# OK--DWR hews release, HUGE jump in fawn survival!!!!



## goofy elk

Heres the link,

http://wildlife.utah.gov/wildlife-news/1379-dwr-gives-deer-herd-update.html

Heres a few quotes:
"During the first two years of the study, just over 50 percent of the radio-collared fawns survived an entire year. Over the past two years, however, the annual survival rate has jumped to almost 80 percent."

^^^Intresting, happens to be over the same time span of coyote bountys.^^

[*]The success hunters found on general season units this past fall was the best it's been since 2007. 
In 2013, a total of 84,600 hunters harvested more than 25,000 bucks on general season units. In 2007, a total of 97,000 hunters harvested about 28,000 bucks on general season units.
[*]Based on surveys after last fall's hunts, biologists estimate the total number of deer in Utah at 332,900. 
That's only 17,000 deer shy of a short-term, statewide goal of 350,000 deer. And it's the most deer in Utah since 2000, when an estimated 322,000 deer were in the state.

So, lets hear the thoughts on these turn of events.......


----------



## Lonetree

I've already read this thread, in fact, I already wrote the rebuttal to it, some time ago. I'm sure someone can find it.


----------



## hemionus

correlation doesn't equal causation.................just saying.


----------



## Packout

"Why are deer doing so well?
Shannon says several factors have combined to help Utah's deer herds:
-At the top of the list are mild winters that have allowed deer to survive until the following spring."

Many, including myself, have been talking about the herd growth for the last 3 years. We predicted that there would be those that claim predator control is the reason our herds are increasing or micro-buck-management would be the reason for the increase. The fact remains that, given the proper conditions from Mother Nature we will see our deer herds increase. Weather is key.

And I am ok with placing pressure on predators. Just don't tell me that predator control is the only reason coyotes are getting killed. Some act like coyotes were not hunted before the bounty. I'd bet that the bounty only increased coyote take by 20%-- that is my un-prove-able statistic for the thread.


----------



## Lonetree

Packout;767185Many said:


> It is even better than that. When Option WTF! was first being proposed, just prior to the bounties, the fact that the deer were looking like they were in a rebound, was being discussed simultaneously, in conjunction with Option WTF? This was within the division, along with some other folks.
> 
> So riddle me this? Why would you cut hunters, while looking at rising deer numbers? Same with the bounty program? Nothing gets done for mule deer, for years, and then suddenly, just as things start to look up, everyone rushes in, with "solutions" that are sure to work. I mean think how good you would look, if you came up with a solution to the deer problem, and it worked, in only 2 years times. :mrgreen:


----------



## goofy elk

Lonetree said:


> I've already read this thread, in fact, I already wrote the rebuttal to it, some time ago. I'm sure someone can find it.


It was released and posted less than 24 hrs before I put it up here ???

Look onthe news letter LT !!!!! 
Posted Thursday, 27 March 2014 14:21


----------



## klbzdad

Yeah, the mild winters and wet monsoon summers have nothing to do with it, all predator control! Whatever. The increase in coyotes killed during these periods are NOMINAL when other factors that are largely discounted by a certain bunch are included. Also, hardly a huge success until data can be quantified and assessed properly and so far the data doesn't really show much to associate the program with the increase in deer numbers. I'm hopeful but not holding my breath. Show five years and a couple of average winters and if there's still an uptick, I'll buy in. I didn't report any of the 12 I killed this year. Bounty or not, I will start recording and turning in the data to help.

For reading:
Even with a bounty on their heads to protect mule deer, coyotes hard to count out - Standard Examiner

Utah DWR 2012 - 2013 Summary

Utah's Coyote Bounty Program Ends First Year, $380,000 Distributed - Outdoor Hub

Fewer takers than expected for Utah's new $50 coyote bounty - SL Tribune


----------



## Lonetree

goofy elk said:


> It was released and posted less than 24 hrs before I put it up here ???
> 
> Look onthe news letter LT !!!!!
> Posted Thursday, 27 March 2014 14:21


:mrgreen: Your assumptions about deer numbers are not news. Like Packout said, some of us forecast such responses a long time ago. It is smoke and mirrors. Meaningful change, and sustainability take time, but everyone is looking for a big mac.

Deer were rising before Option WTF? Just as they were rising before the coyote bounties. Just like they were rising, making for better conditions, before translocation studies. For this very simple reason, neither Option WTF? nor coyote bounties can be pointed at as having influenced this increase in deer. Especially coyote bounties. The deer were already rising, before the bounties, and the coyote take was not significantly more than in previous years(check the links in Klbzdad's post) There is not even unfounded correlation here, just unfounded belief.

You want to see something that has a positive impact on deer numbers right? I get it, I'm with you. Then quit drinking the ****ing kool aid.


----------



## goofy elk

Lonetree said:


> :mrgreen:
> You want to see something that has a positive impact on deer numbers right? I get it, I'm with you. Then quit drinking the ****ing kool aid.


Not drinking any SFW kool aid LT .... Not even an SFW MEMBER !

But, I am following this deer survival and coyote control study closely ..

I'm just say'in, this coyote control is part of the puzzle to BETTER deer herds...


----------



## Lonetree

goofy elk said:


> Not drinking any SFW kool aid LT .... Not even an SFW MEMBER !
> 
> But, I am following this deer survival and coyote control study closely ..
> 
> I'm just say'in, this coyote control is part of the puzzle to BETTER deer herds...


Goofy, I never said SFW.

Tell me why numerous, and much larger studies, in Wyoming, Idaho, and Colorado, have all found that coyote removal, could not raise deer numbers? I understand where you are coming from, I spent the '90s shooting coyotes. But ultimately this is just an attempt to justify the current waste of money in this state, while we continue to not conduct studies and science that actually address declining deer numbers.

If this study shows that there are more deer in the coyote removal area, than there are in the non coyote removal area, in the long term. That is not necessarily a good thing. The deer herds are already rising on their own, separate of predator removal. If we do not have predators to take out the sick and weak, all we are doing is growing a disease reservoir among our otherwise healthy growing deer population. Which just sets us up for a bigger crash, when we have one.

So even if predator removal adds another 5% to the currently already growing herds, that are growing without predator control, is there really a gain in the long run? We are talking about big costs for focused predator removal, that would have to be sustained. Or are we just short circuiting the benefits that predators provide to herds that are beginning to increase? And lets not forget that we have already shown predator removal is not affective, during declining and flat numbers, so when things turn again, we know there will be no benefit at all, other than making some folks feel like _something_ is being done, regardless of the results.

So, along with the big crashes over the last 30 years, we have seen small deer population increases like we are seeing now. And we were removing predator then, just like we are now. Did we ever recover deer numbers to pre '92, or pre '84 levels?

For a guy that has spent as much time in the hills as you, you have to know that coyotes are not the main predator of deer. How come coyote predation was not a problem in the '50s, '60s, and 70s? Oh yeah, the deer were healthy.


----------



## goofy elk

Lonetree said:


> Goofy, I never said SFW.
> For a guy that has spent as much time in the hills as you, you have to know that coyotes are not the main predator of deer. How come coyote predation was not a problem in the '50s, '60s, and 70s? Oh yeah, the deer were healthy.


The use of 1080 was a definite factor during the 50s,60s,& 70's in
reguards to coyotes..:!:..

And, I'm NOT disagreeing the fact that enviormental issues are affecting
wildlife.....AND THOSE ISSUES SHOULD BE ADDRESSED .....

