You couldn't have a more invalid argument.
Has the science left wildlife management?
- Thread starter Oneye
- Start date
You couldn't have a more invalid argument.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Oneye, I'm not sure there's a compelling positive link to the chemicals vs deaths of wildlife. I do know that we collared some mule deer does one year to see where they went and half died. Some to lions, but others seemingly healthy animals just died. No reason and nothing to point a finger at.
A long time hang out of mule deer in the Root had a sharp drop in mule deer doe numbers for no apparent reason at this same time frame. They just died. There's no hunting allowed in that area either.
Chemicals are bad and we are ruining our environment with them, but I'm not sure the evidence is there. Yet!
A long time hang out of mule deer in the Root had a sharp drop in mule deer doe numbers for no apparent reason at this same time frame. They just died. There's no hunting allowed in that area either.
Chemicals are bad and we are ruining our environment with them, but I'm not sure the evidence is there. Yet!
onpoint
Well-known member
Has the science left wildlife management?
I've been waiting to see a simple answer.
The original question in this post really needed no story or explanation after it.
My answer to this would be largely and unfortunately......Yes.
And this answer has nothing to do with freak mule deer in the Root.........
I've been waiting to see a simple answer.
The original question in this post really needed no story or explanation after it.
My answer to this would be largely and unfortunately......Yes.
And this answer has nothing to do with freak mule deer in the Root.........
I think when they die for no apparent reason is the exact time you should consider this. Nothing dies for no apparent reason. Populations don't decline for no reason. In Utah deer studies being done over 90% of does are being bred and over 80% of fawns are surviving birth. With those statistics growing a deer herd should not be hard, deer numbers should be exploding, especially with as mild of winters as we've had. There might have been a week in my state this year temps stayed below 32 as a high. I've almost never seen as warm of a year as I've seen the last few. We've had perfect wet seasons keeping the range in good condition. Yet numbers are only growing marginally and are even declining on some units. Most units, aside from the wasatch front have not seen major encroachment of housing or development, yet deer numbers aren't exploding. It's time to stop thinking time tested, proven failed policies are going to work. Conditions have been perfect, and I mean perfect for a recovery, and yet all we've seen is marginal growth that will be taken or by a cold/snowy winter which is bound to come by again one of these years, then we are back to scratching our heads. Winter has always existed, predators have always existed, pesticides however have not always been a part of their world and yes I do believe there is plenty of proof they are a major issue and certainly a bigger issue than the natural obstacles that have always existed. Am I saying it's the only thing, or the fix all solution... No. But I am saying it is a part that should not be ignored before we cause even bigger declines in some species that are already on their way down. We don't have forever to figure some of these things out, and ignoring the ill affects of these chemicals, I'm sorry is just plain stupid.
RobG
Well-known member
This could explain a lot of things in the Root and elsewhere. http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2015/07/no_regulatory_guidelines_to_he.html
twodot
New member
I find this fairly interesting as I too have watched mule deer numbers go down in my home area to an alarming low in the last seven years. I know it started much earlier but I was not personally here with boots on ground until then. Just a seasonal visitor before.
This spring, we had 26 mule deer does using the alfalfa around the house and bedding in the surrounding hills. We are talking every day, set your watch by them use.
They went into fawning season just like always by dispersing some and becoming less visible.in their daily activity. About that time we also noticed the boys dogs would go on "red alert" most nights and then we had a lion vocalizing all about the west hill one night.
As the does south of here started showing up in the fields sporting their fawns of the year we kept waiting to see what we would see at home. What we have seen, so far in the past week are the remains of six different deer darn near within rifle shot of the house. Small and medium lion tracks all over the ridge that overlooks the alfalfa.
Stopped and spoke with a rancher checking fence one the next ridge west from there yesterday. He said he had found the remains of four lion kills in a very small area and was wondering if we had noticed an abundance of sign around.
We now have a total of two old does with no fawns using the field at night.
Do I think lions ate all of the deer? No, I'm sure coyotes got a few.
I am sure, from the tracks that there are a group of young adult lions and possibly ol mom camped in the area. I believe in the boogyman, he and his family have refuge in the CMR and come out from there and make huge inroads on the local food source.
If you go from my house west and north to the next neighbor, there are at least 374 square miles that no one lives in or farms. I assure you no roundup is sprayed except in a twelve inch strip around my house in all that area. If you go for a drive through that once thick with mule deer area, you will possibly see a few deer, But nothing like you would,have years ago. What you will see is coyote and
lion tracks/scat about everywhere you look.
I really enjoy predators and like living where they are, but when there are too many in a given area they are truly a bitch for soft targets like mulies.
This spring, we had 26 mule deer does using the alfalfa around the house and bedding in the surrounding hills. We are talking every day, set your watch by them use.
They went into fawning season just like always by dispersing some and becoming less visible.in their daily activity. About that time we also noticed the boys dogs would go on "red alert" most nights and then we had a lion vocalizing all about the west hill one night.
