earth once, let's not be the generations that had no answers to our problems, and heck lets enjoy our deer herds while where here too. I would just like to hear ideas for the problem and solution, lets try to keep out of heated debates if possible.

I would say discussion topics for problem and solution and importance of them can include:

-Habitat, both the loss of, and the falling value of the current important habitat we have left.

-Selenium deficiency's (lonetree)

-predator control

-cheat grass

-fawn survival

-water

-elk, cattle, and other wildlife

-roadkill

- #of permits, unit managment, etc.

-any other subjects that are a problem


----------



## papaderf (Aug 24, 2013)

great topic but its up to dwr not us kinda political. Ok management. How did the LE units get where they are at now.hmmm but the state has to satisfy everyone not just big bucks but all deer in general and they are tryin .keep the predator control active we all can count .dogroaches will never leave but we can create more fun for hunting.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

:fencing:


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

:argue:


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

I like it. In the best interest of the subject, I'm going to bow out for 24 hours or so. Those that have followed my sermons already know much of what I have to say. I'll try to put together a post that effectively summarizes the selenium proposal. In the mean time for those that have not read the post 1-I is referring to, here is a short paper on real world implications of selenium deficiencies.

www.deerlab.org/Publ/pdfs/23.pdf‎

And here are some studies on the effectiveness of predator control:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wmon.4/abstract

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jwmg.126/abstract

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2193/0022-541X(2005)069%3C0311:MDSAAP%3E2.0.CO;2/abstract

http://wildlife.state.co.us/Research/Mammal/Deer/Pages/Deer.aspx


----------



## papaderf (Aug 24, 2013)

yep he is good . Never to argue but resolve. Lonetree makes a lot of sense vote for him to speak to dwr.lonetree your great I think


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

The problem is that there aren't enough deer to supply the demand. There isn't enough "horn" to satisfy the appetite to kill more inches. The best solution would be to adjust the expectations and outlook of sportsman, but since that is unlikely, we'd better look to some of Lonetree's biology stuff. Good luck with that too.-----SS


----------



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

papaderf said:


> great topic but its up to dwr not us kinda political. Ok management. How did the LE units get where they are at now.hmmm but the state has to satisfy everyone not just big bucks but all deer in general and they are tryin .keep the predator control active we all can count .dogroaches will never leave but we can create more fun for hunting.


Correct it is the DWR who has to manage. But it is us as sportsman who must impose our will and make our voice herd. We need to volunteer, suggest project for dedicated hunter and projects in general, suggest problems, results and solutions. We need to show the DWR, BLM, FS, and conservation groups we are the serious ones about fixing the problem, and we do that by first discussing, then planning, then taking action. If they disagree in the end we as sportsmen buy the tags, we pay our taxes, we pay their salaries and pay for the funding, and pour countless other donations and dollars into the pot. We are the ones who deserve to have our money spent the way it should be spent, and we want results, without them, we need to show our disatisfaction. Sportsmen have already imposed their will on many plans, we can impose any will we want, we just all need to stand together toward one set of goals to help our wildlife and their habitat.


----------



## Kevinitis (Jul 18, 2013)

The primary factor that determines deer populations is the quality and quantity of habitat. Of particular importance is winter habitat. It's not predators, permit numbers, or management. The main way we are going to get deer numbers, which are still high compared to pre-history populations, is to fix habitat. Utah is a leader in habitat restoration compared to all other western states thanks to the Watershed Restoration Initiative and Utah Partners for Conservation and Development, which has restored nearly a million acres of habitat to date. Most of these projects are funded by sportsmen's dollars. Here is a link to the WRI website: http://wildlife.utah.gov/watersheds/

On this website you can view how much Utah is doing for it's deer populations.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Kevinitis said:


> The primary factor that determines deer populations is the quality and quantity of habitat. .


It does not get any truer than this!

And not to diminish Utah's habitat restoration, I am fully supportive of it, but what about this: We know habitat improvements increase deer, and if Utah is a leader in habitat improvements, why do we not see a significant increase in the deer trends, on all habitat improvements? And why are the long term trends not improved over areas with no improvements?

Sagebrush is still down like 12% over the last decade, but in 2012 mule deer increased across the West. This was in places with habitat improvements, and areas without. This was in Utah, and in other states.

Side note: Sagebrush declines across the West, coincide with decreases in human fertility. ~1% decline over the last 15 years.

So what makes "quality" habitat? We know that particular plants are preferred by mule deer, and this is for many reasons. But ultimately it comes down to nutrition, protein, carbs, vitamins, and minerals. Weather plays a large role in growing these plants, but the soil is where all of the nutrients come from. And that is ultimately as, or more, important than the plants themselves. The plants are in a way just conduits for the nutrients that deer need. The dirt, and other conditions and factors, dictate the quality of the plants. It is the ignored part of "habitat".

In the '50s and '60s deer numbers were high, and stable. And reintroduction efforts with bighorn sheep were making great headway. In the early and mid eighties, mule deer, bighorn sheep, and moose, all experienced declines, this occurred again in the early '90s, and again in the early 2000s. All species, everywhere in the west. To bighorns as an example: The Whiskey mountain bighorn herd in WY was the largest native bighorn herd in the lower 48, until the early 1980s, when they began to experience steep declines. In the late '90s it was determined that selenium deficiencies were suppressing the herd. Selenium supplementation was shown to halt declines, but not reverse the trend. In Montana, the Thomson Falls bighorn herd was once 500+ strong after being reintroduced in the 1950s. They now number ~50 sheep. Besides suffering from reproductive declines, these sheep suffer high deaths from collisions on the highway. They congregate along the road, and lick anti ice salts, specifically magnesium chloride off the pavement. This began in the early '80s, and has increased ever since. This is occurring at the mouth of American fork canyon, with the struggling Prove peak herd, that has experienced declines from pneumonia. And this spring there was a bighorn ewe, that was hit on the highway near Wallsburg, at a point in the road where magnesium chloride use would have been higher(bend on an incline). this was also 500 yards from where the local sheep herder had placed salt for their sheep. Salt for domestic sheep, is selenium amended, unlike other livestock salts.

Selenium and other mineral deficiencies are in essence habitat deficiencies. We don't notice or pay attention to them, because we don't see them. If we plant sagebrush, or bitterbrush, we can see it, its tangible, palatable, and tactile. If a lion or coyote eats a deer, we can see it, we can see in real time, the population declining by one animal, even if it is only perception, and does not contribute to the long term trends.

"I know seeing is believing, but I can't believe what I'm seeing"--Garrett


----------



## TargetProne (Sep 24, 2007)

So how would we go about fixing selenium deficiencies? Everyone buy selenium salt rocks and distribute them every year?


----------



## msummer88 (Aug 20, 2013)

Lonetree said:


> It does not get any truer than this!
> 
> And not to diminish Utah's habitat restoration, I am fully supportive of it, but what about this: We know habitat improvements increase deer, and if Utah is a leader in habitat improvements, why do we not see a significant increase in the deer trends, on all habitat improvements? And why are the long term trends not improved over areas with no improvements?
> 
> ...


I've been thinking about this all year long. I hunt the Kamas area and over the past ten years its amazing to see how the deer population has declined. The wintering grounds are just getting worse.

So what about doing what they've done up at Hardware Ranch? Is there any way we could designate areas where we can feed the elk and deer during the winter? If i'm not mistaken this also happens in the Jackson Hole area, and its really helped the elk/deer populations. I think it would help if we found a better way to take care of the animals in their wintering grounds. I think that is what is really hurting the deer more than anything.


----------



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

Msummer88 I would not want to feed the elk or deer, especially deer their stomachs don't do well will most hay during winter . By the time you've got a useable hay over time it is much better and cheaper to improve the habitat by replanting it with good feed for the deer and elk.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Yeah, feeding has been looked at, pretty extensively. At Hardware they feed elk to keep them out of the agricultural areas, not so much to increase numbers. Feeding enhancements is one of the ways they have been able to demonstrate, that it is a nutritional issue that is limiting deer. At Washington state university they conducting a study on captive mule deer. They feed them three different diets. One that is low in nutrition, one that is medium, and one that is high. Low nutrition diets affect the time of the rut, and the timing of fawning. Unlike what some Utah researchers will tell you, it is not the bucks that synchronize the rut it is the does. And it is their health that determines this. The deer that were fed low nutritional diets dropped fawns later, and had lower fawn to doe ratios. While those deer fed the high nutritional diet, fawned earlier, and had higher rates of twins, with better survival rates.

Supplemental feeding is not a practical solution, and creates some other downsides. It also ignores that there is an underlying problem, that needs to be addressed. Areas where supplemental feedings occur, suffer from overgrazing of native plants, and conversions of some of these to less desirable plants. 

We know we have less than optimum habitats, yet we can still increase the number of deer on them, under less than ideal conditions. There is a nutritional factor of some sort that drives this. If you can grow more deer, and do it on declining ranges, then nutrition has to be getting to the deer some how. And the only way that can be happening is through the less than optimal plants. That means there is adequate, or better than adequate, nutrition, making its way to the deer, on less than adequate habitats. It is this part of things we need to understand. 

In 1937, in Yellowstone national park, the mule deer population was bottomed out. The range was in very poor shape, because of the drought, coyotes were no longer being controlled, and the elk were in far greater numbers than were mule deer. Yet with poor ranges, predation, and competition from elk, the deer herd doubled in the next three years. That does not just happen because someone wanted it to. Some actual mechanism of nature drove those increases. And nutrition has been shown over, and over again, to be the thing that can drive those increases. 

1-I, We can not come up with any meaningful fix for selenium or any other nutritional deficiency, until we understand what causes them, and how they work. Once we have a root cause, then we can address it. That is the process. Just like when fixing a car, or other complex mechanical system you have to trouble shoot the problem. You go through a "trouble shooting tree", to determine that it is the charging system, and then follow it further to determine that it is the alternator, and further to find that it is a diode. Then, you can see the core problem, and the fix is pretty much known at this point. I would say that with deer, and cars as comparisons, we could safely say that our deer have had trouble with nutrition. And in the same way we narrowed the problem on our car down to the charging system, we have to follow the trouble shooting tree with respect to nutrition, and narrow it down further. The problem is, we have been wasting money and the last 20+ years trying to come up with solutions, rather than identifying problems. If you look at deer science in the 1950s, those guys were laying a great foundation for the understanding of mule deer, their ecology, and their nutrition. This goes for elk too, but we have veered a long way from any of those founding works. and the few that have persisted in these traditions, have been ignored. And as sportsmen, we will pay the price for that.


----------



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

I understand what you're saying lonetree and I get your saying get to the root of the problem before attempting to fix it . I do think we have fixed many problems but like your car theory ; over the last 2 decades we've had a car sitting there and we've just been replacing parts unsure of the source of the problem, but we've been replacing parts nonetheless to make ourselves feel like where going to turn the car over eventually and it will run like brand new again. Just like a car I think doing a lot of what has been done has helped , every part get wear on it , but you're right we haven't yet took the time to diagnose the part that is not working , so we haven't replaced the right one yet. Sure in these selenium researches they have some ideas as to why the deer and bighorns aren't getting the nutrition they need and some sort of guesses on how to fix this though don't they ? As a side note lonetree in the other thread your link never worked for me that you put to show me this research.... If you could post it again I would like to read through or compile something on this thread about it.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I understand what you're saying lonetree and I get your saying get to the root of the problem before attempting to fix it . I do think we have fixed many problems but like your car theory ; over the last 2 decades we've had a car sitting there and we've just been replacing parts unsure of the source of the problem, but we've been replacing parts nonetheless to make ourselves feel like where going to turn the car over eventually and it will run like brand new again. Just like a car I think doing a lot of what has been done has helped , every part get wear on it , but you're right we haven't yet took the time to diagnose the part that is not working , so we haven't replaced the right one yet. Sure in these selenium researches they have some ideas as to why the deer and bighorns aren't getting the nutrition they need and some sort of guesses on how to fix this though don't they ? As a side note lonetree in the other thread your link never worked for me that you put to show me this research.... If you could post it again I would like to read through or compile something on this thread about it.


Sorry, I used a bad link to a secure area. Here is a better way to access the selenium study: http://www.deerlab.org/othercervids.html

Go to that page, and click on the PDF titled: Flueck, W.T. 1994. Effect of trace elements on population dynamics: selenium deficiency in free-ranging black-tailed deer. Ecology 75(3):807-812.