BUT, At the same time, Why not make the best of what we have ???

I dont think we should manage deer herds in the fear of "The next crash"

I would like to see herds managed with the thought in mind,
How can it be better next year...


----------



## Lonetree

So we should manage for the short term, with things that have been shown not to work, while _hoping_ for the best in the future. That is what we have been doing for the last 20 years.

1080: Tell me how the deer herds in Yellowstone, in the 1930s, increased exponentially, while at the same time they suspended predator control? And let me be clear, we are not talking about wolves, bears, or lions. We are talking about coyotes.

So you don't think we should fear the next crash? Look at the trend line starting in 1980. It takes a big dip in '84, then rebounds to less than pre '84 numbers. Then in '92, it crashes again, and stays down longer, the recoveries do not bring numbers up to pre '92 levels, then again in the early 2000s we see another decline. These are specifically Utah numbers, if you look at Montana and the greater Yellowstone ecosystem, it comes just a little later, and in Wyoming depending on the timeframe, it is earlier than us. In Utah, we are currently increasing deer numbers. But in Montana they saw declines in mule deer in many places a few years ago, and parts of Wyoming are seeing significant problems. So as the big trends go, and have gone, what would make us any different? The fact that we are killing coyotes? Some news for ya, they already did coyote bounties in Wyoming, and their deer are currently declining, across large portions of the state.


----------



## Vanilla

It's the jet streams. They like Utah and hate Wyoming. Maybe if the Wyoming DOW did a conservation project to fix the jet streams we could could have meaningful change. Yes we can. 

Or if the Utah DWR could work with the cattlemen association to give cattle gas relief pills to cut down on flatuant pollutants in the atmosphere, we could get meaningful change. Yes we can. 

Or better yet, SFW and MDF can team up with SUWA and Dr Lonetree Gore, change the tipping point to prevent the next ice age, a la 'The Day After Tomorrow.' Yes we can. 

Obama for a third term! Yes we can.


----------



## Lonetree

TS30 said:


> It's the jet streams. They like Utah and hate Wyoming. Maybe if the Wyoming DOW did a conservation project to fix the jet streams we could could have meaningful change. Yes we can.
> 
> Or if the Utah DWR could work with the cattlemen association to give cattle gas relief pills to cut down on flatuant pollutants in the atmosphere, we could get meaningful change. Yes we can.
> 
> Or better yet, SFW and MDF can team up with SUWA and Dr Lonetree Gore, change the tipping point to prevent the next ice age, a la 'The Day After Tomorrow.' Yes we can.
> 
> Obama for a third term! Yes we can.


More jiberish from the short bus. Isn't it past your bed time?

Still can't actually support your arguments huh? Your getting good at attempting to make it about other things. I love the boogie man approach. You have lots of good stuff in there, should get some other kids really scared. Don't forget your night light.


----------



## goofy elk

"DR Lonetree Gore"--------Fits like a clove, PERFECT !


----------



## Vanilla

Dr Lonetree Gore, the only "argument" I have made here is you don't have any more answers than the people you are bashing and trying (but failing) to belittle.  That has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, more than once. Like I said before, I don't need magazine articles to show that. Everyone can see that clearly. And even you see it clearly, and know that I see it clearly, and that's why you're so pissed off and yelling at everyone calling them names. But you won't admit it, you'll just try to attack me instead. Go ahead, refute my one single claim I have made. 

Or not...


----------



## Lonetree

TS30 said:


> Dr Lonetree Gore, the only "argument" I have made here is you don't have any more answers than the people you are bashing and trying (but failing) to belittle. That has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, more than once. Like I said before, I don't need magazine articles to show that. Everyone can see that clearly. And even you see it clearly, and know that I see it clearly, and that's why you're so pissed off and yelling at everyone calling them names. But you won't admit it, you'll just try to attack me instead. Go ahead, refute my one single claim I have made.
> 
> Or not...


You don't provide an argument, or anything of substance, because you would not be able to support it. You attempt to dismiss my argument, by referencing but what I'm bashing, but offer no support. Because if you took a stance, or attempted to provide support, for your "non" stance, your could not support it. I will attack you, because that is all you have put out. You attack me, because you cant support an argument against what I have provided.

Your thoughts produce no children, like gay marriages,
And you hold no weight, like women after miscarriages.

Not viable......


----------



## Lonetree

goofy elk said:


> "DR Lonetree Gore"--------Fits like a clove, PERFECT !


Kinada like "Goofy"


----------



## wyoming2utah

Goofy, connect the dots&#8230;

*Dot 1*
"At the top of the list are mild winters that have allowed deer to survive until the following spring."

*Dot 2*
"During the first two years of the study, just over 50 percent of the radio-collared fawns survived an entire year. Over the past two years, however, the annual survival rate has jumped to almost 80 percent.

Does are also producing plenty of fawns. For example, in fall 2012, biologists found an average of 65 fawns per 100 does. That number dropped slightly in fall 2013 - 62 fawns per 100 does - but that ratio is still well within the range needed to help deer numbers grow in Utah."


----------



## provider

Gentlemen,

At what point do we back off of each others throats and celebrate some good news? 

We had fantastic success rates last year and good fawn survival this winter. 

I'm looking forward to hunting this fall.


----------



## martymcfly73

provider said:


> Gentlemen,
> 
> At what point do we back off of each others throats and celebrate some good news?
> 
> We had fantastic success rates last year and good fawn survival this winter.
> 
> I'm looking forward to hunting this fall.


That's no fun. It's funny LT Gore slams everyone for name calling. When in fact yesterday Dr LT Gore was calling everyone ratards. I think he might be a little fragile.


----------



## Finnegan

I may wonder why LT acts like an ******* when I know for a fact that he isn't. But more than that, I gotta wonder why partisan politics has to play into all this.

Y'all like to toss out your personal observations as though they indicate something. Well, my personal observation is that ALL wildlife is disappearing. We focus on the animals that concern us come hunting season when maybe, just maybe, we'd have a better perspective if we took off the blinders. Where did all the potguts go? Where did all the birds go? What happened to the badgers & porcupines?

It comes down to carrying capacity. Carrying capacity = food, water, cover. But that presumes QUALITY of those 3 resources. When LT spouts off (food), it has a direct bearing on carrying capacity. Y'all applaud when somebody improves cover. Y'all admit that water (weather) matters. So why the Gore references when it comes to food?

Like it or not, the distinction between environmentalism and conservation is very thin. If partisan politics has such a hold on you that you cannot seriously consider environment, i.e. habitat, then you aren't a free man and you can't offer much to the discussion.

I know...I'm confused.


----------



## ridgetop

Finnegan said:


> I may wonder why LT acts like an ******* when I know for a fact that he isn't. But more than that, I gotta wonder why partisan politics has to play into all this.
> 
> Y'all like to toss out your personal observations as though they indicate something. Well, my personal observation is that ALL wildlife is disappearing. We focus on the animals that concern us come hunting season when maybe, just maybe, we'd have a better perspective if we took off the blinders. Where did all the potguts go? Where did all the birds go? What happened to the badgers & porcupines?
> 
> It comes down to carrying capacity. Carrying capacity = food, water, cover. But that presumes QUALITY of those 3 resources. When LT spouts off (food), it has a direct bearing on carrying capacity. Y'all applaud when somebody improves cover. Y'all admit that water (weather) matters. So why the Gore references when it comes to food?
> 
> Like it or not, the distinction between environmentalism and conservation is very thin. If partisan politics has such a hold on you that you cannot seriously consider environment, i.e. habitat, then you aren't a free man and you can't offer much to the discussion.
> 
> I know...I'm confused.