As the does south of here started showing up in the fields sporting their fawns of the year we kept waiting to see what we would see at home. What we have seen, so far in the past week are the remains of six different deer darn near within rifle shot of the house. Small and medium lion tracks all over the ridge that overlooks the alfalfa.
Stopped and spoke with a rancher checking fence one the next ridge west from there yesterday. He said he had found the remains of four lion kills in a very small area and was wondering if we had noticed an abundance of sign around.
We now have a total of two old does with no fawns using the field at night.
Do I think lions ate all of the deer? No, I'm sure coyotes got a few.
I am sure, from the tracks that there are a group of young adult lions and possibly ol mom camped in the area. I believe in the boogyman, he and his family have refuge in the CMR and come out from there and make huge inroads on the local food source.
If you go from my house west and north to the next neighbor, there are at least 374 square miles that no one lives in or farms. I assure you no roundup is sprayed except in a twelve inch strip around my house in all that area. If you go for a drive through that once thick with mule deer area, you will possibly see a few deer, But nothing like you would,have years ago. What you will see is coyote and
lion tracks/scat about everywhere you look.
I really enjoy predators and like living where they are, but when there are too many in a given area they are truly a bitch for soft targets like mulies.
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
Science is my field, so in an attempt at open mindedness, I looked at some of the links posted. I see lots of references to cases of malformed testicles and antlers in mule deer. I see Hanford, WA cited repeatedly as a place where pesticide use is causing these problems in mule deer. However, the area in question is Hanford Environmental Research Park, which was involved in plutonium enrichment as part of the Manhattan Project for decades and they do rigorous monitoring there to look at effects of this activity on the environment and wildlife. Sorry, but it took all of 2 minutes to see that it is extremely unlikely that pesticide use is a major cause of issues at that site, and finding a glaring misrepresentation or omission of truth within the first 4 links makes me seriously question any of the "science" presented by this "Western Wildlife Ecology" organization. I browsed their site, and see very little of substance, no references to primary literature, and a heavy reliance on internet information to make their claims. To me, that's a red flag that the validity of any information presented on this site is suspect.
Any good scientist will tell you that correlation does not equal causation. You could just as easily pick any random thing - hell, I see more GPS's and cell phones in the woods than I did 20 years ago - and come up with essentially the same argument. Without some rigorous data to back it up, it's a lot of hot air. Lots of things have changed over the last 40 years that could be to blame for mule deer declines, and I seriously doubt it's simply one thing (in this case, pesticides) impacting populations.
Yes, there is far too little science and far too much politics in wildlife management today. But blatant misrepresentation of pseudo-science as science is not helping the situation and only serves to confuse people about the true value and meaning of science. If and when they present some well-executed research (not funded by special interests), I'll be thrilled to read it. I am fascinated by mule deer and would love to find a way to reverse the long-term declines as much as anyone.
Any good scientist will tell you that correlation does not equal causation. You could just as easily pick any random thing - hell, I see more GPS's and cell phones in the woods than I did 20 years ago - and come up with essentially the same argument. Without some rigorous data to back it up, it's a lot of hot air. Lots of things have changed over the last 40 years that could be to blame for mule deer declines, and I seriously doubt it's simply one thing (in this case, pesticides) impacting populations.
Yes, there is far too little science and far too much politics in wildlife management today. But blatant misrepresentation of pseudo-science as science is not helping the situation and only serves to confuse people about the true value and meaning of science. If and when they present some well-executed research (not funded by special interests), I'll be thrilled to read it. I am fascinated by mule deer and would love to find a way to reverse the long-term declines as much as anyone.
twodot
New member
Hunting Wife, excellent post! Thank you.
RobG
Well-known member
I agree. Thanks.
El Jason
Well-known member
Hunting Wife,
Hanford also has a burgeoning elk herd.
Hanford also has a burgeoning elk herd.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
This...refreshing.
can you explain why you think a site that has never taken donations has special interests? There's countless studies about mineral deficiencies especially in moose and sheep. The areas these issues are seen where habitat improvements were done and pestides were used. The DWR in my state sponsored by SFW has many more special interests than that site.
Last edited:
Oneye you still haven't told us why these pesticides only affect mule deer and not whitetail or elk.
I think you are the one who is being closed minded because you refuse to even consider any other theory.
Also you have not told us how these pesticides are being applied over every inch of mule deer habitat.
I think you are the one who is being closed minded because you refuse to even consider any other theory.
Also you have not told us how these pesticides are being applied over every inch of mule deer habitat.
I think I've given links to show that they actually do affect both those species. Start reading and researching before asking the same questions. You can't find answers if all you do is ask questions. And yet again I'm going to tell you that it doesn't have to be applied to every square inch. I would bet 90% of mule deer come in contact with areas that have had pesticide use. From forest reseeding, winter range improvements, road sides, power line right of ways, etc. do you really believe most of or wildlife doesn't come in contact with these chemicals?
Last edited:
This can't be read enough times by enough folks interested in wildlife management and the issues surrounding it. A lot of what is touted as "science" ain't science.