It is the 9th one down on the page.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

As for possible solutions, here is some text from another study, same author:

"Transnational and global environmental impacts can also influence remote protected areas. Acid precipitation, immission of sulphur and nitrogen compounds, and liberalization of heavy metals can influence the cyclical processes of trace minerals among other things. For instance, the solubility of selenium (Se) depends on the pH. Acidification of soils thus can reduce Se concentration in plants and consequently in herbivores. Further, heavy metals bind to Se which may result in insoluble forms in soils and increases of Se requirements of animals, and also explains the use of Se as antidote against mercury and cadmium intoxications.
Fertilization (eutrophication) of forest and range lands results primarily from the immission of sulphur and nitrogen compounds. Such plant nutrients decrease the Se concentration in plants and cause an increased incidence of Se responsive diseases in herbivores.
Se deficiency disease is difficult to observe in free-ranging wild ruminants because clinical cases are hard to find. However, subclinical deficiency may be wide spread and unrecognized, and may be more significant than overt deficiency. Se supplementation of free-ranging black-tailed deer demonstrated that subclinical deficiency is reflected in the preweaning survival of the young. Thus, possible alterations of trace mineral availability may also have to be considered in remote protected areas, as well as counter measures such as specific trace mineral fertilization"

Pay attention to the part about liberalization of heavy metals, and mercury, if you fish certain waters, or are a waterfowler, this will mean something to you. This being introduced, it would be premature to assume that any of this is a solution, before getting to the bottom of any cause.

While not definitive, some that hunt the Ogden extended unit, have no doubt seen some of the pictures floating around, and know that there is some hot spotting on a part of the unit. What some might not know, is that beyond current deer number increases, the largest of these deer, have all enjoyed way more selenium than their neighbors, for well over 3 years.


----------



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

So the person who did the study, if I'm reading this correctly, is saying in that portion anyway, that selenium supplimentation might be the answer? So is he saying salt licks, or fertalizing it into the natural system? Aside from that I still understand you saying that's not finding the problem, it's testing a solution. I get that, I'm just seeing if that's what I should take from it.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> So the person who did the study, if I'm reading this correctly, is saying in that portion anyway, that selenium supplimentation might be the answer? So is he saying salt licks, or fertalizing it into the natural system? Aside from that I still understand you saying that's not finding the problem, it's testing a solution. I get that, I'm just seeing if that's what I should take from it.


He is saying salt licks, and aerial fertilization. But, since that was written, some of this has been tested, with mixed results. I have seen more deer, and bigger deer in the areas I have supplemented, and it became a hot spot for hunters. But that is simple correlative observation, and means nothing. In Wyoming, with regard to bighorn sheep, salt licks were shown to halt declines, but not increase sheep. In Northern California, where boluses were used(read deer lab study), there was an increase in deer. This may have to do with what is causing the deficiencies, and wether or not the deer are suffering from weakened immune systems, for the same reason that their food is deficient. Anything external that can have an affect on the habitat, can have direct impact on the deer also. So if you have something that is locking up the selenium in the soil, and making it unavailable to deer, that same affect could also be mobilizing heavy metals like mercury in the system. We have seen mercury mobilization routinely in the last 20 years in Utah waters. So if the deer are not getting enough selenium and other trace elements, and they are being affected by mercury or other toxins, supplementation may only halt some effects, but not reverse them. Or salt lick type supplementation may not provide enough, to reverse the affects. In the Black tailed deer study it was shown that it required 2 boluses to see positive growth, and reversal of declines. The boluses are dosing deer every day, whether they eat, drink, or go to salt lick. Where as other means are not as persistent.


----------



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

So do you believe that salt licks, if spread across units often enough could help this trend or not? And also I'm wondering why are elk doing so well if this is the problem? Do elk not require selenium as much as deer? Because elk populations seem to be very stable and controllable in the state. If we wanted a lot more elk it wouldn't be hard to manage for more, so why would this hault deer and not elk?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> So do you believe that salt licks, if spread across units often enough could help this trend or not? And also I'm wondering why are elk doing so well if this is the problem? Do elk not require selenium as much as deer? Because elk populations seem to be very stable and controllable in the state. If we wanted a lot more elk it wouldn't be hard to manage for more, so why would this hault deer and not elk?


Good question on deer vs elk. I have posed this to a few people, and it seems to come down to the fact that elk tend to be grazers, with large rumens. That can handle large amounts of grass and roughage, where deer can't. So if they are not getting enough nutritional value, they just eat more. Where as deer tend to be browsers, and picky ones at that. They have a small rumen, and need to select the most nutritious food they can, to get the nutrients they need. Eating more just does not work for deer. By eating more, elk can overcome a lack of feed quality.

And an expansion of that question, why do we see deer, bighorn sheep, and moose declines, but not elk? That difference may well tell us something very valuable.

Another hypothesis that was posed about this difference was the rate at which elk metabolize, and or store selenium, and other micronutrients. Not a lot of data to go on for this. Deer seem to readily metabolize, and utilize available micronutrients, within days. Elk may have more of a buffer, or reserves. On the other end of the spectrum from deer, mountain goats do not utilize, or feel the affects of selenium deficiency for 30 days. So there could be several factors that play into the elk scenario. On a related noted, nutritional deficiencies will sometimes manifest in horn growth and deformation. I have seen more pictures of "goofy" elk this year, than I have ever seen in my life.

Mountain goats have seen zero declines in Utah, ever. They are equipped and evolved, to live in very high alpine areas, that are selenium poor. There was a perceived mountain goat decline in Utah, in 2008. If you go look at the DWR management plan, you will see a dip on the chart that represents this. That was the beginning of our wet cycle that would have reduced selenium availability for mountain goats. When mountain goats encounter these conditions, they drop elevation, and spread out in search of nutrients. So when the DWR flew goat ranges, they did not see as many goats. If you look at the trend that follows the 2008 data, you can see how the population trend continues up, as if the 2008 numbers were not accurate, and that is because they were not accurate. This is one of the reasons why the Willard herd spread so far North and South over the last 6 years. This also occurred in the Tetons, during the same time frame, and was first observed in Colorado, many years ago.

Elk are not booming everywhere, to the North, in parts of Idaho, and Montana, there are elk herds that are seeing declines. There has been a lot of study, and one of the biggest factors between herds that are doing well, and herds that are declining, is whether they are resident herds, or migratory herds, and how far they migrate. Where migratory elk spend summer, verses winter, could affect nutrition and health.

As to putting out salt licks. If we were seeing declines, then it might do something. It has been shown slow and halt declines. But given the current situation, no I don't think salt licks alone will do anything. But a study to see what affects it could have, certainly would not hurt. If we just throw a bunch of salt licks out, we can not really know if it really does any good. But if you design a study, and supplement one area, and don't supplement another area, and find a way to measure between the two, then you can make more of an absolute statement about it.

I have supplemented deer, and I can find you people, above and beyond me, that don't know the area has been supplemented, and don't really know me, that will tell you that area produces more deer, and bigger deer. But that is just what we perceive. If there was a control group that was not supplemented, and some criteria to measure this against, then we could say yes or no, with some certainty. But without that comparison, it is just unsupported perception. Which is what we need to get past.


----------



## hossblur (Jun 15, 2011)

*my .02*

The problem with mule deer is that they are genetically inferior. By being on the weak end of the genetic "spectrum" they are much more suseptable to everything. As we try to find micro solutions and try to impose them on a macro level, the fact remains that the population as a whole is weak. We talk about predators, habitat loss, selenium, sage brush, cars, whatever. At the same time the whitetail deer, who is genetically superior, overall population is exploding. While I realize there are differences in the two species, whitetail are also dealing with habitat loss, predators, cars, etc. The simple reason is they are capable of evolving at a much faster rate, they adapt, and that makes them much less affected by changes in their environment. The boom in deer in the 50's and 60's, I believe is simply due to the closing of deer hunts in the the decades previous, not to mention most of the 40's there was a major human population movement to Europe and Japan, thus putting much less pressure on deer for most of a decade letting there population explode.
In short, when you look at hooved prey animals the most adaptive, less "picky" populations at worst (in non wolf areas) are static, at best are exploding. Mule deer and sheep have struggled, for perhaps a century, while elk and whitetail continually make gains. Does nutrition help, sure. Does lack of predators help, sure, so does non human interactions. But are any of these "solutions" viable, NO. As important as mule deer are to us is human encroachment going to stop because of them, no. Are we gonna eradicate all predators?NO Are we going to set out "salt" all over the environment? NO. I believe the couple of decades, the "golden age" in the 50's and 60's was a abberation, not the norm, and that the cycles we are seeing since are much more the norm in the mule deer population cycles over the long term. Sucks i agree!


----------



## Charina (Aug 16, 2011)

hossblur said:


> The problem with mule deer is that they are genetically inferior.


That's an interesting and rather subjective assessment. Try throwing a whitetail into the west desert and see who is genetically inferior/superior. A statement about inferiority is an impossibility when species fill different niches.


----------



## Charina (Aug 16, 2011)

Lonetree said:


> Go to that page, and click on the PDF titled: Flueck, W.T. 1994. Effect of trace elements on population dynamics: selenium deficiency in free-ranging black-tailed deer. Ecology 75(3):807-812.


Has a consensus been reached by repeatability? Or is this the one published account reaching these conclusions? You mention some conflicting results, which leaves me wondering if there is a consensus or still too much uncertainty.


----------



## Charina (Aug 16, 2011)

I don't have answers. But, I still have $0.02 to thrown in the mix re predators.

I have a hard time accepting that coyote, bear, or lyons, even in the cumulative effect, are the source of observed declines. First, deer evolved in concert with these predators, and have thrived much longer with the predators uncontrolled than we have been around to measure 'declines'. Were there cycles of boom and bust - sure. But they deer always rebounded. While I don't have data available to prove it, it is my understanding that predator levels are at lower levels than before humans arrived on the scene and took out the wolf, grizzly, and reduced other populations. (this is what cracks me up about the people all uptight about the wolf issue - the deer did just fine with the wolf here, and while populations were not as flat-line stable, they nevertheless persisted just fine enough for all the predators to thrive)

Do the predators have an additive effect on top of hunter, car, and other factors? Sure. Reducing take (to a point) by predators can help, but it can't be a solution as it can't be the core problem given their evolutionary relationship. Reducing predator levels too far could actually be detrimental to genetics - for the predators cull the weak and unfit. Humans are not a good selector for survival fitness - the opportunistic predators like a coyote better fit that role. Our hunting throws a wrench in the cogs of the selective process that the animals were designed for.

By design, whether creative or natural design, deer, like ALL animals, naturally over-reproduce (a basic tenant of the laws of natural selection [different than origin of life for those with knee-jerk dismissive reaction to the principles of natural selection]). Let the deer have what is needful (habitat clearly, nutrition perhaps, etc), and they will fill their niche completely even with _natural_ (eg, non-human) predatory pressures.


----------



## papaderf (Aug 24, 2013)

ok nice thread but also sound concerned and real. What someone needs to do is put all of the good points the good sarcasm and the scientific part(lonetree} start putting packages and present them at a rac meeting or to somebody that will listen. Yes we as sportsman have a voice but seem never to be heard and are frustrated. Habitat is important so idea find that problem area and work on it(dwr} they do flyovers deer and the elk will migrate usually to the same wintering grounds .Yes they can't take care of it all but they know problem areas and not make notes. Yes I know don't focus on predators will fix it but it helps the puzzle. Ok question on question of how to fix try and find out how the limited entry units made it to where they are know no sarcasm real question . Limited entry units habitat restoration. Hunt shut downs. limited permits. Management.?¿? I say that because now they have management hunts which means too many buck which a lot want right. Deer1 and the rest all have great points but dwr does control most of these issues. I continue to donate money to keep my kids hope high and his kids future of hunting and love for the mountains alive. Good luck and great thread. . I may not see many deer but I do see my sons smile