Finn, come on man, lighten up.:mrgreen:
I'll admit that LT has brought up some interesting ideas.
Yes, we are at max carrying capacity on many units and the food source needs help. 
But we can't turn that ship around in just a year or two. It will take several years to improve the habitat. 
Maybe we were at max capacity for too many years and now we're just getting closer to normal.
Times are changing and the way we hunt are changing. 
Just because it's different, doesn't mean it's all bad.
We are a long, long ways from not having things to hunt.
Also, this coyote campaign should be more focused on the struggling, under capacity units and not the whole state.


----------



## stillhunterman

Ridge,

Which units are we at max capacity on, and how did you come to that conclusion? I agree with you times are changing and so is the direction on how we hunt. Saying it's not all bad is relative. Our wildlife, especially mule deer are on a precarious road. Even Guiest claims the mule deer is probably on its way to extinction if there isn't a turn around soon. There may be a bunch of critters left to hunt, as you say; but I would like to have the muley around for quite a while longer.

I expect you're right, it will take a bit to turn things around. But it won't happen if our focus is in the wronge places. I guess we'll see where things go in the coming short years. Personally, I will remain optimistic, as the alturnative is much too dark for me to contemplate.


----------



## ridgetop

stillhunterman said:


> Ridge,
> 
> Which units are we at max capacity on, and how did you come to that conclusion? I agree with you times are changing and so is the direction on how we hunt. Saying it's not all bad is relative. Our wildlife, especially mule deer are on a precarious road. Even Guiest claims the mule deer is probably on its way to extinction if there isn't a turn around soon. There may be a bunch of critters left to hunt, as you say; but I would like to have the muley around for quite a while longer.
> 
> I expect you're right, it will take a bit to turn things around. But it won't happen if our focus is in the wronge places. I guess we'll see where things go in the coming short years. Personally, I will remain optimistic, as the alturnative is much too dark for me to contemplate.


still, you can find the info. in the big game RAC packet.


----------



## Longgun

who caps our max?

what is our carrying capacity?


----------



## dkhntrdstn

who cares about are deer. Man we are losing more moose ever year. We don't have the big bulls like we use to have. What are we doing about them? Nothing and that bs. Ok about deer yes I do care but come on we all know that we have hard small winters that last couple years and that has play a big thing for the deer to bounce back. Let stop building house and cabins on there wintering grounds or there summer homes that will help as well. Plus let stop giving in to these RICH A$$ that are bitching about deer eating there flowers and crapping in there lawn. So let stop wasting money on moving these deer out of there or paying some body to kill them. Take the money from those stealers/poachers make the fine bigger and take that money and put it towards wintering grounds for deer,elk and moose. o wait this state and 90% of the big game hunters are all about INCHES. :mrgreen:


----------



## Lonetree

dkhntrdstn said:


> who cares about are deer. Man we are losing more moose ever year. We don't have the big bulls like we use to have. What are we doing about them? Nothing and that bs. Ok about deer yes I do care but come on we all know that we have hard small winters that last couple years and that has play a big thing for the deer to bounce back. Let stop building house and cabins on there wintering grounds or there summer homes that will help as well. Plus let stop giving in to these RICH A$$ that are bitching about deer eating there flowers and crapping in there lawn. So let stop wasting money on moving these deer out of there or paying some body to kill them. Take the money from those stealers/poachers make the fine bigger and take that money and put it towards wintering grounds for deer,elk and moose. o wait this state and 90% of the big game hunters are all about INCHES. :mrgreen:


Moose declines, and bighorn sheep declines, and mule deer declines, are all part of the same bag of root causative problems. Thanks for bringing up the moose, they don't seem to have near the cheering crowd as mule deer.


----------



## Lonetree

ridgetop said:


> Finn, come on man, lighten up.:mrgreen:
> I'll admit that LT has brought up some interesting ideas.
> Yes, we are at max carrying capacity on many units and the food source needs help.
> But we can't turn that ship around in just a year or two. It will take several years to improve the habitat.
> Maybe we were at max capacity for too many years and now we're just getting closer to normal.
> Times are changing and the way we hunt are changing.
> Just because it's different, doesn't mean it's all bad.
> We are a long, long ways from not having things to hunt.
> Also, this coyote campaign should be more focused on the struggling, under capacity units and not the whole state.


Nutritional carrying capacity, is what drives deer numbers, not arbitrarily placed numbers on units. I don't know where you were for last 30 years, but its all disappearing, on a grand scale. And moving some stuff from here to there, and stacking the deck a little different, does not change that, it is still a thin deck. And yes, shifting to a mentality that exploits declines, verses one that works to fix them, is bad, especially for hunters.

Coyote control could theoretically be used to help deer, in areas where deer are below forage carrying capacity. Can you demonstrate that deer are below forage carrying capacity, on some units? Everything indicates that deer numbers have gone up and down, with forage_ nutritional_ carrying capacity, that drives their health. This is why predator removal, has not been shown to increase deer numbers, and/or change the long term trend line, even under short term, "at least we are doing something", circumstances.


----------



## Lonetree

martymcfly73 said:


> That's no fun. It's funny LT Gore slams everyone for name calling. When in fact yesterday Dr LT Gore was calling everyone ratards. I think he might be a little fragile.


I handle name calling just fine, I don't mind it at all. In fact, I like it. It helps me to exploit others weakness's quite well. I have just been pointing out that calling me names does not refute, or diminish the data and ideas I present, they are independently supported. Unlike when I challenge someone's intelligence, for not supporting their claims. Two different things. I can argue it either, or both ways.


----------



## Vanilla

Alright Dr Lonetree Gore, I'll play again. It was fun watching you squirm last week a little bit when you realized that I figured out that you actually don't have any more answers to these issues than the people you bash. This time I'll take it a little more seriously, but only a little.

One of the things that have been acknowledged in most predator-prey studies is that predation is compensatory *WHEN* the habitat is at its carrying capacity. (not always compensatory...as you know well, but only when the herd is at carrying capacity anyway) That leads me to my question:

Do you have any data that shows that *Utah's* deer herd as a whole, or as sub-sets of the herd in general are at the carrying capacity level? I want hard data. Is it available? If so, what does the data tell us in regards to the numbers we have vs the actual carrying capacity of the habitat?

Depending on your answer to that, I have some follow up questions for you.


----------



## martymcfly73

Lonetree said:


> Moose declines, and bighorn sheep declines, and mule deer declines, are all part of the same bag of root causative problems. Thanks for bringing up the moose, they don't seem to have near the cheering crowd as mule deer.


I helped capture and collar moose last yr for a study. Prelim results say most are suffering from mineral deficiencies and dying at 3-5 years old. That was in an article the dwr posted a couple of weeks ago.


