Has the science left wildlife management?

shoots-straight · Jul 19, 2015

One of the bigger whitetails I took in the Root had a nose that curved like a banana. Just saying.

Oneye · Jul 20, 2015

Ignoring evidence or not giving the time to pay attention to it or understand it does not make it any less true. JLS no mule deer are not the only big game that show long term declines. You can't look at a 5 year period of growth and call it a win. Look at the last 4 decades and you will find the overall trend is still pointing down.

As for sifting through things, it just shows your too lazy to click on a link let alone actually learn on the subject. I'm not going to post every single link available on the Internet, I wanted to open the door to this issue and hope that some might want to actually learn something new. You can google other species, the information on moose and bighorns exists in great amounts. There are also several studies on mineral deficiencies which when you can connect dots lead back to pesticide exposure. The western wildlife ecology site I linked to earlier has enough links and reading it would take you days to get through it all so don't act as if you have learned what their is to learn and can make any conclusion when you've put no effort into learning.

If you believe in the backward myths that have been handed down from generation to generation as the mule deer boogeyman (example

redators) then you can keep believing it. P we've tried them over and over and in the end come to the same scenarios and failed policies that have gotten us no where the last 4 decades. If you get on for the ride of the same failed actions though, you have no right to whine a few years down the road when things are looking grim. Doing more of the same will change nothing, it's time to look at what is actually the problem so we can work on a solution that will work.

Oneye · Jul 20, 2015

As I said Rob, I'm not the expert on the subject. The questions you have I would ask you to talk to Lonetree, he knows and has Put much more work into the subject than I have.

Deleted member 20812 · Jul 20, 2015

I've never been one to view predators as a boogeyman. Ask anyone on here. I've actually been accused of being a wolf hugger by folks on another site because I fail to share their same concerns with predators. Such is life.

You never answered my questions in my original post. Nor did you address why agricultural elk populations are growing like they are.

There are a lot of ways you can connect the dots if you try hard enough, but it still doesn't make it true.

I'm stepping out of this because I'm lazy.

My best.

Oneye · Jul 20, 2015

JLS said:
I've never been one to view predators as a boogeyman. Ask anyone on here. I've actually been accused of being a wolf hugger by folks on another site because I fail to share their same concerns with predators. Such is life.

You never answered my questions in my original post. Nor did you address why agricultural elk populations are growing like they are.

There are a lot of ways you can connect the dots if you try hard enough, but it still doesn't make it true.

I'm stepping out of this because I'm lazy.

My best.

I would recommend if you have time, looking for more information and visiting the links on the western ecology website if you have time, the more research you do yourself will leave you with less questions and more understanding. Im stepping out because my phone is at 3%, have a goodnight.

1_pointer · Jul 20, 2015

In the '50s and early '60s, 2,4-D was bought and used by tanker full on federal and private lands to kill brush, mostly sagebrush. According to both anecdotal and official counts, there were a lot of mule deer during this time. Is this one of the 'bad' chemicals?

I agree with the above, in that I think it could, possibly, be an issue on a small/local scale, but would be hard pressed to believe that it is a major cause for the range wide decline of mule deer.

Gr8bawana · Jul 20, 2015

Oneye, to blame one thing such as pesticides for the decline in mule deer populations is ludicrus. Are you telling us that pesticides are being used EVERYWHERE in every state? From the mountain peaks down to the valley floors? Get real.
Feel free to believe whatever you want.

Oneye · Jul 20, 2015

Gr8bawana said:
Oneye, to blame one thing such as pesticides for the decline in mule deer populations is ludicrus. Are you telling us that pesticides are being used EVERYWHERE in every state? From the mountain peaks down to the valley floors? Get real.
Feel free to believe whatever you want.

And you feel free to stay uneducated and think you know what you've said to be true when you haven't even researched the subject. Like I've said before, they don't have to be affected at all levels. It could be up high or down low it doesn't have to be a part of their entire lifecycle to affect them. So lets get real. Wildlife populations have went down over the last 40 years and the failed policies that have been tried and failed 100 times over will only fail if they are tried again. We are stuck in the mud spinning our tires, trying worthless studies and policies that have proven to do little to nothing for us. But let's just get real and keep spinning our tires right?

RobG · Jul 20, 2015

Oneye, everyone here would love to know why some animals have declined and most would gladly accept pesticides as an explanation. However I've "researched" everything you've linked and, with all due respect, it isn't even clear if pesticides are hurting animals, much less causing population declines. There needs to be more research before you can speak with the certainty that you do. Furthermore, there are significant realities that contradict your hypotheses, and in real science that almost always means you are wrong.

I appreciate you raising the issue as a possible cause, but there is no basis for you to criticize skeptics who see problems with your claim. I wish that wasn't the truth but it is.