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Response to hossblur:

problem with mule deer is that they are genetically inferior. There is nothing to prove this, mule deer evolved from whitetailed deer and blacktailed deer. By being on the weak end of the genetic "spectrum" they are much more susceptible to everything. This has been said about bighorns, and there is nothing to support it. This was cited, and is still cited for transplants, because they were worried that genetic diversity could be a limiting factor. This has since been tested, and genetic diversity, and viability are not lacking, and bighorns are for more susceptible to declines than are mule deer. As we try to find micro solutions and try to impose them on a macro level, the fact remains that the population as a whole is weak. Nutrition is a macro solution, for a macro problem, but it needs to be narrowed. Why is the population weak? Something causes this, it does not happen on its own, things don't just change one day for no reason. We talk about predators, habitat loss, selenium, sage brush, cars, whatever. At the same time the whitetail deer, who is genetically superior, overall population is exploding. While I realize there are differences in the two species, whitetail are also dealing with habitat loss, predators, cars, etc. Whitetail are not "genetically superior" there is no such thing, and there is nothing to prove this. Their life histories are very different, and they deal with, and live in very different worlds. Even in areas where their ranges overlap, there is a very clear line of demarcation, between the two. They live in different areas, they eat different food, etc. The simple reason is they are capable of evolving at a much faster rate, they adapt, and that makes them much less affected by changes in their environment. Also, nothing to prove this, whitetails are not evolving faster. And muledeer share much of the DNA as whitetails. The boom in deer in the 50's and 60's, I believe is simply due to the closing of deer hunts in the the decades previous, not to mention most of the 40's there was a major human population movement to Europe and Japan, thus putting much less pressure on deer for most of a decade letting there population explode. No, the mule deer increases of old have their roots in the 1930s, the '50s and '60s saw this trend flatten out. And if a lack of hunting pressure caused the increase, then we should have seen the the same increases after 20+ years of cutting tags.
In short, when you look at hooved prey animals the most adaptive, less "picky" populations at worst (in non wolf areas) are static, at best are exploding. No, wolves have nothing to do with it, Montana just published a study demonstrating this, and Idaho has done a larger 4 year study that confirms this. Explain the last 30 years of moose declines to me. Mule deer and sheep have struggled, for perhaps a century, while elk and whitetail continually make gains. Wrong again. Moose, bighorns, and mule deer have all seen increases and declines over the last century, plus. So have elk, they have seen increases and and declines also. Why did mule deer make it through the settlement of the West, but we had to transplant elk from Yellowstone, into this part of the world, in the 1930s? Elk occupy a fraction of their historic range, in North America, and have lost several subspecies, this is not the same with mule deer. Whitetails have also seen population declines, and increases over the last 500 years. Does nutrition help, sure. Nutrition is the ONLY thing that has been shown to increase mule deer numbers, plain and simple. Does lack of predators help, sure, so does non human interactions. Fewer predators only help if deer are suffering from additive predation. 20+ years of predator studies has not been able to establish this. Nor has 20+ years of cutting tags. But are any of these "solutions" viable, NO. Nutrition has been proven to not only viable viable, via habit improvements and conservation, it is the only one that has been. As important as mule deer are to us is human encroachment going to stop because of them, no. Are we gonna eradicate all predators?NO Are we going to set out "salt" all over the environment? NO. I believe the couple of decades, the "golden age" in the 50's and 60's was a abberation, not the norm, No the high points are not the "norm", but neither are the low points. All of the conjecture about how mule deer were low in numbers at the time of the "pioneers" coming in, is ridiculous. There are volumes of work that paint a very different picture for the early 1800s. Here in Utah, when the pioneers came into the valley, there were no buffalo, does that mean that was the norm? No there were once tens of thousands of buffalo in the Salt lake and Utah valleys. and that the cycles we are seeing since are much more the norm in the mule deer population cycles over the long term. Sucks i agree! This is nothing but a rational for continuing with the status quo, and business as ussual. There is simply no basis, for any of it.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Charina said:


> Has a consensus been reached by repeatability? Or is this the one published account reaching these conclusions? You mention some conflicting results, which leaves me wondering if there is a consensus or still too much uncertainty.


There are volumes of supporting work, from around the world. The issue is adapting it to, and testing it here. There is a lot more to it, but this being an internet forum, it is hard to cover the full berth of it. Read "The implications of selenium deficiency for wild herbivore conservation: a review" It should be on the same deer lab page as the other study.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Charina said:


> I don't have answers. But, I still have $0.02 to thrown in the mix re predators.
> 
> I have a hard time accepting that coyote, bear, or lyons, even in the cumulative effect, are the source of observed declines. First, deer evolved in concert with these predators, and have thrived much longer with the predators uncontrolled than we have been around to measure 'declines'. Were there cycles of boom and bust - sure. But they deer always rebounded. While I don't have data available to prove it, it is my understanding that predator levels are at lower levels than before humans arrived on the scene and took out the wolf, grizzly, and reduced other populations. (this is what cracks me up about the people all uptight about the wolf issue - the deer did just fine with the wolf here, and while populations were not as flat-line stable, they nevertheless persisted just fine enough for all the predators to thrive)
> 
> ...


You hit on a very key point, and that is the "over produce" part. It is this production that drives increases, and maintains stability in deer herds, in the face of other challenges. Reproduction has been shown to be part of contemporary declines. And guess what solves that problem? yep, nutrition.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

papaderf said:


> ok nice thread but also sound concerned and real. What someone needs to do is put all of the good points the good sarcasm and the scientific part(lonetree} start putting packages and present them at a rac meeting or to somebody that will listen. Yes we as sportsman have a voice but seem never to be heard and are frustrated. Habitat is important so idea find that problem area and work on it(dwr} they do flyovers deer and the elk will migrate usually to the same wintering grounds .Yes they can't take care of it all but they know problem areas and not make notes. Yes I know don't focus on predators will fix it but it helps the puzzle. Ok question on question of how to fix try and find out how the limited entry units made it to where they are know no sarcasm real question . Limited entry units habitat restoration. Hunt shut downs. limited permits. Management.?¿? I say that because now they have management hunts which means too many buck which a lot want right. Deer1 and the rest all have great points but dwr does control most of these issues. I continue to donate money to keep my kids hope high and his kids future of hunting and love for the mountains alive. Good luck and great thread. . I may not see many deer but I do see my sons smile


Sarcasm?

I can put something together to circulate. The DWR is not blind to this. I used to get an audience on the subject from biologists at the UDWR, but now it is like I have leprosy. This is not simple, requires some hard thought and work, and is outside the current paradigm. It will take more than a lone voice, and will require some leadership as well. Most Utah hunters have unfortunately, just given in to the status quo, and the current power structure, regardless of whether it is good for us, or for wildlife.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Think about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycorrhiza and put it in the context of mule deer declines, pine beetles, cheat grass, deer nutrition, etc. Anyone ever seen curl leaf mahogany growing out of cracks in cliffs, with next to no soil to support them? Ever seen the lengths that deer will go to, to feed on these precariously perched shrubs? Do you know what the nutrient value of curl leaf is? I don't have the specifics at hand, but the values are high.


----------



## hossblur (Jun 15, 2011)

Genetic superiority is not dependent solely on where the DNA came from. The reason the whitetails are superior is due the their rapid adaptability to their surroundings. Those surroundings being climatic or nutritional, etc, they simply adapt on a much more rapid pace than mulies. Proof of this is simply their expanding throughout the country. Elk are similar. The reason there was a need to repopulate elk in this area wasn't due to the weakness of the elk, it was due to their being range herds which competed with free ranging domestic animals, thusly they were killed. In less than a hundred years(a tiny fraction of time) they went from near extinct range animals to thiving mtn. dwellers, along the way totally changing thousands of years of genetic imprinting and doing so in the blink of an eye. The other near extinct range animal, the buffalo, hasn't adapted and thusly is a tiny fraction of what they were. Mule deer don't adapt, or at least not as quickly as their environment does therefore they are suffering. I don't belive in Al Gore, but it would be foolish to not believe in climate change. We have seen so in the last 20 years here in the west with the loss of most of our forests due to bark beetle. 20 years from now most of that forest will be laying in the grass(unless it is lucky enough to burn). That is a MAJOR climatic/environmental change, and the species that adapt to that will thirve, the others will suffer. Because we have already seen elk adapt to become forest animals, it isn't a stretch to think they will do so again. I believe the whitetail populations in the west will explode. In a hundred years what will the west look like, which animals will be thriving? Look at the last hundred years, whitetails and elk. I believe the mulies will be more like the sheep are today, small isolated populations constantly strugglling to hold on. As for the moose, I think the shiras moose willl continue to struggle. 
In short, no one is saying don't try, but taking a micro approach like nutrition and applying it across the macro won't work. What desert deer are lacking, alpine deer are not, etc, etc. We cannot manage for the weakest link at the expense of the strongest, or at least we can't AFFORD to, remeber there is always a fiscal side to game managment, its not just pure science.
Lastly Lonetree, and I think this is a good discussion, a lot better than the usual "the DWR sucks" discussions that usually take place, but I would love to see where your sourcing for wolves not impacting game managment, especially in Montana, came from, because it would contradict all the the reporting I have seen on the subject. Again thanks for the discussion.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Genetic superiority is not dependent solely on where the DNA came from. The reason the whitetails are superior is due the their rapid adaptability to their surroundings. Those surroundings being climatic or nutritional, etc, they simply adapt on a much more rapid pace than mulies. Proof of this is simply their expanding throughout the country. That is not proof, that is pure speculation, there is no supporting evidence of this. You're talking about adaptive behavior, not genetics. These are very different things. And the example of behavioral adaptability, is simple conjecture, there is no model to show this.

Elk are similar. The reason there was a need to repopulate elk in this area wasn't due to the weakness of the elk, it was due to their being range herds which competed with free ranging domestic animals, thusly they were killed. What?, so mule deer did not "compete" with domestic sheep on the Wasatch front?, do you know how many sheep were run on the front, a hundred years ago? Elk move away from human interruption, so your explanation holds no water. Elk, and bighorn sheep, did not survive settlement, mule deer did. So tell me why elk in Utah declined in the '90s, just like deer? Because of competition with domestic animals? Mule deer occupy the vast majority of their historic North American range, elk don't.

In less than a hundred years(a tiny fraction of time) they went from near extinct range animals to thiving mtn. dwellers, along the way totally changing thousands of years of genetic imprinting and doing so in the blink of an eye. This is also conjecture, and some repeated junk science. Yes, there were elk that were indeed range dwelling, but that is an over simplification of elk as a whole. Of the Seven species of elk in North America, we only have three left, they occupied a wide range of habitat, not just range. There are once again, very detailed accounts of this from the early 1800s(See Shultz, and Russell). These include many accounts of elk inhabiting mountainous regions, here in Utah, and the rest of the West. Many early explorers, encountered elk in mountainous regions, 200 years ago. Mule deer were not, and are not confined to being solely mountain dwellers either.

The other near extinct range animal, the buffalo, hasn't adapted and thusly is a tiny fraction of what they were. Buffalo were exterminated, in the mid 1800s, by the hundreds of thousands, after already being reduced in number. Buffalo fell to the rifle and man, adaptation had nothing to do with it. They are still being exterminated. Yet they still persist. Since you think you know what you are talking about, tell me what biggame animal, is near extinction in the lower 48, and what is causing this near extinction. It is not buffalo.

Mule deer don't adapt, or at least not as quickly as their environment does therefore they are suffering. Explain urban deer? No animal can adapt to a loss of nutrition, unless they can get it some where else. The option to "adapt", does not exist. 

I don't belive in Al Gore, but it would be foolish to not believe in climate change. We have seen so in the last 20 years here in the west with the loss of most of our forests due to bark beetle. 20 years from now most of that forest will be laying in the grass(unless it is lucky enough to burn). Actually, most lodgepole forests are regenerating, right where they stand, it is not the same thing as grass succession, and spruce trees, like is seen in Alaska. Further more, beetle kills do not burn very well, they do not support canopy fires, and have greener understories.

That is a MAJOR climatic/environmental change, and the species that adapt to that will thirve, the others will suffer. Because we have already seen elk adapt to become forest animals, it isn't a stretch to think they will do so again. Elk have always been forest animals, especially if we are talking about Roosevelt elk. Your silly oversimplifications, and repeating of elk mythology, shows a serious lack of understanding on this subject. believe the whitetail populations in the west will explode. In a hundred years what will the west look like, which animals will be thriving?
Laughable, with mule deer declines what they were for the last 30 years, whitetails would have already moved in, it did not happen, and it will not happen, I'll put money on that.

Look at the last hundred years, whitetails and elk. I believe the mulies will be more like the sheep are today, small isolated populations constantly strugglling to hold on. Your beliefs are irrelevant on the matter, and inaccurate. Again, are you going to stick to this when elk numbers decline again? Like they did in the '90s, like they are doing in parts of their Northern range, like they set to do here. Whitetails will never make it in the West, they have had two million years to make that move, they could not do it, and mule deer were the result.

As for the moose, I think the shiras moose willl continue to struggle. But prior to 1984, you would have probably championed them as very "adaptable" animals poised to take over. Explain how these genetically weak animals, grew, and adapted so fast in the first part of this century, only to be reduced, over and over gain? Are you going to restrict your thoughts on this to just Shiras moose?

In short, no one is saying don't try, but taking a micro approach like nutrition and applying it across the macro won't work. What I am proposing is the only macro view out there.

What desert deer are lacking, alpine deer are not, etc, etc. And you know this, how? If it is a macro problem, it applies to all. And nutrion is the only proven means of increasing mule deer numbers, and in the absense of any other proven limiting factor, what else is there? I am all ears, what grows mule deer, seriously, this is not trick question, this has been demonstrated over and over again.