----------



## Lonetree

TS30 said:


> Alright Dr Lonetree Gore, I'll play again. It was fun watching you squirm last week a little bit when you realized that I figured out that you actually don't have any more answers to these issues than the people you bash. This time I'll take it a little more seriously, but only a little.
> 
> One of the things that have been acknowledged in most predator-prey studies is that predation is compensatory *WHEN* the habitat is at its carrying capacity. (not always compensatory...as you know well, but only when the herd is at carrying capacity anyway) That leads me to my question:
> 
> Do you have any data that shows that *Utah's* deer herd as a whole, or as sub-sets of the herd in general are at the carrying capacity level? I want hard data. Is it available? If so, what does the data tell us in regards to the numbers we have vs the actual carrying capacity of the habitat?
> 
> Depending on your answer to that, I have some follow up questions for you.


I don't squirm in these conversations. 

You are still not grasping the subject matter. Some of the information you seek is in the thread "interesting article". And if you look at deer eruptions, and declines over the last 30 years, they are all driven by habitat, and ecosystem health. There were large scale habitat improvements, pitted against predator removal, in Colorado. These were conducted on the unchomprahgre plateau in Colorado. Just like in other contemporary predator studies, predator removal could not be shown to increase population trends. While on the other hand large scale habitat improvements were shown to increase deer numbers, independent of predator removal. This study did not account for the nutritional value of the forage, only the conversion to mule deer favorable forage. You can Google the study, I don't have time today, I will be in and out quite a bit. Chad Bishop was one of the biologists on the Colorado study. 

As those things(environmental), that have been shown to affect mule deer forage nutritional quality improve, we can show that deer increase synchronously. With the inverse also being true. There was a study published in 2008, as a doctoral thesis, that demonstrated that Utah mule deer were selectively feeding. This has been observed by multiple Utah biologists. In the 2008 study, it was shown that Utah mule deer were feeding selectively for copper and selenium. Two nutrients that influence mule deer productivity, and immune function. As mule deer numbers increase, the selective behavior wanes, because it is no longer necessary, to be as selective, when conditions improve, and nutrition becomes available across the broad in all forage species. You can Google that study as well, it was conducted by Chris Petersen. Or you can go do the observational work, like many other biologists, and myself have done.

Mule deer "Habitat" across Utah, has not improved, in any appreciable, quantitative sense in the last 30 years. And yet Mule deer are currently seeing population increases. These increases predate Option WTF? and coyote bounties. So what accounts for the increase in population? Forage quality? Considering that it is nutrition that drives health, and health that drives deer numbers..........

Can you demonstrate with anything other than belief, that deer are well under forage carrying capacity? And if they are not at forage carrying capacity, driven by nutritional content, can you show any evidence to support mule deer, big horn sheep, or moose declines in the last 30 years, being driven by anything other than forage carrying capacity, based on nutritional content? Especially considering, that predation, can not be proven to be the limiting factor, driving the last 30 years of declines. Nor can predator removal be shown to reverse the trend line, and produce more deer, where as nutrition and habitat have been shown to be able to do this.


----------



## Lonetree

martymcfly73 said:


> I helped capture and collar moose last yr for a study. Prelim results say most are suffering from mineral deficiencies and dying at 3-5 years old. That was in an article the dwr posted a couple of weeks ago.


This has been shown in the upper mid West as well, and has been known about in Utah for many years. Back in the early '90s they were "tipping" over all over Northern Utah, at the same time that mule deer were heavily declining. Moose winter range, and forage utilization, overlaps that of mule deer, more than any other big game species. It has been observed that moose have shifted their winter feeding habits, in areas where declines are observed. Rather than feeding on curl leaf mahogany, like they have done in the past, they will sit in a small area, and eat gamble oak during the late winter, and early spring. This is probably the result of a bad feed back mechanism(my theory). One of the plants, I forget the name, that moose seem to like and prefer, that is full of soluble fiber, is also full of tannin, like oak brush. You see similar behaviors in declining bighorn sheep, in multiple Western states, that congregate on road ways where minerals have collected on the side of the road, from road salt. More precisely we have seen more of this, as we have moved to the use of more and more Magnesium chloride, which is a readily available source of magnesium. There have been studies that have shown a possible connection, to trace mineral deficiencies, and magnesium requirements. 

Thanks, I missed the DWR article, I'll go look it up.


----------



## Vanilla

I asked a simple question if data exists to show if Utah's deer herd is at it's carrying capacity or not. I'm not arguing that it is or isn't. I'm asking the all-knowing Al Gore wanna-be if the data exists.


----------



## Lonetree

I told you where to look, to make that determination. Show me other wise.


----------



## RandomElk16

Look at the Arizona controlled habitat study. With the enclosed habitat. Predation was shown to impact the herd.


----------



## RandomElk16

http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/research_fire_predation_mule.shtml

Im sure I am reading it wrong and predators had zero impact.


----------



## Lonetree

RandomElk16 said:


> http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/research_fire_predation_mule.shtml
> 
> Im sure I am reading it wrong and predators had zero impact.


Well I guess we should not put deer in a cage. Are you serious? You really do not understand the natural world do you?


----------



## Vanilla

Lonetree, you're an idiot.


----------



## Lonetree

TS30 said:


> Lonetree, you're an idiot.


Close, you left out the modifier that should come just after idiot.


----------



## Lonetree

From the AZ study, that was very light on any data, or numbers, especially with regard to long term growth: "Certainly, there must be an interaction between habitat quality, deer nutritional condition, predation and fawn survival." I never saw the part about deer nutritional condition.


----------



## RandomElk16

TS30 said:


> Lonetree, you're an idiot.


I second the notion.

How is building an enclosure, around a natural habitat that experience the exact conditions as the outside world dumb? It is about as controlled as a study can get. Then, when you open the enclosure and let predators in and the animals move freely, you can directly compare results. The study was controlled, then opened up to variables. That doesn't make sense? That is the only way to get idiots from saying "nope, that's only correlation". It is a way to directly show the impact of a variable. Variable=coyotes.

Yet, you still reject anything that wasn't done by you.


----------



## Lonetree

RandomElk16 said:


> I second the notion.
> 
> How is building an enclosure, around a natural habitat that experience the exact conditions as the outside world dumb? It is about as controlled as a study can get. Then, when you open the enclosure and let predators in and the animals move freely, you can directly compare results. The study was controlled, then opened up to variables. That doesn't make sense? That is the only way to get idiots from saying "nope, that's only correlation". It is a way to directly show the impact of a variable. Variable=coyotes.
> 
> Yet, you still reject anything that wasn't done by you.


It is a single study, on desert mule deer, under extreme conditions. It never addressed nutrition, even though it admits it is part of it. I am not saying it was not valid science, but it is old, unique, incomplete, and does not apply to our current situation. If you look at the contemporary predator studies, conducted in ID, WY, and CO, they show the big picture over space and time. And the CO study addresses forage, even pits it against predator control. The AZ study mentions this interconnectedness, but does not address it, or explore it.

The only "predator" studies I have done involve bears, and had nothing to do with big game. So no, I do not reject based on whether I did it.


----------



## wyoming2utah

RandomElk16 said:


> http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/research_fire_predation_mule.shtml
> 
> Im sure I am reading it wrong and predators had zero impact.


Yup, you found a study&#8230;I will give you that. If you look at that study objectively, though, I think you will find a couple problems:
1) the enclosure was less than a square mile large&#8230;because we are trying to increase deer over much larger expanses of area, I am not sure the results are applicable (I can't find a single study that took place over a much larger-sized area that showed similar results).

2) the length of the study was short term&#8230;.and, according to that Arizona study, "deer densities increased outside the enclosure once favorable weather conditions returned."

