They don't have to live in an area for long. It doesn't have to be a long-term exposure to the chemicals. It could be on their way to their winter range. And the difference between those things you talk about and this, is these animals were built for those things. They've always existed, they've always been there. Predators, disease, etc. have a much greater affect when you have weak animals, with development problems, that are immune deficient. So we blame the things we can see. You can see a coyote kill a deer, so you blame the coyote, not the underlying causes as to why that deer wasn't strong enough to survive. In bighorns we blame Pnemonia, but not the reasons they ended up immune deficient and contracted the pnemonia. In moose we stand there with our hands in our pockets and just can't figure out why we can't get a handle on the populations. Maybe because we continue to blame it on the wrong things and think that by some magical way fixing the same things is going to somehow magically fix things the tenth time down the road. Pesticide use and crashes of our wildlife population are a perfect correlation, and we are we are steadying ourselves for another crash soon with the amount that are being used now.
Has the science left wildlife management?
- Thread starter Oneye
- Start date
They don't have to live in an area for long. It doesn't have to be a long-term exposure to the chemicals. It could be on their way to their winter range. And the difference between those things you talk about and this, is these animals were built for those things. They've always existed, they've always been there. Predators, disease, etc. have a much greater affect when you have weak animals, with development problems, that are immune deficient. So we blame the things we can see. You can see a coyote kill a deer, so you blame the coyote, not the underlying causes as to why that deer wasn't strong enough to survive. In bighorns we blame Pnemonia, but not the reasons they ended up immune deficient and contracted the pnemonia. In moose we stand there with our hands in our pockets and just can't figure out why we can't get a handle on the populations. Maybe because we continue to blame it on the wrong things and think that by some magical way fixing the same things is going to somehow magically fix things the tenth time down the road. Pesticide use and crashes of our wildlife population are a perfect correlation, and we are we are steadying ourselves for another crash soon with the amount that are being used now.
These issues also don't exist in every range. They are also localized issues. Not every range is in a drought, not every range is in an urban sprawl. Yet on a broad scale, we still see the same results in population upon many species. So no, those are not the final answers. I'm not going to say they don't affect deer herds, especially on hard winters, but it still doesn't answer why in another area populations crash the same way they do where there is not drought or urban sprawl.
Email, create a username and PM him. Ask him any questions you would like. I don't know if you followed all the links provided in each of those threads, but many answers were given. Does he give them in a nice way? Not most the time, but that doesn't make information invalid because you don't like the way you hear it.
1976
Active member
If pesticides were the cause of mule deer decline I would like those believers explain to me the explosions of canada geese across the country. Many times when I am spraying my crop the young of the year move out of the way and are right into the crop mowing it down minutes after application. The one thing I have found out however is they still taste just as good come hunting season as there northern brothers that grew up on the arctic grasses. When it comes to sage grouse the number one cause of mortality is west nile virus, any biologist worth his salt will agree on that one, at least here in the dakotas and eastern MT.
I don't know the answers to all the questions I'm not an expert on the subject. I know Lonetree has answered that question before because I've asked many of the questions you and others are right now. But the farther you look into this issue the more research and proof you'll find this is a serious issue. I remember those 2,000 snow geese that dropped dead in Idaho had complications linked back to pesticides.
Last edited:
BuzzH
Well-known member
Apparently the pesticides/herbicides don't impact elk much... things are like rats in Wyoming.
That said, I'm sure there are impacts to some animals, but I'm having a tough time connecting dots to the decline of mule deer though.
That said, I'm sure there are impacts to some animals, but I'm having a tough time connecting dots to the decline of mule deer though.
If you would read through most of the research you would understand why. Elk are affected but tend to as a whole stay away from the treated areas. They usually live at higher elevations, away from roads and sways from areas that are continually treated with the chemicals. Mule deer end up in all these areas, and winter ranges for mule deer are targeted with "habitat improvements" where these chemicals are used. Elk are more of an exception than the rule. Moose, bighorns and mule deer, even whitetails have been affected by it. Mountain goats are also not affected much by this because of where they live and stay at higher elevations, and of course they are doing well in many places. Overall the past 4 decades wildlife have been in decline. Do you have the answer? Do you really believe the fish and wildlife agencies have found the answer? If so why do we keep throwing proven failed policies at our wildlife? And why have they continued this decline? We have small boosts in numbers because of favorable winters at times but overall we are still headed down hill over the past 4 decades. We haven't found the answer or fixed anything, if we had the overall trend in populations would not be pointing down. So opening up to new ideas might be wise, maybe then we can get somewhere instead of trying the same old ideas and continuing to fail.
Last edited:
spook12
New member
I didn't read the'' Research'' that was provided. How do they explain away the Whitetail explosion across the Continent?