We cannot manage for the weakest link at the expense of the strongest, or at least we can't AFFORD to, remeber there is always a fiscal side to game managment, its not just pure science. It would be called accounting if that were the case. Game management is science, plain and simple, they don't teach it in the economics department. The fiscal side, is a separate issue, and usual just an excuse. So we can afford to throw money down the drain on unproven management techniques though? 

Lastly Lonetree, and I think this is a good discussion, a lot better than the usual "the DWR sucks" discussions that usually take place, but I would love to see where your sourcing for wolves not impacting game managment, especially in Montana, came from, because it would contradict all the the reporting I have seen on the subject. Again thanks for the discussion. Here is a news peice http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/newshound/2013/06/study-wolves-not-cause-wyoming-elk-decline?cmpid=enews06202013&spPodID=020&spMailingID=5532433&spUserID=MjUyNDEyOTIzMjAS1&spJobID=323084291&spReportId=MzIzMDg0MjkxS0 about a study in Wyoming, done at the same time, with the same results. I can't find my link to the Montana study, and the Idaho study is yet to be published. I now the biologist on the Idaho study, he conducted work for me on bears. He set out with a hypothesis that wolves were reducing elk, after four years, that is not what he found. He is a life long elk hunter from Montana.


----------



## Charina (Aug 16, 2011)

hossblur said:


> Genetic superiority is not dependent solely on where the DNA came from. The reason the whitetails are superior is due the their rapid adaptability to their surroundings.


I follow well the logic you are attempting to use, but it just isn't sufficient for any of the conclusions you are making.

Being field-fed highly fertilized and irrigated corn, soybean, wheat, and other crops, and resultant population densities/overall populations/expansion does NOT provide any evidence of genetic superiority or fitment! How about you dot Utah with lush alfalfa and crop fields, watch population trends . . . then perhaps you can have some apples to apples to compare. But what you are doing is comparing two incomparable situations!

What basis do you have to say that mulies do not adapt just as quickly as their cousins? What (if any) "adaptation" have whitetails made? Being field-fed by man's activities is NOT "adaptation". Foir all you know, climate changes will make the heartland a desert in 100 years, and whitetails will plummet, and mulies will expand greatly into new deseret ranges. It would be silly to conclude that the changing conditions then prove the mulies are superior. They are simply different.

And none of the unsupported claims of whitetail being superior has anything to do with root causes of mulie decline populations! There is little competition between the two where they do coexist, (generally allopatric, no?), and the mulies certainly are not being 'out-competed' here in UT. So the argument does nothing to contribute to how UT herds may or may not be suffering, and what the cause is.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Charina said:


> I follow well the logic you are attempting to use, but it just isn't sufficient for any of the conclusions you are making.
> 
> Being field-fed highly fertilized and irrigated corn, soybean, wheat, and other crops, and resultant population densities/overall populations/expansion does NOT provide any evidence of genetic superiority or fitment! How about you dot Utah with lush alfalfa and crop fields, watch population trends . . . then perhaps you can have some apples to apples to compare. But what you are doing is comparing two incomparable situations!
> 
> ...


Hossblr's argument is only an argument of the status quo, it is political, and not scientific. Just like most of the "wildlife management" in this state. He is not trying to contribute, but rather water down the conversation with doubt. He is playing on, and attempting to promote apathy among sportsman, it is frankly insulting. And all to typical of what we as sportsmen, and the wildlife, are up against.


----------



## Kevinitis (Jul 18, 2013)

[/QUOTE]


> And not to diminish Utah's habitat restoration, I am fully supportive of it, but what about this: We know habitat improvements increase deer, and if Utah is a leader in habitat improvements, why do we not see a significant increase in the deer trends, on all habitat improvements? And why are the long term trends not improved over areas with no improvements?


First, deer habitat takes a long time to grow so we may not see results from the habitat improvements for decades. Consider, it takes 10-20 years for sage brush seedlings to grow into mature plants that will make a difference in winter survival.

Second, not every habitat restoration attempt is successful. Sometimes despite best efforts, we don't get the rainfall needed. Sometimes, invasive species move in. Sometimes the deer themselves eat the young shrubs before they get a start. This is particularly true if the size of the habitat restoration is not big enough.

Third, we need both quality and quantity. We have lost a bunch of deer habitat in this state. Consider the wasatch front. All those houses are sitting on the best deer winter range. It's just not houses either, some was converted into farm lands, some was burned in wildfires, some was lost to weed invasions, some were damage by the deer themselves and never recovered, and some deer populations were cut off from their winter range by roads or big game fences (or other habitat fragmentation). Finally even though Utah has restored lots, there is still far more left to be restored and that needs to happen on a landscape scale before a rise in populations will be see over the long term. Finally, deer population growth is a stochastic event, where a bad streak of weather can disrupt population growth in the short term. If you get a few droughts or a few hard winters then you can see effects for several years.



> Weather plays a large role in growing these plants, but the soil is where all of the nutrients come from. And that is ultimately as, or more, important than the plants themselves. The plants are in a way just conduits for the nutrients that deer need. The dirt, and other conditions and factors, dictate the quality of the plants. It is the ignored part of "habitat".


I disagree with the statement that the soil is the ignored part. Soil is considered in every habitat treatment, at least in the Northern Region. That said, where the best soil is, is also where the farms and homes are.



> In the '50s and '60s deer numbers were high, and stable. And reintroduction efforts with bighorn sheep were making great headway. In the early and mid eighties, mule deer, bighorn sheep, and moose, all experienced declines, this occurred again in the early '90s, and again in the early 2000s. All species, everywhere in the west. To bighorns as an example: The Whiskey mountain bighorn herd in WY was the largest native bighorn herd in the lower 48, until the early 1980s, when they began to experience steep declines. In the late '90s it was determined that selenium deficiencies were suppressing the herd. Selenium supplementation was shown to halt declines, but not reverse the trend. In Montana, the Thomson Falls bighorn herd was once 500+ strong after being reintroduced in the 1950s. They now number ~50 sheep. Besides suffering from reproductive declines, these sheep suffer high deaths from collisions on the highway. They congregate along the road, and lick anti ice salts, specifically magnesium chloride off the pavement. This began in the early '80s, and has increased ever since. This is occurring at the mouth of American fork canyon, with the struggling Prove peak herd, that has experienced declines from pneumonia. And this spring there was a bighorn ewe, that was hit on the highway near Wallsburg, at a point in the road where magnesium chloride use would have been higher(bend on an incline). this was also 500 yards from where the local sheep herder had placed salt for their sheep. Salt for domestic sheep, is selenium amended, unlike other livestock salts.


The main problem with bighorn since the arrival of europeans has been the introduction of exotic diseases from domestic livestock. Selenium may be a minor factor but Utah has always had a similar amount of selenium as it always had. I doubt that is really the most significant factor. It could be that the salts on the road are just easier to get, so they are preferred. But that does not mean that they lack another harder to get source. I think what is really different than conditions that caused the boom in deer populations in the first place is the grazing systems. Basically, it is my belief that the overutilization of the foothills and toe slopes across Utah by the pioneers caused an increase in shrubs. That increase then took 40-50+ years for those shrubs to become established to the point where they provide good deer winter habitat which in turn led to the high deer populations from the 50's to the 80's. During the hard winter's of 1983, many of those shrub systems were damaged by the high number of deer. That population was too high for the habitat to support. That is when we lost a lot of quality on our winter ranges. Since that time we have still been losing deer winter habitat across the state. So the populations have declined.

If you go unit by unit and quantify the deer habitat and correlate that with the deer population on the unit, I would bet a 100 bucks that there would be a direct relationship. In other words, all the best units (measured in deer population) are the ones with the best/most habitat. I believe that our deer herds are currently at or near carrying capacity, which is what determines the population.

I want to make a distinction between deer numbers and the size of the bucks. They are not the same and are not really even related. If management were directed at raising larger bucks, that is easy to do, you just cut tags. On the other hand cutting tags will not increase deer numbers (as strange as that sounds). The reason is because hunters are only killing bucks, but the deer population growth is determined by how many does are on the unit. The reason - more doe = more baby deer. But if you cut tags you also cut opportunity. You can't have both. So you can have big bucks but only hunt once every 5 years or you can hunt every year but shoot smaller bucks. I want to hunt every year.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

First, deer habitat takes a long time to grow so we may not see results from the habitat improvements for decades. Consider, it takes 10-20 years for sage brush seedlings to grow into mature plants that will make a difference in winter survival. Vaild point, But is this the reason for the current upswing in deer numbers across the West? There have not been restoration projects everywhere that deer are increasing.

Second, not every habitat restoration attempt is successful. Sometimes despite best efforts, we don't get the rainfall needed. Sometimes, invasive species move in. Sometimes the deer themselves eat the young shrubs before they get a start. This is particularly true if the size of the habitat restoration is not big enough. Or the habitat project itself, undermines itself, because we are not utilizing best practices. Every bitterbrush project I have seen, is a failure, and ignores better practices, like range drilling, or soil inoculation.

Third, we need both quality and quantity. We have lost a bunch of deer habitat in this state. Consider the wasatch front. All those houses are sitting on the best deer winter range. It's just not houses either, some was converted into farm lands, some was burned in wildfires, some was lost to weed invasions, some were damage by the deer themselves and never recovered, and some deer populations were cut off from their winter range by roads or big game fences (or other habitat fragmentation). Finally even though Utah has restored lots, there is still far more left to be restored and that needs to happen on a landscape scale before a rise in populations will be see over the long term. Finally, deer population growth is a stochastic event, where a bad streak of weather can disrupt population growth in the short term. If you get a few droughts or a few hard winters then you can see effects for several years. But what about the rest of the West? It is not just the Wasatch front, or populated areas, it is remote areas, in every Western state. Mule deer rise and fall across the West regardless of unit, or state, or management regime.
I disagree with the statement that the soil is the ignored part. Soil is considered in every habitat treatment, at least in the Northern Region. That said, where the best soil is, is also where the farms and homes are. Show me the redox numbers, and mycorrhiza surveys, or supplements. 
The main problem with bighorn since the arrival of europeans has been the introduction of exotic diseases from domestic livestock. Selenium may be a minor factor but Utah has always had a similar amount of selenium as it always had. I doubt that is really the most significant factor. It could be that the salts on the road are just easier to get, so they are preferred. But that does not mean that they lack another harder to get source. I think what is really different than conditions that caused the boom in deer populations in the first place is the grazing systems. Basically, it is my belief that the overutilization of the foothills and toe slopes across Utah by the pioneers caused an increase in shrubs. That increase then took 40-50+ years for those shrubs to become established to the point where they provide good deer winter habitat which in turn led to the high deer populations from the 50's to the 80's. During the hard winter's of 1983, many of those shrub systems were damaged by the high number of deer. That population was too high for the habitat to support. That is when we lost a lot of quality on our winter ranges. Since that time we have still been losing deer winter habitat across the state. So the populations have declined. 
So was there less disease in the '50s, '60s, and '70s, when bighorns were increasing their numbers? Have you read any of Foryett's work on this subject? Have you read any of the studies I have cited? I have not made this up, this is real world actual science. Easy to get to has nothing to do with it, sheep will leave their lambs, and travel for miles to get these minerals. And selenium has been documented, in Wyoming, as a root cause of pneumonia outbreaks and declines in bighorn sheep. If you want to talk about bighorn sheep disease, I know that better than deer. That is what brought me to deer. The selniu is still in the soil, it gets "locked up", and made unavailable. As to the shrubs and pioneers, that would say that is was nutrition that drove those increases, and if we have had more habitat declines, why are they increasing now. Why were they essentialy stable for four years prior to those increases? Again, how does this relate to the entire West, urban and remote, wilderness, and not? It is not local phenomenon. 
If you go unit by unit and quantify the deer habitat and correlate that with the deer population on the unit, I would bet a 100 bucks that there would be a direct relationship. In other words, all the best units (measured in deer population) are the ones with the best/most habitat. I believe that our deer herds are currently at or near carrying capacity, which is what determines the population. Do that across the West, it won't add up. 

I want to make a distinction between deer numbers and the size of the bucks. They are not the same and are not really even related. If management were directed at raising larger bucks, that is easy to do, you just cut tags. On the other hand cutting tags will not increase deer numbers (as strange as that sounds). The reason is because hunters are only killing bucks, but the deer population growth is determined by how many does are on the unit. The reason - more doe = more baby deer. But if you cut tags you also cut opportunity. You can't have both. So you can have big bucks but only hunt once every 5 years or you can hunt every year but shoot smaller bucks. I want to hunt every year. Agreed on deer numbers and the size of bucks, but healthy deer are bigger, and healthier deer, grow more deer. The this or that argument does not hold water. If cutting tags created bigger deer, we would have seen this over the last 20 years of cutting tags, there is nothing to support this, look at the record books.