3) Also, "protected deer populations increased to levels far greater inside than outside enclosure and then declined because deer numbers exceeded food supply&#8230;at this level, removal of coyotes resulted in fawns dying of starvation rather than predation. Predation mortality was compensatory at the reported mule deer densities and coyote removal had no impact on fawn survival."

4) K or carrying capacity is critical in regards to predator management&#8230;.predators can suppress a population if below K. It is obvious that our state's biologists believe we are BELOW carrying capacity on our units; otherwise, they would not have invested so much time, money, and effort into improving habitat.


----------



## Lonetree

"It is obvious that our state's biologists believe we are BELOW carrying capacity on our units; otherwise, they would not have invested so much time, money, and effort into improving habitat."

It is my assertion, that we do not fully understand the dynamics, of that carrying capacity. Range rides are all fine and dandy, everyone likes to get out. But when you have declining ranges, and increasing deer numbers, you are missing something. Some of this is a little tongue in cheek, because I know biologists, and researchers that do understand it, and are looking at it. And I know that we have biologists in UDWR, that acknowledge this. But in terms of further study, gaining more understanding of the dynamics at play there, or doing anything about it from management point of view, it is not happening. It can not even be discussed, because that is not what the special interests have in their agenda, because their customer base, that drives their circular political existence. Want simple things they can touch and see, regardless of what is good for mule deer, or hunters for that matter.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Interesting that this Arizona study has been brought up…Several years ago I contacted the biologist whose name appears on the bottom of the link. I had an email conversation with him about the study (I wish I still had some of those messages) and he actually gave me copies of some of these studies….

Lonetree, I don't think we do understand the dynamics of that carrying capacity. I think your idea that deer aren't getting the nutrition they need because the soil lacks the capacity to give it to the plants is very interesting…and very well could hold water!


----------



## Lonetree

wyoming2utah said:


> Interesting that this Arizona study has been brought up&#8230;Several years ago I contacted the biologist whose name appears on the bottom of the link. I had an email conversation with him about the study (I wish I still had some of those messages) and he actually gave me copies of some of these studies&#8230;.
> 
> Lonetree, I don't think we do understand the dynamics of that carrying capacity. I think your idea that deer aren't getting the nutrition they need because the soil lacks the capacity to give it to the plants is very interesting&#8230;and very well could hold water!


Lets just say it is not my idea. I am only trying to build on what has already been looked at, and understood. Ultimately we are talking about the nexus between atmosphere and soil. But when it comes to things like habitat improvements, it will be those things, happening at the soil level, that we will be able to make a difference with, in the short term.

Moose declines have been occurring for 30 years from disease, driven by nutritional deficiencies. Bighorn sheep declines have also been driven by disease, with root causation being nutritional deficiencies, driven by atmospheric deposition of nitrates. And they follow the same trends, over the last 30 years, across multiple states, as mule deer numbers. Connection? Yeah, you could say that. Throw in correlations of pine beetle increases, pika and marmot declines, amphibian declines, song bird trends, brook trout stunting cycles, increases in invasive flora, and the co-emergence of once mostly dormant diseases such as CWD, and whirling disease, and it starts to look much corroborative, rather than correlative. Better understanding the underlying causation, is the only way to affect change in a positive manner, and reverse the trend lines. Both in wildlife declines, and in hunting declines.


----------



## RandomElk16

wyoming2utah said:


> Yup, you found a study&#8230;I will give you that. If you look at that study objectively, though, I think you will find a couple problems:
> 1) the enclosure was less than a square mile large&#8230;because we are trying to increase deer over much larger expanses of area, I am not sure the results are applicable (I can't find a single study that took place over a much larger-sized area that showed similar results).
> 
> 2) the length of the study was short term&#8230;.and, according to that Arizona study, "deer densities increased outside the enclosure once favorable weather conditions returned."
> 
> 3) Also, "protected deer populations increased to levels far greater inside than outside enclosure and then declined because deer numbers exceeded food supply&#8230;at this level, removal of coyotes resulted in fawns dying of starvation rather than predation. Predation mortality was compensatory at the reported mule deer densities and coyote removal had no impact on fawn survival."
> 
> 4) K or carrying capacity is critical in regards to predator management&#8230;.predators can suppress a population if below K. It is obvious that our state's biologists believe we are BELOW carrying capacity on our units; otherwise, they would not have invested so much time, money, and effort into improving habitat.


1) Yes it is small. But the controlled portion is highly beneficial and unlike other studies.

2)It began in 1970 and they are still doing studies? They did another large study from 2002-2005. They keep using it. Nothing short about 44 years of research.

3)Over population isn't our issue right now.

4) suppress- forcibly put an end to. Predators can suppress (put an end to) the deer population when it is below capacity. Even lonetree will admit, we are below population. Therefore, they have a large impact.


----------



## The Naturalist

Being a botanist, I've learned if it (minerals/nutrients) isn't in the soil it is not going to be in the plants. 
Not only is that important for wildlife, but also applies to us as humans. My plant physiology instructor always said that more important than taking a multiple vitamin supplement would be a multiple mineral supplement. 
Your body can manufacture most of the vitamins you need if you have the right minerals. The same applies to wildlife...I have to agree with LT and W2U on this.


----------



## wyoming2utah

RandomElk16 said:


> 1) Yes it is small. But the controlled portion is highly beneficial and unlike other studies.
> 
> 2)It began in 1970 and they are still doing studies? They did another large study from 2002-2005. They keep using it. Nothing short about 44 years of research.
> 
> 3)Over population isn't our issue right now.
> 
> 4) suppress- forcibly put an end to. Predators can suppress (put an end to) the deer population when it is below capacity. Even lonetree will admit, we are below population. Therefore, they have a large impact.


1) Highly beneficial how? How does it relate to our "big" units? Or, our "big" state? Comparatively, that enclosure--which, again, is less than one square mile large--is not much more than a "small" pen compared to a unit.

Also, what makes this study more beneficial than other more large scale studies done in other states? Why do you believe it relates to our situation more than the multitude of studies that have shown the opposite?

2) Yeah&#8230;but, their research only showed a major correlation or impact those first few years. After those first few years, it showed that predation was compensatory&#8230;you are cherry picking information again.

3) I didn't say "overpopulation" was an issue. But, I do believe we are at or near the carrying capacity&#8230;which makes my point very valid.

4) How do you know that the population is below the carrying capacity? What makes you believe that? To me, all the evidence points to the contrary&#8230;our "objectives" are goals&#8230;not an indication of carrying capacity.


----------



## Lonetree

"Even lonetree will admit, we are below population. Therefore, they have a large impact"

No I won't. You don't seem capable of understanding my position, other than to attempt to attack it. My assertion is that the nutrition available in forage, driven by environmental factors, is driving deer numbers. This would mean that whether the deer are increasing, or declining, they are always at _carrying capacity_, unless we see that nutritional value climb faster than the deer are. When we see 100:100 fawn to doe ratios I will concede that. All the contemporary predation studies have shown predation to be compensatory, which would support the assertion that the deer are at or near "carrying capacity" which is my assertion. The deer increases of the last few years are because the "carrying capacity" has increased. Not overall land, not the number plants, but the actual trace element, and macro nutritional value, available in the current forage. "carrying capacity" is not some arbitrary thing, or stated objective, it is a fluid and changing variable, being influenced by external forces.

Population objectives, and carrying capacity are two very different things.