Shoots - I totally believe banana-nosed deer. I mean, have you seen the people who have grown up in the Root?

noharleyyet · Jul 20, 2015

C'mon fall....riddling roundup and ballistic tips make tanny'n's.surly.

Gr8bawana · Jul 20, 2015

Oneye said:
And you feel free to stay uneducated and think you know what you've said to be true when you haven't even researched the subject. Like I've said before, they don't have to be affected at all levels. It could be up high or down low it doesn't have to be a part of their entire lifecycle to affect them. So lets get real. Wildlife populations have went down over the last 40 years and the failed policies that have been tried and failed 100 times over will only fail if they are tried again. We are stuck in the mud spinning our tires, trying worthless studies and policies that have proven to do little to nothing for us. But let's just get real and keep spinning our tires right?

So you're telling us that your expert research and your Phd in in mule deer habitat says that pesticides and only pesticides are to blame. That is the conclusion you have come to there can be no other explanation because that is what you say, period. You are right, no arguments and no one else can hae an opinion of their own.
We all bow to your omnipotence. :W:

RobG · Jul 20, 2015

noharleyyet said:
C'mon fall....riddling roundup and ballistic tips make tanny'n's.surly.

I blame it on my misaligned hemiscrota.

LopeHunter · Jul 20, 2015

Oneye said:
Ignoring evidence or not giving the time to pay attention to it or understand it does not make it any less true. JLS no mule deer are not the only big game that show long term declines. You can't look at a 5 year period of growth and call it a win. Look at the last 4 decades and you will find the overall trend is still pointing down.

As for sifting through things, it just shows your too lazy to click on a link let alone actually learn on the subject. I'm not going to post every single link available on the Internet, I wanted to open the door to this issue and hope that some might want to actually learn something new. You can google other species, the information on moose and bighorns exists in great amounts. There are also several studies on mineral deficiencies which when you can connect dots lead back to pesticide exposure. The western wildlife ecology site I linked to earlier has enough links and reading it would take you days to get through it all so don't act as if you have learned what their is to learn and can make any conclusion when you've put no effort into learning.

If you believe in the backward myths that have been handed down from generation to generation as the mule deer boogeyman (exampleredators) then you can keep believing it. P we've tried them over and over and in the end come to the same scenarios and failed policies that have gotten us no where the last 4 decades. If you get on for the ride of the same failed actions though, you have no right to whine a few years down the road when things are looking grim. Doing more of the same will change nothing, it's time to look at what is actually the problem so we can work on a solution that will work.

Some of us have the crazy relative that just knows something is true. Perhaps they know crop circles are the result of Bigfoot and are willing to write about it on the internet. I can go down to the local coffee shop and listen to a lot of passionate ideas and conspiracies. Most of these theories do not pass the ear and eye test.

I do not need to read 5 or 50 or 500 blogs, articles and letters to the editor to form an opinion on chemicals and deer populations. There is prima facia evidence that the theory is unlikely to be valid.

Do any of the dozens or hundreds or millions of internet musings on chemical and deer explain why whitetail and blacktail have super powers to ward off the effects of chemicals compared to a genetically similar mule deer? Why would something harm mule deer but not whitetails nor blacktails?

My guess is there is zero peer-reviewed evidence that chemicals in use all over the America significantly impact deer but only one species of deer and then only in some regions.

I call this obvious disconnect of how the same chemicals only impact one type of deer as game, set, match. If chemicals are a key factor, all deer exposed to the chemicals will have a similar result.

---- · Jul 20, 2015

noharleyyet said:
C'mon fall....riddling roundup and ballistic tips make tanny'n's.surly.

The best way to tell someone's not from Montana is if they constantly mention they're from Montana.

shoots-straight · Jul 20, 2015

Shoots - I totally believe banana-nosed deer. I mean, have you seen the people who have grown up in the Root?

You mean like my brother Dale here?

This is the buck. I should have taken a frontal picture. It's there though.

noharleyyet · Jul 20, 2015

RobG said:
I blame it on my misaligned hemiscrota.

Yikes....some things are better left ungoogled!

RobG · Jul 20, 2015

shoots-straight said:
You mean like my brother Dale here?

Wow, that means we are cousins.

BigHornRam · Jul 20, 2015

I'm just waiting for Kat to weigh in and put the final wingnut stamp on this thread.

Oneye · Jul 20, 2015

sweetnectar · Jul 20, 2015

I'm trying to dissect your information as openly as I can and I find a more valid theory: It is clearly TAXES. As taxes have increased over the years the mule deer population has decreased. This is a far more likely scenario than pesticide.

Has the science left wildlife management?

Well-known member

Active member

Active member

Deleted member 20812

Guest

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

New member

Similar threads

Forum statistics

Share this page