----------



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

Look at the Pauns and Heneries, they are proof few tags can make more big bucks. That doesn't mean I'm saying the deer herds are doing better or it's great management but fewer tags can result in more big bucks but probably fewer deer.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Look at the Pauns and Heneries, they are proof few tags can make more big bucks. That doesn't mean I'm saying the deer herds are doing better or it's great management but fewer tags can result in more big bucks but probably fewer deer.


Do we want limited big deer, or do we want more deer? The argument for the status quo, does not further anything. All it does is maintain the current power structure, and further the agenda of the last failed era. Which is what many of these arguments are attempting to do, that is what much of this is about.


----------



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

I'm not saying it would make more deer and yes I want more deer because in the end you will have more big deer as well. What I'm saying is limiting tags can make for bigger bucks.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I'm not saying it would make more deer and yes I want more deer because in the end you will have more big deer as well. What I'm saying is limiting tags can make for bigger bucks.


Think about it, we have done nothing but reduce tags for 20 years. If just reducing tags, created big deer, we should see more big deer, across the board. And this should be reflected in the record books, right. If we take Unit 1 for example, and reduce tags, will that alone produce big deer?


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

The question was posed, do we want more deer or bigger bucks? I vote for more deer. I don't care at all about bigger bucks.


----------



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

Lonetree we have reduced tags but not enough to actually create bigger deer on our general units no. Weapons are much more advanced and deadly, there are many more roads and ways to get to the animals now. So no tags being cut doesn't make any difference at the moment on our general units. If you cut tags to a point where more deer would make it through the hunt there would be a difference. The Heneries and Pauns are the prime example of this, but tags are cut so far their that you'll only hunt one of those units and once in your life, but yes less tags is the reason for the bigger bucks and larger quantity of bucks on those two units you can't fight that . The problem is those units have so few tags available doing that isn't even worth it. Again I'm not fighting in favor of that sever of tag cuts and it won't result in more deer but it does result in bigger bucks. I would rather have more deer on our units, in turn that will mean more bucks .


----------



## hossblur (Jun 15, 2011)

First, of course game managment is political have you ever been to a RAC? It isn't nor has it ever been pure science, so to think that if biologists were given free range with zero political or financial influence that we would have population explosion is a nice "wet dream", but here in the real world we have to stay centered in reality.
Next, Lonetree you confuse me with your bouncing around from sourced scientifc research, to unsourced, unverified conjecture and your desire to pass it off as anything more than that.
Urban deer aren't an import, they lived in that area before it was urban, they didn't expand their range, they simply held it, and comparing the pockets of population here and there while not paying attention to the major losses elsewhere is again picking and choosing your data to fit your hypothesis.
Yes, I do know about sheep(google the last name Jorgensen with sheep and Sanpete and see what comes up). My family has run sheep for over a century now, both my dad and uncles grew up herding them, heres a little secret, deer really don't compete with sheep enough that sheep men would like them gone. Sheep are grazers, deer aren't, your a smart guy, we don't need to discuss your point any further.
As for the argument that if we dot the landscape with corn and alfalfa mulies would explode? Sanpete county proves otherwise. In the golden age of mulies, Sanpete was producing its fair share of record book sized deer, there was near zero corn, and very little hay produced. Drive down there now. The entire county is covered with pivot lines watering a neverending supply of beautiful hay crops, not to mention the recently added growth of corn. The county went from turkey sheds and sagebrush to alfalpha and corn in the last 50 years, and like everywhere else the muley population plumeted. Yup, one county is a micro environment, but in that microenvironment the addtion of huge tonages of nutrition did nothing.
Lonetree as for the "junk science" I discussed about the loss of forests due to bark beetle, where do you get your "theory" about forest regeneration? My brother in law does forest inventory for the forest service, you know the people that go measure and record what is happening, and he hasn't seen what your spouting, so again I am curious as too where this is happening? Your whole hypothesis is based upon changes in climate/environment, then you dismiss any possibility that other climatic/environmental changes have contributed. So I will ask you, where is your closed experiment where nutrition is the only variable?
Lonetree I laugh when you say I have conjecture or draw bad conclussions based on "junk science" or whatever, then site observations made in the 1800's made by either spanish explorers or other european explorers. Neither of their observations can be considered anything other than that. Neither group until they came to the "west" had ever seen mule deer. Unless they were from asia they had never seen elk. In short they had no baseline to compare population densities to or population health to, so to use any of their "data" to drive your discussion it pretty shortsighted. Again, do I think nutrition has had some affect on deer numbers? Absolutely. Has human encroachment, yup, same as disease, forest health, competion from elk, I-15, etc, etc. So if we fix the nutrition aspect somehow(I still don't understand a viable way to do so on the macro level) are we going to bulldoze the houses on winter range, magically fix our forests, dig up I-15? How do we know for sure that muleys don't have a population cylce that they are in? Is there a population curve? Were the 50's and 60's an abberation, or the peak of the curve? Our actual data, and not simply observation of population doesn't have a big enough time frame to know for sure. Will whitetails overtake mulies, YES. Remember, biology 101, survival of the fittest, Lonetree has already pointed out that there were subspecies of elk that didn't survive, the same can be true of deer, and in fact I believe we are already seeing the proof of that. NO, that doesn't mean status quo, but because I am married to an accountant I understand that there is a limited ammount of capital that can be used for game managment. In short elk are easier to manage for, thus cheaper, and with limited financial resources, DWR has to get the biggest bang for the buck. I agree with Lonetree that nutrition is important, and the losses in it on critical mule deer range are troubling, but we see in other places where the loss of nutrition is over come with other factors, be they lack of predators, restricted harvesting, etc, which would point out that nutrition is a limiting factor, not THE limiting factor. I would like to thank Lonetree for at least raising this discussion past the DWR sucks, or the usual trophy vs. oppourtunity spat that takes place, I personally just feel his focus is too tunnel visioned, all the while realizing that mine may be too broad.

Lastly, you have a biologist friend that has done research on wolf/elk interaction and he found that wolves haven't adversely affected elk population? REALLY??? I will go read your link, but REALLY??? is all I can think. I wish I had some witty comment to make on this one, but I actually am sitting here with my jaw open try to imagine how a trained scientist, or for that matter anyone with eyes would come to that conclussion.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

First, of course game managment is political have you ever been to a RAC? It isn't nor has it ever been pure science, so to think that if biologists were given free range with zero political or financial influence that we would have population explosion is a nice "wet dream", but here in the real world we have to stay centered in reality. This is a classic example of status quo thinking, that does not allow for forward movement, it is rooted in aoathy and a rdesire to avoid responsibility. Yes I have bben to a RAC, its part of the problem. Politics can only help solve the problems of wildlife management, after science has identified them, and their possible solutions.

Next, Lonetree you confuse me with your bouncing around from sourced scientifc research, to unsourced, unverified conjecture and your desire to pass it off as anything more than that. You are tossing around speculation and conjecture, out of context no less, in an attempt to support your unfounded arguments. You have provided no support for your speculations. You keep talikung about "genetics", when that is not even the right context, and you offer no supporting source information. It is just your opinion.
Urban deer aren't an import, they lived in that area before it was urban, they didn't expand their range, they simply held it, and comparing the pockets of population here and there while not paying attention to the major losses elsewhere is again picking and choosing your data to fit your hypothesis. So show me all the urban elk? I mean they are so adaptable.

Yes, I do know about sheep(google the last name Jorgensen with sheep and Sanpete and see what comes up). I don't care who you are. Google the two former governors of Utah. I grew up in sheep camps too. My grandfathers close friend owned the second largest ranch in Northern Utah. My family has run sheep for over a century now, both my dad and uncles grew up herding them, heres a little secret, deer really don't compete with sheep enough that sheep men would like them gone. Sheep are grazers, deer aren't, your a smart guy, we don't need to discuss your point any further. I am not talking about whether you know domestic sheep, the conversation was about bighorns, and disease, which as usual, you glazed over.

As for the argument that if we dot the landscape with corn and alfalfa mulies would explode? Sanpete county proves otherwise. In the golden age of mulies, Sanpete was producing its fair share of record book sized deer, there was near zero corn, and very little hay produced. Drive down there now. The entire county is covered with pivot lines watering a neverending supply of beautiful hay crops, not to mention the recently added growth of corn. The county went from turkey sheds and sagebrush to alfalpha and corn in the last 50 years, and like everywhere else the muley population plumeted. Yup, one county is a micro environment, but in that microenvironment the addtion of huge tonages of nutrition did nothing. 
I never made the argument about alfalfa, you can't even keep who you are responding to straight. So why did the mule deer plummet in Montana at the same time?

Lonetree as for the "junk science" I discussed about the loss of forests due to bark beetle, where do you get your "theory" about forest regeneration? My brother in law does forest inventory for the forest service, you know the people that go measure and record what is happening, and he hasn't seen what your spouting, so again I am curious as too where this is happening? Anywhere lodgepole pines are suffering from pine beetles. Where the dead trees finally release their seeds in areas where they were carrying them, they are regenerating. This is much slower than fire, because you need something to get the seed on the ground, wind, squierrels etc. But in British Columbia, one of the worst hit areas, pine beetles have waned, and regeneration is up.

Your whole hypothesis is based upon changes in climate/environment, then you dismiss any possibility that other climatic/environmental changes have contributed. First, climate and enviroment, are two very different things. And second you don't know my whole hypothesis, you have seen part of what relates to deer and related topics. It is not based wholly on climate, climate is only an exacerbating factor. And it is not really eniviroment, but rather ecological. This may seem like semantics, but it is at the root of why you don't have argument, and don't understand the subject matter. 

So I will ask you, where is your closed experiment where nutrition is the only variable? Washington State University has conducted multi year captive mule deer studies, where they have excluded a lot of the variables you would find in the field. If you were studied on current deer science, this stuff is like basic entry level. Everyone that knows what is going on has seen it. Go google it, "washington state mule deer nutrition study". See I have supporting works as a basis for my thoughts and opinions on the subject. Unlike some people. 

Lonetree I laugh when you say I have conjecture or draw bad conclussions based on "junk science" or whatever, then site observations made in the 1800's made by either spanish explorers or other european explorers. Neither of their observations can be considered anything other than that. Neither group until they came to the "west" had ever seen mule deer. Unless they were from asia they had never seen elk. In short they had no baseline to compare population densities to or population health to, so to use any of their "data" to drive your discussion it pretty shortsighted.
Then the very publications that cite early explorers for a base line of having few mule deer in the West, have to be thrown out too. That is where all of the reference information comes from, that says that mule deer numbers in the last century, were "abberation". If you actually make comparisons of all of the literature, and all of the authors of the time, and put together a big picture, with space and time, it discounts their individual uses, as cited by those that said there was low game numbers through out the 1800s. If I can't use this information, you can't say the '50s and '60s were an aberration, because that is the information used to make those arguments. 

Again, do I think nutrition has had some affect on deer numbers? Absolutely. Has human encroachment, yup, same as disease, forest health, competion from elk, I-15, etc, etc. So if we fix the nutrition aspect somehow(I still don't understand a viable way to do so on the macro level) are we going to bulldoze the houses on winter range, magically fix our forests, dig up I-15? How do we know for sure that muleys don't have a population cylce that they are in? Is there a population curve? Yes they have a population cycle, and there are things that drive that cycle, they don't just happen on their own. That is what we are talking about, we don't know what drives this. If we did, we could make better management plans, that were better for us and the deer. 

Were the 50's and 60's an abberation, or the peak of the curve? Our actual data, and not simply observation of population doesn't have a big enough time frame to know for sure. We have a bigger picture than people want to look at, On a bigger scale we have an archeological record. And this same record can be correlated with climate and enviroment, and indigenous hunters over time. It can even be compared to other game. Everyone looks to the '50s, but we have a lot of information that goes back into the 1930s, and we know quite abit about the 1880s, but this information, does not fit the current paradigm. 

Will whitetails overtake mulies, YES. Remember, biology 101, survival of the fittest, Lonetree has already pointed out that there were subspecies of elk that didn't survive, the same can be true of deer, and in fact I believe we are already seeing the proof of that. This is absurd, and unfounded, like most of what you say. Mule deer declines go back 30 years, why did the white tails not take over, over the last 30 years? Hey, if low mule deer numbers were the norm, before 1900, why did the white tails not take over then? You know as much about deer as Don Peay, at least he will admit he doesn'y know what he is talking about.