----------



## Lonetree

The Naturalist said:


> Being a botanist, I've learned if it (minerals/nutrients) isn't in the soil it is not going to be in the plants.
> Not only is that important for wildlife, but also applies to us as humans. My plant physiology instructor always said that more important than taking a multiple vitamin supplement would be a multiple mineral supplement.
> Your body can manufacture most of the vitamins you need if you have the right minerals. The same applies to wildlife...I have to agree with LT and W2U on this.


So many of these things are available in the soil. But they are not making it into the plants, and therefor to the deer. This is why it has been observed that mule deer, especially when in a suppressed state, preferentially browse the smaller number of plants that contain the higher trace element values. As those things become available in plants across the greater landscape, deer numbers increase, and the preferential feeding patterns decline.


----------



## RandomElk16

wyoming2utah said:


> 1) Highly beneficial how? How does it relate to our "big" units? Or, our "big" state? Comparatively, that enclosure--which, again, is less than one square mile large--is not much more than a "small" pen compared to a unit.
> 
> Also, what makes this study more beneficial than other more large scale studies done in other states? Why do you believe it relates to our situation more than the multitude of studies that have shown the opposite?
> 
> 2) Yeah&#8230;but, their research only showed a major correlation or impact those first few years. After those first few years, it showed that predation was compensatory&#8230;you are cherry picking information again.
> 
> 3) I didn't say "overpopulation" was an issue. But, I do believe we are at or near the carrying capacity&#8230;which makes my point very valid.
> 
> 4) How do you know that the population is below the carrying capacity? What makes you believe that? To me, all the evidence points to the contrary&#8230;our "objectives" are goals&#8230;not an indication of carrying capacity.


1) "The use of a large enclosure is similar to having an outdoor laboratory, and allows to control the predator component of population regulation."

It is controlled! A controlled variable. Takes the correlation argument you guys keep making out of the equation.

2) Did you read anything more than that site? It showed predation does impact. Not compesentory. That is why the study continued.

3) How do you know? I base it off of what biologist in utah have stated. One of the places our objectives come from. I can't search it now, it a simple look at management plans and browsing the utah dwr site.

4) see above.

Lonetree, according to your theory we can never be below capacity. Capacity is something you have used in prior posts to attempt to prove your point? Basically, capacity is whatever the population is? Wow.

I know what an objective is. They base these off of our carrying capacity. Really they just pull numbers out of a hat though, right?


----------



## RandomElk16

Lonetree said:


> "Even lonetree will admit, we are below population. Therefore, they have a large impact"
> 
> No I won't. You don't seem capable of understanding my position, other than to attempt to attack it. My assertion is that the nutrition available in forage, driven by environmental factors, is driving deer numbers. This would mean that whether the deer are increasing, or declining, they are always at _carrying capacity_, unless we see that nutritional value climb faster than the deer are. When we see 100:100 fawn to doe ratios I will concede that. All the contemporary predation studies have shown predation to be compensatory, which would support the assertion that the deer are at or near "carrying capacity" which is my assertion. The deer increases of the last few years are because the "carrying capacity" has increased. Not overall land, not the number plants, but the actual trace element, and macro nutritional value, available in the current forage. "carrying capacity" is not some arbitrary thing, or stated objective, it is a fluid and changing variable, being influenced by external forces.
> 
> Population objectives, and carrying capacity are two very different things.


I am not capable, because I think you are full of ****.


----------



## Lonetree

RandomElk16 said:


> I am not capable, because I think you are full of ****.


Exactly, you "think". Your feelings are driving your understanding of the subject matter. I am irrelevant to the concepts I present, they are independently supported, they do not rely on me, like your thoughts and feelings do on you.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Lonetree..............are you saying that you do not think?


----------



## Lonetree

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Lonetree..............are you saying that you do not think?


I think all the time, and have lots of opinions. And I have plenty of thoughts and opinions on this subject. When presenting a case for those thoughts and opinions, it is always a good idea to corroborate those thoughts, opinions, and observations, with supporting works.

It is easy to just come in and say I'm nuts, or that you feel I'm full of ****. On a personal level, you may well be right about me being nuts, or an idiot. But that is a very different thing from actually disproving, or refuting the case I have been making about the wildlife situation of the last 30 years. The attempts at dismissing me, just keep the door open for my continued support of my positions, and the work that supports those positions.

My behavior is intentional sandbagging :mrgreen:


----------



## RandomElk16

Lonetree said:


> I am irrelevant


See, sometimes we can come to a gentleman's agreement.


----------



## Lonetree

RandomElk16 said:


> See, sometimes we can come to a gentleman's agreement.


Yet in light of this, you can not refute my position, or support yours.


----------



## wyoming2utah

RandomElk16 said:


> 1) "The use of a large enclosure is similar to having an outdoor laboratory, and allows to control the predator component of population regulation."
> 
> It is controlled! A controlled variable. Takes the correlation argument you guys keep making out of the equation.
> 
> 2) Did you read anything more than that site? It showed predation does impact. Not compesentory. That is why the study continued.
> 
> 3) How do you know? I base it off of what biologist in utah have stated. One of the places our objectives come from. I can't search it now, it a simple look at management plans and browsing the utah dwr site.
> 
> 4) see above.


1) That's just it, the enclosure is NOT "large"! IF the enclosure were "large" it would make much more sense. As it is, there are numerous variables that don't play into the equation--like migration, dispersal, and the variation of habitats between wintering and summering grounds. How many of our deer in Utah live within a square mile area year round?

The correlation argument is still certainly present because it is hard to draw correlations between the animals living within a pen to those living in large tracts of land&#8230;do you think the habits of a deer living within the enclosures of a zoo act the same as those that live outside an enclosure?

2) Huh&#8230;.I have the study right in front of me and I quoted from it. Did you miss that part? It showed that predation was COMPENSATORY following those first few years&#8230;I even quoted from that study! Here is that quote again: "protected deer populations increased to levels far greater inside than outside enclosure and then declined because deer numbers exceeded food supply&#8230;at this level, removal of coyotes resulted in fawns dying of starvation rather than predation. Predation mortality was compensatory at the reported mule deer densities and coyote removal had no impact on fawn survival."

3) Our objectives are NOT based off carrying capacity&#8230;I am not sure where you got that idea from. The habitat work done throughout the state is evident of that. Also, if you go back and read any of the individual deer unit plans, virtually all of them that I have read say that habitat is limiting the deer herd. IN most cases, wintering habitat is listed as a limiting factor. IF this is true, we are at or near carrying capacity. If we are below carrying capacity, why are we spending so much time on habitat improvements? Habitat improvements, by design, are supposed to INCREASE carrying capacity. Why increase carrying capacity if we are below that number?

Also, our deer management plan states "objectives"&#8230;again, these are goals and are NOT the units carrying capacity. The carrying capacities for individual units are NOT listed.

4) I am still wondering how or why you totally disregard the majority of deer/predator studies done and regard the only study you are aware of that has shown any kind of predator/prey correlation? Why don't you look at the results of these other studies that were done on larger areas&#8230;?