NKQualtieri
Well-known member
I think the main problem with science is our highly politicized culture is that--for most laypeople--if science doesn't back up your hypotheses then it's dismissed as "academic liberalism". Whatever that is.
The basis of science is that it's supposed to test a hypothesis, and most hypotheses come from an anecdotal or experiential background. This eventually leads the scientific process to a theory, if tested correctly. That "theory" is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. And in good science, it's tested over and over again.
The problem with a lot of what we all believe is that many times these things that we hold onto as truth are simply untested hypotheses, and it's hard to shake up a belief system even when peer-reviewed science offers us ample evidence that we're wrong.
To me, pseudo-science is bullshit that comes from from someone who is utilizing bad science, skewing some other study or simply skewering it because they can't stand to have their beliefs tested. Maybe if we all had a little less ego about what we think we know, the level of contentiousness and polarization might not be so high.
I'm open to the fact that hey, maybe OneEye is right. The thing that I do actually believe is that pesticides have been decimating the honeybee population. (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/are-pesticides-killing-off-honey-bees/) Which actually matters a lot more than the deer population, which I know is hard to hear bc deer are delicious and you can't hunt a honeybee.
I also read Josh Leavitt's paper, and I'd be interested in what an actual ecologist would have to say about it. It still leaves us with a hypothesis, with some precarious sources among some really good ones, and not an actual theory. I'd be hard-pressed to think that would even be an "A' paper in an undergradute ecology class.
So has science left wildlife management? No. It hasn't, not at the core of it. I have friends here in Bozeman who are wildlife biologists working their asses off in the field to do what's right by our game populations. One of them is a grizzly bear biologist who is actively trying to get the bear delisted, and this is not because she hunts, it's because she studies populations. But has science perhaps tested what our beliefs might tell us? Yeah, it has and it will continue to, because that's what it does.
Unfortunately, it's just not the biologists who actually make the decisions about what happens. That's where the inherent disconnect happens. Which sucks.
Also, HuntingWife is my favorite person. Just an aside.
The basis of science is that it's supposed to test a hypothesis, and most hypotheses come from an anecdotal or experiential background. This eventually leads the scientific process to a theory, if tested correctly. That "theory" is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. And in good science, it's tested over and over again.
The problem with a lot of what we all believe is that many times these things that we hold onto as truth are simply untested hypotheses, and it's hard to shake up a belief system even when peer-reviewed science offers us ample evidence that we're wrong.
To me, pseudo-science is bullshit that comes from from someone who is utilizing bad science, skewing some other study or simply skewering it because they can't stand to have their beliefs tested. Maybe if we all had a little less ego about what we think we know, the level of contentiousness and polarization might not be so high.
I'm open to the fact that hey, maybe OneEye is right. The thing that I do actually believe is that pesticides have been decimating the honeybee population. (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/are-pesticides-killing-off-honey-bees/) Which actually matters a lot more than the deer population, which I know is hard to hear bc deer are delicious and you can't hunt a honeybee.
I also read Josh Leavitt's paper, and I'd be interested in what an actual ecologist would have to say about it. It still leaves us with a hypothesis, with some precarious sources among some really good ones, and not an actual theory. I'd be hard-pressed to think that would even be an "A' paper in an undergradute ecology class.
So has science left wildlife management? No. It hasn't, not at the core of it. I have friends here in Bozeman who are wildlife biologists working their asses off in the field to do what's right by our game populations. One of them is a grizzly bear biologist who is actively trying to get the bear delisted, and this is not because she hunts, it's because she studies populations. But has science perhaps tested what our beliefs might tell us? Yeah, it has and it will continue to, because that's what it does.
Unfortunately, it's just not the biologists who actually make the decisions about what happens. That's where the inherent disconnect happens. Which sucks.
Also, HuntingWife is my favorite person. Just an aside.
Last edited:
MinnesotaHunter
Well-known member
I think you are absolutely right. The worst part of this phenomenon is that it casts so much doubt and cynicism, that it is hard to identify the real science as a layperson.
I think SnowyMountaineer and HuntingWife also hit on the fact that systems don't work like this and reality is most likely much more complicated than one single factor.
As for the original question, applying a blanket statement like that is, is about as effective as trying to identify the one silver bullet to fix mule deer decline. I really think that question was intended to be inflamatory, and get people fired up on both sides of the arguement.
El Jason
Well-known member
Well said.
I have heard the pesticide angle before, as elk in SW Washington are heavily infested with a hoof rot disease. I see that was one of the supporting items of "evidence".
My take on this is that folks are trying to find data to support their hypothesis, which is what I was referring to when I said you can connect any two dots if you try hard enough. I have yet to see true science, with controls and peer reviewed methodology, that directly supports a causative affect of pesticide exposure on populations.
One of the most important components of science is the ability to withstand scrutiny and to be able to account for inconsistencies. Thus far in the articles presented, I see none of that.
Could pesticide exposure cause health issues in wildlife that significantly affects populations? Certainly. Show me some peer reviewed literature that documents this and I'll get on board. Until then, it's just another pretty website.