NO, that doesn't mean status quo, but because I am married to an accountant I understand that there is a limited ammount of capital that can be used for game managment. In short elk are easier to manage for, thus cheaper, and with limited financial resources, DWR has to get the biggest bang for the buck. So you are against spending money on predator control for mule deer, and syudies for mule deer? We can not afford them right? 

I agree with Lonetree that nutrition is important, and the losses in it on critical mule deer range are troubling, but we see in other places where the loss of nutrition is over come with other factors, be they lack of predators, restricted harvesting, etc, which would point out that nutrition is a limiting factor, not THE limiting factor. You are not studied or versed on the current science, this is just your opinion on the matter.

I would like to thank Lonetree for at least raising this discussion past the DWR sucks, or the usual trophy vs. oppourtunity spat that takes place, I personally just feel his focus is too tunnel visioned, all the while realizing that mine may be too broad. Quite the opposite, you can't see the forest for the trees, you have yet to expand your argument beyond Utah. We are not talking about how people feel. That is the same as the opportunity, verses trophy debate, and the DWR sucks sentiments. Yeah,...your view is too broad?

Lastly, you have a biologist friend that has done research on wolf/elk interaction and he found that wolves haven't adversely affected elk population? REALLY??? I will go read your link, but REALLY??? is all I can think. I wish I had some witty comment to make on this one, but I actually am sitting here with my jaw open try to imagine how a trained scientist, or for that matter anyone with eyes would come to that conclussion. Go read it it. The reason you can't imagine, is because you don't understand context, especially in science. I can point you to decades of research that says the same thing over and over again in Canada. You don't like wolves, that is fine, it does not mean you know anything about the science behind their predator prey relationships. 

I have answered point for point, while you have dodged almost every question I have posed to you. You are intellectually dishonest, and you have contributed nothing to this discussion. You are the problem that we face as sportsmen. You are just another poster child for more of the same BS we have been fed for the last 20+ years. You have served only to dilute any of this conversation, promote apathy, and make the case for the current paradigm that we are in, that has produced nothing.

Seriously, you have no clue what you are talking about. If you did, you would reply to my questions, point for point, and defend your claims with supporting work. You have done nothing but dodge and redirect, because you don't know what you are talking about, just like the policy makers in this state.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Lonetree we have reduced tags but not enough to actually create bigger deer on our general units no. Weapons are much more advanced and deadly, there are many more roads and ways to get to the animals now. So no tags being cut doesn't make any difference at the moment on our general units. If you cut tags to a point where more deer would make it through the hunt there would be a difference. The Heneries and Pauns are the prime example of this, but tags are cut so far their that you'll only hunt one of those units and once in your life, but yes less tags is the reason for the bigger bucks and larger quantity of bucks on those two units you can't fight that . The problem is those units have so few tags available doing that isn't even worth it. Again I'm not fighting in favor of that sever of tag cuts and it won't result in more deer but it does result in bigger bucks. I would rather have more deer on our units, in turn that will mean more bucks .


You missed the key question. What about cutting more tags to unit 1? Will it get us the same results as the Henry's? It is a whole lot more than just a tag issue. If this management technique is so keen at producing big deer, we should be able to do it on any unit, right? Do the trend lines of those deer units, differ vastly from the trend lines of the rest of the West? Or do they rise and fall synchronously, with the rest of mule deer?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

massmanute said:


> The question was posed, do we want more deer or bigger bucks? I vote for more deer. I don't care at all about bigger bucks.


I like big deer, a lot of us do, but I am very much about more of them. This position solves a number of problems.


----------



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

You'll never have the exact same results every place you go. So maybe unit 1 it doesn't apply but for many it would.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> You'll never have the exact same results every place you go. So maybe unit 1 it doesn't apply but for many it would.


But do Utah's limited entry units fall outside of overall mule deer trends? Long term, they do not. Their numbers rise and fall, across the decades, as have all mule deer, across the West. And yes, it won't apply everywhere, which means it is not just the act of cutting tags that produces these results. The limited entry units were chosen as limited entry units for a reason.


----------



## Kevinitis (Jul 18, 2013)

So Lonetree, what do you suggest we (or udwr) do?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Kevinitis said:


> So Lonetree, what do you suggest we (or udwr) do?


First, we as sportsmen, need to demand that the next 20 years, not end up like the last 20 years. I understand and appreciate, that there are a lot of good people, and sportsmen, that have donated time, money, resources, blood, sweat, and tears over the last 20 years. And while there is much that has been done, we are not much further along, in our understanding of mule deer, what drives their numbers, or how to manage them best. I think it is those things that sportsmen rightfully invested in, but have yet to see a return on.

In many ways we have regressed. It seems like the more something does not work, the more we double down on it. It is no secret where the problem with wildlife management starts in this state. And that is with the people that make, lobby for, and impose policy. Effective and efficient wildlife policy is rooted in sound science. Many of the people that have driven the last 20 years of wildlife management, at least in this state, don't know very much about mule deer. Yet they can tell you all about the money and politics, and how to exploit the decline of deer. Where are we, in relation to the last 20 years? Is this like the 4th coming or something like that.

So, it is really two fold. We have to demand an end to the politics and the business of profiteering, and power mongering, via wildlife declines. This does not serve sportsmen, tax payers, or wildlife. And we have to demand that sound wildlife science is not only furthered, but is the basis for our wildlife policies. We need to take a larger, longer view of contemporary mule deer declines, and our understanding of them, in this larger context. It is not just mule deer, it is bighorn sheep, moose, amphibians, forest health, phragmites invasions, etc. The Orwell problem as I call it, is being ignored as a whole, at a detriment to our future as sportsmen. If the Sierra Club, SUWA, or PETA, were to have perpetrated the last 20 years of wildlife management on us, the community would be up in arms. But because it is perpetrated from within, the vast majority of YOU accept it.

We have to move beyond, the last 20 years of failed policy, and the process that brought it to us. We have to move beyond the stigmas created to divide preservationists, and conservationists, those kinds of reactionary, divisionist politics serve only to prevent us from doing everything we can for our wildlife, and ourselves. Make no mistake, some want it that way, and many of YOU are fully invested in this distopia.

Do you hear that? I didn't think so. If you listen close, you can hear blood dripping from the tongues of some though. I have no strings pulling me, I have no sponsors, I have no "agreements" of conduct, I speak only to our heritage as sportsmen, and those philosophies, sciences, and policies that further that.

There is no, "If we just do X,Y, and Z, then the problem will be solved" That is what we have been being sold for 20 years now. It speaks volumes of the instant gratification, entitlement generation that sponsors this kind of thinking.

Identify the problem.

Cut the strings.......


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Singing "Two: a lure, a lie."﻿ Oh.....


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Access. Close a few roads.


----------



## hossblur (Jun 15, 2011)

Lonetree said:


> First, we as sportsmen, need to demand that the next 20 years, not end up like the last 20 years. I understand and appreciate, that there are a lot of good people, and sportsmen, that have donated time, money, resources, blood, sweat, and tears over the last 20 years. And while there is much that has been done, we are not much further along, in our understanding of mule deer, what drives their numbers, or how to manage them best. I think it is those things that sportsmen rightfully invested in, but have yet to see a return on.
> 
> In many ways we have regressed. It seems like the more something does not work, the more we double down on it. It is no secret where the problem with wildlife management starts in this state. And that is with the people that make, lobby for, and impose policy. Effective and efficient wildlife policy is rooted in sound science. Many of the people that have driven the last 20 years of wildlife management, at least in this state, don't know very much about mule deer. Yet they can tell you all about the money and politics, and how to exploit the decline of deer. Where are we, in relation to the last 20 years? Is this like the 4th coming or something like that.
> 
> ...


So for those of you who can read, Lonestar doesn't know. He is great at pointing out what didn't work, or whats not working. He is great at dreaming of a world in which a government agency is in charge of millions and millions of dollars, but would have no political oversight. He waxes on about cutting strings, getting the power structure out, etc, etc, etc. He can source, site, talk about tons of pages of data, theory, and conjecture, yet when you straight up ask the question what should we do, you get the same let science work line that is spewed continuously. What Lonestar forgets to mention is that scientists need to feed their families too. The way they do this is GRANT MONEY. So while Lonestar would love to cut out your control or influence over the process via politics, he is more than comfortable at letting interest groups, or single focus agencies pay scientists via grant money. He would like you to believe that these scientists are so above it all that they wouldn't come out with results, or omit findings, so that the folks who pay the GRANT, get the findings they PAID FOR. See guys, modern wildlife science isn't some closed lab, it is incredibly difficult. The "lab" we use isn't just ours. Its not controlled by the DWR. The same "scientists" that Lonetree trusts so completely, aren't trusted by the Sierra Club, SWA, PETA, etc, and their people aren't trusted by us, yet we all share the same "lab", only look at the numbers, we are the minority. Lonetree also somehow is smart enough to see that there are volumes of work on climatic/environmental changes in the last century, but can't see that non of them continue, and will continue thus adding to the complexity.

In conclussion, what is Lonetrees idea to change the problem? Same as most of our wives, he is going to tell us what went wrong, how much we money we wasted and how stupid we all are. Professor Lonetree, thanks for the lecture, I learned ..... pretty much nothing, but I will agree with you so I can get a good grade!


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Lol...

Sometimes I just have to shake my head in amazement on how folks perceive things. Some see a pile of cow dung as just crap. Others can see the fertilizer and it's benefits. :shock:


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

GBell said:


> Access. Close a few roads.


How 'bout ALL dirt roads during the hunt. 
Back in the "good old days' there were very few 4 wheel drive vehicles and the deer could find some refuge in the high country. Especially if there was a little bit of weather involved. Now almost every hunter has 4 wheel drive or a 4 wheeler, and can get to the end of every dirt road on the mountain. No place to hide means no deer left alive.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

^^^^^exactly^^^^^


----------



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

Despite roads being somewhat of a problem, buck:doe ratio's are still okay and I believe over 90% of does are being bred. I like the thought of more and bigger bucks as well, but that doesn't mean we have a healthy population, that just means we managed it to fit our wants and desires. Road closures in some areas would definitely help if it could keep stress off cows and does during spring when they have their calves and fawns, or when the elk and deer are trying to breed, but closing all roads won't make deer numbers boom. I am for some road closures but not a ton of them. I do think their are far too many roads and closed roads are not enforced well enough to stop people from taking them. But it's a valid point, every little step is closer to the bigger step, and we all want what's best for our deer and elk, and every wildlife herd that calls Utah home.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> we all want what's best for our deer and elk, and every wildlife herd that calls Utah home.


If that were the case there would be no roads at all.


----------



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

Mountain and dirt roads don't have that big of an impact if there's not too many and people don't abuse their privileges.


----------



## Charina (Aug 16, 2011)

Lonetree said:


> First, we as sportsmen, need to demand that the next 20 years, not end up like the last 20 years. I understand and appreciate, that there are a lot of good people, and sportsmen, that have donated time, money, resources, blood, sweat, and tears over the last 20 years. And while there is much that has been done, we are not much further along, in our understanding of mule deer, what drives their numbers, or how to manage them best. I think it is those things that sportsmen rightfully invested in, but have yet to see a return on.
> 
> In many ways we have regressed. It seems like the more something does not work, the more we double down on it. It is no secret where the problem with wildlife management starts in this state. And that is with the people that make, lobby for, and impose policy. Effective and efficient wildlife policy is rooted in sound science. Many of the people that have driven the last 20 years of wildlife management, at least in this state, don't know very much about mule deer. Yet they can tell you all about the money and politics, and how to exploit the decline of deer. Where are we, in relation to the last 20 years? Is this like the 4th coming or something like that.
> 
> ...


Let me see if I can restate in a manner than is readable for the average individual: 
I believe LT is trying to say: 'There is so much political and monetary influence impacting decisions that decisions based on game management theories rooted on science are crowded out. Money and time needs to be spent on studies to better define the issues than to tackle 'problems' that are not confirmed issues.' And, pulling in from other posts reading in-between the lines: 'The core problem that the political/monetary influence is crowding out is the fecundity failures caused by malnutrition. Namely, focusing on predator control, and cutting tags to create elite units are red-herrings that prevent consideration of the core issue of selenium deficiencies.' Close?