----------



## RandomElk16

wyoming2utah said:


> 1) That's just it, the enclosure is NOT "large"! IF the enclosure were "large" it would make much more sense. As it is, there are numerous variables that don't play into the equation--like migration, dispersal, and the variation of habitats between wintering and summering grounds. How many of our deer in Utah live within a square mile area year round?
> 
> The correlation argument is still certainly present because it is hard to draw correlations between the animals living within a pen to those living in large tracts of land&#8230;do you think the habits of a deer living within the enclosures of a zoo act the same as those that live outside an enclosure?
> 
> 2) Huh&#8230;.I have the study right in front of me and I quoted from it. Did you miss that part? It showed that predation was COMPENSATORY following those first few years&#8230;I even quoted from that study! Here is that quote again: "protected deer populations increased to levels far greater inside than outside enclosure and then declined because deer numbers exceeded food supply&#8230;at this level, removal of coyotes resulted in fawns dying of starvation rather than predation. Predation mortality was compensatory at the reported mule deer densities and coyote removal had no impact on fawn survival."
> 
> 3) Our objectives are NOT based off carrying capacity&#8230;I am not sure where you got that idea from. The habitat work done throughout the state is evident of that. Also, if you go back and read any of the individual deer unit plans, virtually all of them that I have read say that habitat is limiting the deer herd. IN most cases, wintering habitat is listed as a limiting factor. IF this is true, we are at or near carrying capacity. If we are below carrying capacity, why are we spending so much time on habitat improvements? Habitat improvements, by design, are supposed to INCREASE carrying capacity. Why increase carrying capacity if we are below that number?
> 
> Also, our deer management plan states "objectives"&#8230;again, these are goals and are NOT the units carrying capacity. The carrying capacities for individual units are NOT listed.
> 
> 4) I am still wondering how or why you totally disregard the majority of deer/predator studies done and regard the only study you are aware of that has shown any kind of predator/prey correlation? Why don't you look at the results of these other studies that were done on larger areas&#8230;?


Nobody has posted any other studies! Here is the kicker, which you and lonetree say when you are on defense, "It is simply correlation". All those studies, no matter which side of the fence, have to side with correlation. In a controlled environment they don't. 640 acres is a decent amount of land to have a study. Let me point out the controlled part again!

Nice quote, here is another "The original study that found fawn survival was greater inside the enclosure was during a six year wet period. However, since we closed the gates in 1997, Gila County, as well as much of the rest of the state, is in the worst drought that has occurred in the last 700 to 1,000 years. We did not expect the mule deer fawns within the enclosure to survive at as high of rates as they did in the wet period, but they have. Leaving us with the question, are predators more important than habitat in controlling deer numbers? That is why we have switched our emphasis to the habitat quality and deer nutritional condition. Certainly, there must be an interaction between habitat quality, deer nutritional condition, predation and fawn survival."

And another

" Even during our current drought, the predator free deer population continued to increase"

And another

" In the initial study, we determined that fawn survival was approximately 30% greater in the absence of predators. "


----------



## RandomElk16

goofy elk said:


> Heres the link,
> 
> http://wildlife.utah.gov/wildlife-news/1379-dwr-gives-deer-herd-update.html
> 
> Heres a few quotes:
> "During the first two years of the study, just over 50 percent of the radio-collared fawns survived an entire year. Over the past two years, however, the annual survival rate has jumped to almost 80 percent."
> 
> ^^^Intresting, happens to be over the same time span of coyote bountys.^^


This is interesting. In the Arizona study I am getting hounded about it says

" In the initial study, we determined that fawn survival was approximately 30% greater in the absence of predators. "

Which is what you are showing there. Obviously not an absence of predators, but just noticed the % was the same.

I will make it clear again, I don't think predators are THE factor. I do think they have a role. Especially if we STOPPED killing them. But, I am wrong.


----------



## Lonetree

:mrgreen: yep, don't keep your deer in a cage with predators!

In every study that has been referenced on this thread, yours and mine, fawn numbers have increased early on. But over the long run, deer numbers were not significantly raised, and the predation was compensatory. In some of these studies that is exactly what they have done in the control areas, they stopped killing coyotes, and lions. And after the end of the study, there were not more deer in the areas where they removed predators, verses the areas where they did not kill predators. Note: The Monroe study is not complete.

You don't understand what you are talking about. This stuff is not that kind of _simple_.


----------



## RandomElk16

Lonetree said:


> :mrgreen: yep, don't keep your deer in a cage with predators!
> 
> In every study that has been referenced on this thread, yours and mine, fawn numbers have increased early on. But over the long run, deer numbers were not significantly raised, and the predation was compensatory. In some of these studies that is exactly what they have done in the control areas, they stopped killing coyotes, and lions. And after the end of the study, there were not more deer in the areas where they removed predators, verses the areas where they did not kill predators. Note: The Monroe study is not complete.
> 
> You don't understand what you are talking about. This stuff is not that kind of _simple_.


There has hardly been references, I referenced three and they all showed a side of the fence you ignore. Note: Monroe isn't the only place in the state we are killing coyotes.

Funny you keep bringing up the enclosure, built in the wild. You seriously disrespect the value of a controlled study. You give it no merit, that is pretty funny. However, according to you, if it is in the wild you can always say "IT IS ONLY CORRELATION, NO PROOF!" If any of your studies (if there are any) work, it is because I am next door killing coyotes. Prove otherwise.


----------



## RandomElk16

You keep saying simple as if you have any more understanding then the rest of us. You have a hypothesis. My fifth grader has a hypothesis for the science fair. Big deal!


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

don't go throwing a formal education into this conversation.


----------



## Lonetree

RandomElk16 said:


> You keep saying simple as if you have any more understanding then the rest of us. You have a hypothesis. My fifth grader has a hypothesis for the science fair. Big deal!


Again, just like with a lot of other folks around here, you can not separate me from the discussion. That is to your detriment, not mine. My "hypothesis" is not mine alone, and is more than mere theory by a long shot. Can you demonstrate any original thoughts of your own on this matter? And then support them with more than belief? No, you have shown over and over again, that you don't grasp the scientific basics of most of this.


----------



## Lonetree

RandomElk16 said:


> There has hardly been references, I referenced three and they all showed a side of the fence you ignore. Note: Monroe isn't the only place in the state we are killing coyotes.
> 
> Funny you keep bringing up the enclosure, built in the wild. You seriously disrespect the value of a controlled study. You give it no merit, that is pretty funny. However, according to you, if it is in the wild you can always say "IT IS ONLY CORRELATION, NO PROOF!" If any of your studies (if there are any) work, it is because I am next door killing coyotes. Prove otherwise.


Again, you keep showing that this is way beyond your comprehension.


----------



## Lonetree

Mr Muleskinner said:


> don't go throwing a formal education into this conversation.


I have no formal education, and hold my own with PHD'd biologists, researchers and geneticist on a daily basis.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

don't make this about you


----------



## Lonetree

Mr Muleskinner said:


> don't make this about you


??? I may have missed it, what were you referring to, in your comment about formal education?


----------



## wyoming2utah

RandomElk16 said:


> Nice quote, here is another "The original study that found fawn survival was greater inside the enclosure was during a six year wet period. However, since we closed the gates in 1997, Gila County, as well as much of the rest of the state, is in the worst drought that has occurred in the last 700 to 1,000 years. We did not expect the mule deer fawns within the enclosure to survive at as high of rates as they did in the wet period, but they have. Leaving us with the question, are predators more important than habitat in controlling deer numbers? That is why we have switched our emphasis to the habitat quality and deer nutritional condition. Certainly, there must be an interaction between habitat quality, deer nutritional condition, predation and fawn survival."
> 
> And another
> 
> " Even during our current drought, the predator free deer population continued to increase"
> 
> And another
> 
> " In the initial study, we determined that fawn survival was approximately 30% greater in the absence of predators. "


Every one of the above quotes happened in the initial phase of the study&#8230;.after the first initial years of this study, though, the results were much different.