It has been seen in whitetails as well:
http://www.northamericanwhitetail.c...ssroads-crops-contributing-whitetail-decline/
And I'm not sure why "research" is in quotations when you haven't even cared enough to enlighten yourself on sound science and continue to just believe what has been passed by mouth from one generation to another that has never proven any worth to the overall better management of wildlife populations.
LopeHunter
Well-known member
Whitetail in the Midwest are all around blacktops, fence rows, fields, power line right of ways, etc, where lots of chemicals are used. Any idea why whitetails are not in decline in all of those states?
Here in the NW we have lots of blacktails in suburban zones that neighbor ag zones so those zones also see lots of chemical use.
If chemicals are a key factor, you would think you would see dead zones where I see significant whitetail populations in the Midwest and blacktail populations in the NW.
Thoughts?
Elk, as a whole, DO NOT stay away from treated areas, and do not live mostly in higher elevations. At least not in Montana. There are strong populations here that live right in the mist (not midst) of pesticides or hebicides or whatever you want to call them. mtmuley
1976
Active member
When it comes to the study on moose Oney I have a hard time believing that one mainly because here in ND our moose population in the Turtle Mts and the Pembina Gorge areas and the bush north of the border have been in a steep decline in the past 10 yrs and little to no pesticide use in that country. However the moose in the prairie regions are exploding to the point many landowner consider them a nuisance and press the game and fish to increase tag numbers due to the large amount of crop damage they produce especially in sunflowers. Mule deer just have a hard time when it comes to the increase encroachment of man on there travel routes and especially on their winter grounds. But what is difficult to understand is why the population in the more ag areas such as eastern colorado and even eastern Montana pending terrible winters have a much better rate of survival and even population increase than those in the traditional mountain areas of the west. Hell were even seeing an increase in the mule deer population in NW ND where 10 yrs ago a mule deer sighting made the paper. And we use a lot of monsanto products in this area lol.
D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
You show me the overall population trends that show wildlife numbers dwindling, because I don't believe it.
Elk are increasing, and are not the high elevation outlier that you make them out to be. Some of the most rapidly growing herds are right in the middle of agricultural areas and rangelands that were once considered mule deer habitat.
Antelope and whitetails ebb and flow, with winterkill and EHD outbreaks. Antelope numbers were at an all time high in eastern MT in the early to mid 2000's. After severe winterkill and disease outbreaks, they are rebounding, as are the whitetails.
Mule deer are the only species you can cite a long term decline in, and I'm not yet ready to bet the farm that it's related to pesticides. It's not even a decline that is consistent. I can show you agricultural areas in eastern Washington where mule deer numbers are as strong as ever, and they are exposed to as many pesticides as any deer in the Northwest.
Call me ignorant or close minded, but I'm not going to sift through the horse shit to find the pony. I am in firm agreement that pesticides are not always used wisely. However, to try and use that as a ploy to reach hunters doesn't fly in my book. If you want to sell the idea then you better do a much more complete job of presenting it other than telling me to do the research.
My guess is that it is largely ignored by wildlife agencies because it isn't a relevant factor in their management.
Edit: I will also include moose populations as animals in long term decline, but not as a whole. Some populations are doing very well (again in agricultural areas) whereas higher elevation populations are not doing all that great. I guess higher altitude elk behave differently from higher altitude moose.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
Antlerradar lives in the heart of some country that has experienced widespread changes in animal population, density, and distribution. I am willing to bet he has more anecdotal knowledge of population declines than most.
RobG
Well-known member
Oneye - this is the best article yet, but it says the evidence is inconclusive. In fact everything you have referenced is inconclusive for whitetail or any animal decline. In spite of that, you and Levitt (aka Lonetree) extrapolate these inconclusive studies to explain the decline in mule deer, bighorn and moose which aren't even mentioned in the studies!
The biggest problem with your hypothesis is that mule deer populations were crashing at the same time that whitetail, elk, eagles, pelicans, geese, ducks, sandhill cranes, bears, lions, wolves, et al were seeing huge population increases. Sorry, your argument falls on its face.
In spite of all this I'm glad you posted since the information is educational and the peer reviewed stuff does suggest roundup is causing some problems in animals.
RobG
Well-known member
I'll second that.
RobG
Well-known member
Interesting stuff, but I'm not finding anything conclusive. For example:
https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/state-denies-wildlife-developmental-malformations-problem
It wouldn't surprise me if there was a link between pesticides and what she is finding, but even if that link is eventually proven it is a long way from explaining mule deer and moose. It is interesting stuff and I hope she continues to pursue it and find an answer. Her findings might even explain Alex Jones.