Lonetree said:


> We have to move beyond the stigmas created to divide preservationists, and conservationists, those kinds of reactionary, divisionist politics serve only to prevent us from doing everything we can for our wildlife


 If you could only see how that applies to your divisive approach, and how badly you shut down the process of progress. Strange hypocrisy.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

charina said:


> let me see if i can restate in a manner than is readable for the average individual:
> i believe lt is trying to say: 'there is so much political and monetary influence impacting decisions that decisions based on game management theories rooted on science are crowded out. Money and time needs to be spent on studies to better define the issues than to tackle 'problems' that are not confirmed issues.' and, pulling in from other posts reading in-between the lines: 'the core problem that the political/monetary influence is crowding out is the fecundity failures caused by malnutrition. Namely, focusing on predator control, and cutting tags to create elite units are red-herrings that prevent consideration of the core issue of selenium deficiencies.' close?
> 
> yes, bottom line, we have to identify the problem. I have set forth ideas, based on clear science, as to what those problems are. We have spent 20 years trying to identify the problem, and when it is shown that what we wanted the problem to be, is not the problem, we just repeat the cycle over again. We decide that we must not have poured enough on.
> ...


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

GBell said:


> Access. Close a few roads.


As much as this would improve some things, in some places. In the bigger context of deer declines over the last 30 years, it just has no bearing. Long term deer trends rise and fall, across the West, in remote areas, and in more urbanized areas. If their were a bigger differential between roaded and roadless areas, then there would be more to this. Elk on the other hand have been shown to favor roadless areas, over roaded areas, much more so than deer. Deer can handle higher road densities, where as elk will completely abandon an area, once road densities, and travel activities reach a certain point.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

hossblur said:


> So for those of you who can read, Lonestar doesn't know. He is great at pointing out what didn't work, or whats not working. He is great at dreaming of a world in which a government agency is in charge of millions and millions of dollars, but would have no political oversight. He waxes on about cutting strings, getting the power structure out, etc, etc, etc. He can source, site, talk about tons of pages of data, theory, and conjecture, yet when you straight up ask the question what should we do, you get the same let science work line that is spewed continuously. What Lonestar forgets to mention is that scientists need to feed their families too. The way they do this is GRANT MONEY. So while Lonestar would love to cut out your control or influence over the process via politics, he is more than comfortable at letting interest groups, or single focus agencies pay scientists via grant money. He would like you to believe that these scientists are so above it all that they wouldn't come out with results, or omit findings, so that the folks who pay the GRANT, get the findings they PAID FOR. See guys, modern wildlife science isn't some closed lab, it is incredibly difficult. The "lab" we use isn't just ours. Its not controlled by the DWR. The same "scientists" that Lonetree trusts so completely, aren't trusted by the Sierra Club, SWA, PETA, etc, and their people aren't trusted by us, yet we all share the same "lab", only look at the numbers, we are the minority. Lonetree also somehow is smart enough to see that there are volumes of work on climatic/environmental changes in the last century, but can't see that non of them continue, and will continue thus adding to the complexity.
> 
> In conclussion, what is Lonetrees idea to change the problem? Same as most of our wives, he is going to tell us what went wrong, how much we money we wasted and how stupid we all are. Professor Lonetree, thanks for the lecture, I learned ..... pretty much nothing, but I will agree with you so I can get a good grade!


Of course you learned nothing, you were not trying. You want to tackle some of those previous conversations?

Scientists are not above reproach, that is why there is protocol, and a peer reviewing process. It is not gospel, until it can be repeated and proven.

Protocol, processes, and how they work, or don't work, is very much what this is all about. And you just demonstrated a serious lack of understanding for all of it.

What should we do? Verify the problem, I have proposed possible problems, that from a scientific point of view, could explain a lot of things. Once a the problem(limiting factor of mule deer) is identified, then we can start working on solutions.

Were you born in the '50s or '60s? I want an answer now! by the way.


----------



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

hossblur I wasn't the biggest fan of how Lonetree likes to get his point across either. But I do however believe Lonetree has done research and has brought up valid points that we aren't looking at or addressing to solve our deer herd problems. We've tried all the obvious things and have helped substantially with habitat projects around the state, yet although we've seen increases in deer numbers they have yet to stabilize or grow a lot. There is no one reason why mule deer have suffered over the past 2 decades, so studying and compiling information on all the reasons why mule deer have suffered declines is very important. We can't just focus on obvious problems, because the obvious problems may not be the main problems as to why our deer herd isn't at its potential.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

improvement of habitat is the solution. Habitat improvemnet encompasses a lot of things, most of which the average person and average sportsman is not willing to sacrifice and never will be.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Me and 1-I don't see eye to eye, much of the time. But what we both see, is that the others intent is all about the deer. And that interest and respect for wildlife, trump everything else. What others may dwell on, is just peripheral BS for us.

You have to say, his best intent is in the wildlife and hunters.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> improvement of habitat is the solution. Habitat improvemnet encompasses a lot of things, most of which the average person and average sportsman is not willing to sacrifice and never will be.


Then they are not really sportsmen. And furthermore, we don't fully understand the big picture on "habitat" like you said, it is large. So to simply dismiss something, before we really know, is a.......come on....come on........argument for the status quo, and apathy.

That is what my father calls the "can't fight city hall" cop out. You know where the problem lies, but you are content to not fully explore it, or the potential to remedy it. Because that is not what any of it is really about for you.


----------



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

Habitat is important, probably most important, but as sportsmen if you say your not willing to help that cause , they you don't give a rats ass so don't comment. I would give up money, time, my opinion, or supplies if I felt it was working towards bettering anything for the wildlife we have in our state. If all you are willing to contribute to the wildlife you hunt is to kill a few of them then you don't care too much so idk why your opinion would be valid when you aren't concerned about anything but moping and acting like its hopeless and there's nothing we can do so just let it happen. If your not attempting to be part of the solution your part of the problem.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

In defense of Mr Muleskinner, because I know he has tried, and put forth effort, toward actual wildlife projects, I would say that the dismissive sentiment is the issue.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

quit acting like you know me.

Do people/sportsman live in the foothills? Are they willing to move to increase habitat?

Do people/sportsman golf in the foothills and areas that used to be prime deer habitat? Are they willing to fight to stop the expansion of the developments in what used to be prime deer country that they now build homes on?

I assume it was people/sportsman that pushed for more roads and campgrounds in the Wasatch LE area as well. There are more roads than you can shake a stick at. Were they thinking of the deer then?

Highways litter the country that used to allow safe deer crossings. Highways aren't going anywhere. 

Farmland is being gobbled up and it won't come back. Cabelas sits on some of it. 

Don't assume that you know what I do or what I know or the way I think.

If it were up to me there would be far more primitive and protected areas. Could happen. Developments would be stopped........ by and large won't happen because the growth of the human population is doing just fine. Especially in the states that are home to the mule deer.

BTW.........you have talked down to me for the last time. Expect no further commentary from me towards you. I would rather have conversations with a fence post.


----------



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

And that hurts my feelings? No if it were up to you we would all but give up on everything . Don't limit yourself to Utah and Salt Lake county , improvement can be made there as well but there's a hole **** state besides those 2 counties open your eyes. The rest of the state hasn't been destroyed by development.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> quit acting like you know me.
> 
> Do people/sportsman live in the foothills? Are they willing to move to increase habitat?
> 
> ...


We are in agreement on wilderness and roads, you most certainly don't know me either. I am commenting only on your expressed defeatism on the issue of habitat. We have seen deer increase, in the face of most every limiting factor we have mentioned, so there is still something more to it. That is what I am getting at.

Your timing on playing the victim is a little off, you might to work on that.

Go slop some ****ing mud were you are actually productive.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Deer 1-I those were just two examples. I would bet money that I have traveled FAR more than most. I have done my homework. Not going to argue on the subject anymore. I can be more productive elsewhere.


----------



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

Really it doesn't seem like you're really willing to be productive for our deer herds at all by your comments. And if you've traveled as much and far as you say then why does it seem the only places your comments and know how pertain to is what you've seen in those 2 counties?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Talking down to people is saying "trust me, I'm an expert", without any supporting information. If I thought all the people on this board were stupid, I would not bother going to the lengths I do to explain the subject matter. I go to the lengths I do, because I know better than that. There are a lot of very sharp people in this community. If someone feels talked down to, then pick yourself the **** up, and fight back! But you better bring an actual argument.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Really it doesn't seem like you're really willing to be productive for our deer herds at all by your comments. And if you've traveled as much and far as you say then why does it seem the only places your comments and know how pertain to is what you've seen in those 2 counties?


I have pulled a pretty fair amount of fence with my own hands (as has my son and brother) and have donated other time and money to other efforts such as spring redevelopment and lop/scatter projects. Do I need to expand on the description of the efforts I have made? No. I do not have the desire or need to be a blowhard and try to impress you or anybody else.

Once again those areas just two examples. If you need any more it is you that needs to get out. BTW the Wasatch Unit alone does extend a bit further than two counties.

Rather than argue with people on a forum I will direct my efforts to the ground so to speak.


----------



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

We'll that's great thanks for putting work into it. But if it was worthless what you did, there's no hope if we ask you.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I never said that it was worthless. Nor did I say it was hopeless. Arguing about it is though


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> I never said that it was worthless. Nor did I say it was hopeless. Arguing about it is though


Debating the effectiveness of something is not worthless, a collective exchange of ideas, and perspectives, is how we find the things that we miss as individuals. Or collectively, because it has not been challenged, or we won't allow it to be challenged. So why are you being worthless and hopeless, arguing about it?


----------



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

Mr mules I come across like an ******* much of the time. But as sportsmen and hunters we cannot sit in the world you build with your posts and they say to me we can't fix the problem so give up . If we do that then yes the problem will never be fixed. If we discuss possible problems, find them, and address them our wildlife and hunting have a future. If we sit back and mope and do nothing, nothing will change and our wildlife will be nothing in the future. You act as if there is no room for mule deer on this planet anymore and that's far from the case.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Yes let's just eradicate all the deer from earth. That's exactly what muleskinner was suggesting. Drama queen much 1 eye?? Oh ya I forgot you were responsible for the whole 1 eye thread.


----------



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

That's not what I'm saying marty, but mr muleskinner was sure being a drama queen with his posts as though there is no hope so just give up and be happy with what we have. I'm not, it can be improved, that's the reality of it, giving up is not an smart choice.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

never suggested at all that there was no hope. I never said anything remotely close to that. Can deer numbers be increased? absolutely. Will they ever be what they were do to urban sprawl, increased highways, gas and oil development and the many other things that have been done by just mankind alone? Not to mention the many others hurdles? NO. 

It's not dramatic, it's not a quitters attitude it is just a reality. I can point you to many many places that dear will never roam again and even more areas that they will never reach the capacity that they were at before. It is simply a reality that many refuse to face. Drive down highway 40 and highway 6 and count the deer that are getting picked on the roads then follow them to the dump sights and see the mass burials. How many deer is the state of Utah alone losing do to this?

Can this single problem be fixed? I would bet money that more deer are being lost do to this than any one other single factor and yes it is just one part of the habitat problem that deer face.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

I agree with much of Mr. Muleskinners sentiments, in the way of what deer are up against. But, he has not been following the conversation. Why do mule deer trends, rise and fall synchronously, across the West, in areas with high road mortality, and in areas with little to no road mortality? Urbanized areas, and wilderness areas? 

Yes deer get hit by cars, but if highway mortality were a limiting factor, you would see very different things happening in remote areas. And after 100 years of driving, you would find very low deer densities near roads, with higher densities in remote areas. This just does not hold true. I am a wilderness, guy, I would be all over it, if it were the case.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

okay. So I haven't read anything and road kill is not part of the problem.

So there are just as many deer by the roads as there are in the hills and mountains away from the roads? Jeez. I have been wasting my time in the hills. I think I will put in for South Jordan next year.

Just curious. Is there ever a post that you make that you don't try put yourself up there just a little bit higher than the next guy?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr. Muleskinners post, is just not quite on the mark. On the whole, there are not dramatically fewer deer, in roaded verses roadless areas. That is why deer hunting is preferred by road hunters over elk hunting. I hunt roadless, there are many benefits, fewer hunters, etc. But like I said before, if it were a limiting factor, we would see a differential in wilderness deer. But when deer are declining and having fewer fawns, or they are increasing, they do this in roaded, and roadless areas, at similar rates. We are not talking about localized affects, but mule deer as a whole. We have been hitting deer in the same places for decades, whether their numbers are rising or falling. I'm not saying that we should not do something about those areas where it is a localized problem, but on the whole, it barely registers.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2010/07/25/dr-charles-e-kay-predator-mediated-competition/


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Charles Kay, does not conduct peer reviewed biology. He is a first rate ****ing joke. His "Aboriginal over kill hypothesis" has been cut to shreds, by every qualified individual out there. From historians, to biologists, and archeologists. It is very unsupported, full of historical mis-characterizations, and out right archaeologically disproved speculation. That is why he is published in a hunting rag, and not in a peer reviewed science journal. 