Also, it appears as though you are quoting the news release&#8230;NOT the study.

As for this idea of control that you keep bringing up&#8230;it is definitely a good idea to have some "control" in the study by having the animals in an enclosure. BUT, the negatives of that control must also be recognized--like controlling where the predators and prey are able and not able to go.

Here are some other links:
http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/v...aWc#search="effects coyote removal mule deer"

(notice the size of the study areas&#8230;!)

http://www.wildfelid.org/p7iq/pdf/D...oyotes and pumas, Wildlife Monograph 2011.pdf

http://www.ndow.org/uploadedFiles/n...Education/Publications/2014-Predator-Plan.pdf
Here are three links that give some other details of different mule deer/predator studies&#8230;.all three studies took place over larger expanses of open country are much more viable to what is being done in Utah. Because they are NOT on "controlled" enclosures they are more applicable to managing predators on hunting units. All three have quotes similar to this:

"This project was designed to protect a mule deer population from large carnivore predation in hopes of enhancing that population and thus improving hunter opportunity in the Granite Mountain Range of northern Washoe County. Analysis of the associated data indicates population dynamics and harvest data did not show positive correlations that would support this hypothesis. When evaluated in the context of the larger northern Washoe mule deer population, deer in the 014 Project Area do not require extra or targeted predator removal in order to maintain robust population viability over the long term."

IF we could just pen up all of our mule deer and put them into enclosures&#8230;then maybe we could look at growing their populations and "managing" them much better. But, of course, IF we were to do that, hunting mule deer would be akin to what hunting moo cows would be like now!


----------



## RandomElk16

wyoming2utah said:


> Every one of the above quotes happened in the initial phase of the study&#8230;.after the first initial years of this study, though, the results were much different.
> 
> Also, it appears as though you are quoting the news release&#8230;NOT the study.
> 
> As for this idea of control that you keep bringing up&#8230;it is definitely a good idea to have some "control" in the study by having the animals in an enclosure. BUT, the negatives of that control must also be recognized--like controlling where the predators and prey are able and not able to go.
> 
> Here are some other links:
> http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/v...aWc#search="effects coyote removal mule deer"
> 
> (notice the size of the study areas&#8230;!)
> 
> http://www.wildfelid.org/p7iq/pdf/D...oyotes and pumas, Wildlife Monograph 2011.pdf
> 
> http://www.ndow.org/uploadedFiles/n...Education/Publications/2014-Predator-Plan.pdf
> Here are three links that give some other details of different mule deer/predator studies&#8230;.all three studies took place over larger expanses of open country are much more viable to what is being done in Utah. Because they are NOT on "controlled" enclosures they are more applicable to managing predators on hunting units. All three have quotes similar to this:
> 
> "This project was designed to protect a mule deer population from large carnivore predation in hopes of enhancing that population and thus improving hunter opportunity in the Granite Mountain Range of northern Washoe County. Analysis of the associated data indicates population dynamics and harvest data did not show positive correlations that would support this hypothesis. When evaluated in the context of the larger northern Washoe mule deer population, deer in the 014 Project Area do not require extra or targeted predator removal in order to maintain robust population viability over the long term."
> 
> IF we could just pen up all of our mule deer and put them into enclosures&#8230;then maybe we could look at growing their populations and "managing" them much better. But, of course, IF we were to do that, hunting mule deer would be akin to what hunting moo cows would be like now!


I will have to read it later.

From what you posted though, I do think this part is key "deer in the 014 Project Area".

I think every area is different.

I know we can't pen up our deer. I don't think it is THE study. I just think it is a valuable study to incorporate into the big picture. Like during the drought, other deer suffered and the enclosure deer did great, experiencing the same conditions. It is an interesting study to look at variables as just that.

The back and forth with lonetree, he keeps saying "correlation".

I was simply expressing that is a cop-out. You can say that about any study. If the monroe study finds higher fawn survival and increased numbers he will say it is correlation. Then you could say it is because the mild spring precipitation. You could also say it is because the ANY-weapon spike is gone.

I used a controlled study to take away his correlation crap.


----------



## Lonetree

Enclosures are not the only way to "control" a study. But yes they are great for eliminating variables. There have been nutrition studies where this has been very valuable, because they have full control of all inputs. All good predator control studies, are "controlled" to some degree. They remove predators from one area, and they don't remove predators from another area(the "control" area). Because the goal is to measure the difference between the two areas, and treatments, at the end of the study. 

Same thing in a nutrition study. You manipulate the nutrition up or down in one area, and do nothing in another area. Then at the end of the study, you measure the difference if there is one. 

In the last 15 or so years of large, real world, predator control studies, and nutrition studies. The difference measured at the end of the studies, says that predator removal does not increase the size of herds. Even though, in the beginning of almost every study, fawn mortality decreased. On the other hand, with nutrition studies, that manipulate available nutrition, you get an increase in the deer herd, when nutrition is increased. Which tells us that nutrition is the limiting factor, and there for deer are being held, at a practical "working" carrying capacity, by available nutrition. This is why the predation in compensatory, and does not increase deer numbers, because the deer are not below carrying capacity, they are being held at it.


----------



## Finnegan

Back to carrying capacity. We'd have this problem licked if we could measure it...but we can't. Since it can't be measured, for the sake of management, why not assume that any habitat (unit) is at capacity?

The implications are cut and dried. In every case, if populations are below objectives, there must not be sufficient habitat to sustain those objectives. It's nature's way. Life wants to thrive, but there are requirements.



Life grabs every opportunity. If I allow enough dirt to gather in the cracks in my driveway, weeds grow. I've got little trees started in my rain gutters. (Yup, I gotta clean those gutters.)

Nature grows every deer that it can. If we want more deer, we need to help nature out. From what little I know, that means enhancing habitat.

Talk about that takes me back to my roots running cattle. Typical rancher could estimate the carrying capacity of a given area for cows. Why can't we do the same for deer?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Finnegan said:


> Back to carrying capacity. We'd have this problem licked if we could measure it...but we can't. Since it can't be measured, for the sake of management, why not assume that any habitat (unit) is at capacity?
> 
> The implications are cut and dried. In every case, if populations are below objectives, there must not be sufficient habitat to sustain those objectives. It's nature's way. Life wants to thrive, but there are requirements.
> 
> Life grabs every opportunity. If I allow enough dirt to gather in the cracks in my driveway, weeds grow. I've got little trees started in my rain gutters. (Yup, I gotta clean those gutters.)
> 
> Nature grows every deer that it can. If we want more deer, we need to help nature out. From what little I know, that means enhancing habitat.
> 
> Talk about that takes me back to my roots running cattle. Typical rancher could estimate the carrying capacity of a given area for cows. Why can't we do the same for deer?


because it is a completely controlled habitat with a defined area, few if any predators, controlled and measurable nutrition and water. No hunters, no poaching and no roadkill.

If you are talking open range grazing, the cattle would feed until an area was basically wiped out and then moved (herded) to greener pastures. Deer don't have that same luxury. Deer are wild not much different than a random seed in a rain gutter.


----------