Don Peay should probably read that article. I am pretty sure that Kay is saying that "the sacrificial anode" theory won't work. Both assertions are incorrect though. Some of this is along the lines of trophic cascade, which is falling apart rapidly, as we better understand the bigger ecological picture.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

If predator-mediated competition, were the problem, then removing predators would cause deer numbers to increase. This has been tested in studies, in Wyoming, Colorado, and Idaho. In Colorado habitat improvements were pitted against predator control. Predator control could not increase deer. But habitat improvements, and supplemental nutrition did. Some of these studies are listed below.

Furthermore, if elk are the fuel for "predator-mediated competion" here in Utah, and white tails are the fuel in Canada. Then what about places where mule deer don't contend with elk or whitetails? Why do those deer numbers, rise and fall, syncronously, across the West, in areas with elk, without elk, with white tails, and without them, with both, and with neither?

This is nothing but a failed attempt at defending predator pit theories.

Here are those peer reviewed, biologically sound, predator studies, published in actual science journals, from the beginning of this thread:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wmon.4/abstract

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...g.126/abstract

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1....CO;2/abstract

http://wildlife.state.co.us/Research...ages/Deer.aspx


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I already said that I have read the thread.

I have gathered that for every question, there is usually a lengthy, well thought out response from you...........................that never answers the question.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> I already said that I have read the thread.
> 
> I have gathered that for every question, there is usually a lengthy, well thought out response from you...........................that never answers the question.


Show me one place, were I have not answered a question. Most around here have not even attempted to answer scores of them, including yourself.

If you had read page one of this thread, and understood any of the information, you would not have posted that drivel from Kay.

You have not read, or at a bear minimum, paid attention on this thread. That's why your response was about me, and not the subject matter.

I thought you were indifferent to me? Don't you have some ****ing mud to slop?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Well SFB.....I posted it as info nothing more, nothing less. I did not say that I believed or disbelieved it. You took the bait because you could not resist.

You clearly know what is right and wrong. You have read everything. Been there done that. You consider yourself an educated, well studied mountain man on the matter. I won't question any of those things.

So........and we don't need a long indirect spew about studying the conditions and doing things different than before, we don't need to be told again what doesn't or won't work.........you have already done that because you know EVERYTHING.........we need to know what WILL work.................a very simple question was posed before..............you never answered it.

What should be done?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Well SFB.....I posted it as info nothing more, nothing less. I did not say that I believed or disbelieved it. You took the bait because you could not resist.
> 
> You clearly know what is right and wrong. You have read everything. Been there done that. You consider yourself an educated, well studied mountain man on the matter. I won't question any of those things.
> 
> ...


See you have not paid attention. 

So you just threw out "information", not understanding, or knowing anything about it? So you were not prepared to discuss it? Or you thought you had something?

Simple answer: We have to identify the limiting factors of mule deer. Running through a troubleshooting chart, using the latest science, we can eliminate several things. Nutrition has come into focus as the only factor that can be a cause of declines, and in the inverse, cause mule deer to increase. So it is narrowing nutrition down to the components that are having the greatest affect. I have proposed that micro-nutrients are the problem, selenium specifically, but others as well. We have to narrow down the PROBLEM, before we can identify solutions.

That's the problem with entitled, instant gratification mind sets. They want to jump right to the head of the line.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I never said that I did not understand or know anything about it. Stay in within context. I said that I did not provide any clue as to whether I agreed with it or not. Very simple.

It is my personal opinion that most of the limiting factors of mule deer have been identified through trial and error. The solution is not always practical nor beneficial in the grand scheme of things. While studying mule deer populations as whole the end result of other species and their environments must be taken into account. As far as nutrition being the ONLY factor that can be the cause of declines. I don't buy it. Not for a second. There are many different factors that cause death. Roadside mortality and predation are just two others. I do believe that nutrition is the primary if not the only limiting factor with regards to production.

You want to know my stance? Here is an article that sums things up quite well for me. In particular the second to last paragraph. Which states:

"Many of the efforts put forth by states and provinces to improve mule deer habitat are still in their infancy and too young to bear fruit. Even where populations are stable, the numbers may be lower than objectives, and therefore the success of management efforts may be invisible to some stakeholders. But the loss and degradation of mule deer habitat occurred over decades, and expecting a "quick fix" for ailing mule deer herds is unrealistic. In many cases, the landscape has been so altered that habitat can no longer support the number of deer it once did, and some of these impacts may be irreversible."

I will expand on that by saying that some the impacts ARE irreversible.

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


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

I've read it. You don't understand the conversation, or my proposed “solution” in its context. Yes, many things are irreversible, I never said they were not. You're response is always defeatism, or “give me an instant solution now”. You waffle between the two. Make up your mind, you are starting to make me look sane. 

I am challenging the current paradigm, you are supporting it. The current thinking and policy has been unfounded for 20 years, got us no where, and yet, here you are propping it up.
I am talking about taking the science to next level. I am talking about biochemical cycles, environmental science, genetics(actual DNA and RNA), virology, etc. You are talking about only those things you can see and touch, because that is the level of your understanding on the subject.

You are not contributing, only promoting more apathy with your defeatism, while you support the status quo, of more of the same. You don't have an argument, you can't stick to something as simple as saying you are not going to respond to me, because I talk down to you, because I have a superiority complex. Who has the complex?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

You say that you have not said whether you agree, or don't agree with Kay. Yet in the next paragraph you cite predators as limiting factors for mule deer? Yeah, OK

Make an argument for road mortality. Miles of highway, verses more cars, etc. Put it into the time frame of the last 30 years of deer declines. If there is something to it, it can be demonstrated. You should be able to show a differential, between areas that have highways verses those that are more remote, in relation to the last 30 years of declines. 

That is how you get to solutions, testing hypotheses', call it trial and error, the scientific process, etc. But you have to be able to demonstrate a result, or a differential, and it needs to be in the context of space, or time, so as to be measurable.

Make your case.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Lonetree said:


> I've read it. You don't understand the conversation, or my proposed "solution" in its context. Yes, many things are irreversible, I never said they were not. You're response is always defeatism, or "give me an instant solution now". You waffle between the two. Make up your mind, you are starting to make me look sane.
> 
> I am challenging the current paradigm, you are supporting it. The current thinking and policy has been unfounded for 20 years, got us no where, and yet, here you are propping it up.
> I am talking about taking the science to next level. I am talking about biochemical cycles, environmental science, genetics(actual DNA and RNA), virology, etc. You are talking about only those things you can see and touch, because that is the level of your understanding on the subject.
> ...


classic response.

Do you really think for second that the study of biochemical cycles, environmental science, genetics, virology, etc. is not being done as we speak? You are the one that is wanting instant results. Twenty years is not a long time and from most everything I have read the deer population has stabilized for the time being.

I don't get where all if this talk about defeatism is coming from. I run a business, have a family and other things to do no different than the next guy. I have successfully expanded a business, construction business no less, through the greatest recession of my lifetime. I am in the second year of the dedicated hunter system yet have not targeted deer in any hunt in over 10 years. Donated money, time and effort and will continue to do so. My background is in nuclear engineering and construction. Not much I can apply other than doing what I have been doing. There are some realities out there that some people are going to have to face. You are the one coming off as if you want instant gratification.

adios............I think I will go pick my nose now.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

:mrgreen:

Your defeatism comes through in your, irreversible arguments, your its too big arguments, your down playing of the current science, your realities comments, and your arguments about practicality and benefit, of unknowns, no less. It is defeatist in the context you use it.

Your instant gratification shines through in your desire, for an answer to a question that has not been asked yet. 

20 years is actually a very significant time frame for mule deer. We are talking about a species that can double its population in a few years, or have it cut in half in the same amount of time. We are not talking about desert tortoises. 20 years of failed policy, is everything we need to know, to know we don't need more of the same.

some of those studies are being conducted, and have been conducted. But by in large, they are not being studied with respect to mule deer, that's the problem. We are just regurgitating the same old **** from the last 20 years. All the things cited, in your link.

I'm a high school dropout, with a couple of accomplishments. That is beside the point.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

As for populations being stable, go look out the window right now. It looks like it will be a good hunting season. but it does not look like things are looking up, at least in the short term, for mule deer. 

If what I am saying about mineral deficiencies are true, this has been proven for other species, and situations. Then any stability, or gain, will again be met with a sharp decline.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Lonetree said:


> If predator-mediated competition, were the problem, then removing predators would cause deer numbers to increase. This has been tested in studies, in Wyoming, Colorado, and Idaho. In Colorado habitat improvements were pitted against predator control. Predator control could not increase deer. But habitat improvements, and supplemental nutrition did. Some of these studies are listed below.
> 
> Furthermore, if elk are the fuel for "predator-mediated competion" here in Utah, and white tails are the fuel in Canada. Then what about places where mule deer don't contend with elk or whitetails? Why do those deer numbers, rise and fall, syncronously, across the West, in areas with elk, without elk, with white tails, and without them, with both, and with neither?
> 
> ...


Bottom three links aren't working for me...though I've probably read them before.:shock:


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...mon.4/abstract

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...g.126/abstract

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1....CO;2/abstract

http://wildlife.state.co.us/Research...ages/Deer.aspx


----------



## hossblur (Jun 15, 2011)

*Stiill nothing????*

Sorry Lonetree, I took a few days and went muzzy hunting, came back today and imagine my suprise, The Great Mule Deer Professor still lecturing. So to answer, no I was born in 1974. Yes thanks for your description of how science works, I missed that during the 4 years I spent getting a BS in microbiology, so again thanks, I would never understand biochemical processes, scientific peer review, or anything else you talk down to us idiots about.

So again, the same challenge that has been offered repeatedly since you started your closed minded diatribe. HOW DO YOU REPLACE/REPLENTISH/INTRODUCE SELENIUM ON A LARGE SCALE, ACROSS NUMEROUS STATES? How do you plan to get mass spraying/injection(or however you plan to pull it off) past the Forest Service, BLM, state, private owners of land? What is your plan to bypass the guaranteed lawsuits brought by every TOM, DICK, and Harry that feels they have standing to do so? WHO IS PAYING FOR ALL THIS? WHO IS ACTUALLY GOING TO DO IT? Thanks a ton for yammering on, and on, but until you can answer those few questions, and we all know there are more, all you are doing is trying to use big words to impress idiots. See, call it status quo, a non believer, or however you dismiss us, this is how "science" works in the real world. IN SHORT, someone pays the bill!

I will check back later to see how you dismiss some more of us all the while offering nothing but results from google searches as some sort of knowledge or expertise.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Who said that supplementation was the "solution". You first have to verify the problem, if you verify that there is a micro nutritional deficiency, you would then work to identify what causes this. It is in the cause, that a solution can be found. If you just start supplementing, you may cause other problems. That is the problem with the current management regime, we are working without a full understanding of the big picture.

If there is a deficiency that is a limiting factor, which is what the science has been showing for 20 years, then you have to ask why? It was not a limiting factor prior to 1984. Moose, bighorn sheep, mule deer, trout, etc. saw their numbers increase, or remain stable with high populations, from the '40s to 1984, and then everything changed. Things happen for a reason, there is something that caused this. Over and over again we see a Western phenomenon of wildlife declines, rising sharply in the early 1980's. Take whirling disease for example, it has been found in the Eastern United States longer than in the West, but it does not affect trout in the East, in anywhere near the same intesity, as it does trout in the West. Nor does it spread in the East, like it does in the West. In areas where moose, bighorns, and mule deer have experienced sharp declines in the last 30 years, you see whirling disease exacting a disproportionate toll on trout, compared to areas, that have not seen big game declines. Is selenium causing whirling disease?, no, but its related. "....This ain't no random evolution, let's check the chemicals in your solution.....you might be positive....."

As for paying for anything, who pays for all the failed management that we currently employ? Speaking of poor management, and funding, you want to answer my questions about whether you support spending money on mule deer research, or coyote control? Or 20 other questions you skipped?

As for a BS in microbiology, you of all people should grasp this better, if that is the case. Furthermore, having a piece of paper, doesn't mean ****. I don't have a HS diploma, and I've held my own with PHDs for years. We have plenty of people in wildlife management that have all kinds of letters next to their names.

My hypothesis, which is not really mine, is rooted in 20 years of research, across multiple continents, by researchers that are preeminent in their fields. Beyond internet research, I know some of these people. While on the other hand, you keep telling us about how whitetail deer are genetically superior, based on nothing but your feelings on the matter, or how bison, could not adapt, so that's why they are on the brink of extinction, never mind what happened in the 1860s. I hear it is hard to adapt, to being exterminated. Yes, I am dismissing what you say, it is not founded.


----------

