Climate change...deer numbers

[Koda_]

I didn’t quite get that message the way you did. Definitely worth applying pressure though. This is making want to get out and hunt a cat that’s for sure.

It makes no sense for ODFW to point out how dire mule deer numbers are struggling for one reason, and not point out depredation rates, is all Im saying.
7000 cats in Oregon is what like 1 cat for ever 12 sq miles? Now concentrate those in the habitat (obviously not cities). 1 cougar kills 1 deer a month x 7000 is 84000 deer annually (this would include blacktails which arent struggling..)
There are things ODFW can do but arent. They can increase cougar quotas (its suspiciously low), remove tags and limits even if temporary, and be publicly vocal that something needs to be done about hunting them. Id be thrilled if they said the dog ban was hurting deer population.

Ive never hunted them. Only seen one in the wild many years ago. But recently was getting one on my trailcams, a fawn went missing on one trailcam where I was watching them grow up, same cam that photod the cat. Im hoping to get out there and use the new foxpro before fawns drop this spring.

 

[PLhunter]

this would include blacktails which arent struggling..)

Which is what’s interesting. Loads and loads of cougars there. Most of them actually in Blacktail country. The variables are so hard to isolate. But mule deer are indeed in dire straights and whether or not it’s because of cougars it sure as hell wouldn’t hurt to reduce the pressure until we can figure out what needs to be done to help mule deer. I think the line where they implement emergency measures is too high. It’s time.

 

[PLhunter]

It makes no sense for ODFW to point out how dire mule deer numbers are struggling for one reason, and not point out depredation rates, is all Im saying.
7000 cats in Oregon is what like 1 cat for ever 12 sq miles? Now concentrate those in the habitat (obviously not cities). 1 cougar kills 1 deer a month x 7000 is 84000 deer annually (this would include blacktails which arent struggling..)
There are things ODFW can do but arent. They can increase cougar quotas (its suspiciously low), remove tags and limits even if temporary, and be publicly vocal that something needs to be done about hunting them. Id be thrilled if they said the dog ban was hurting deer population.

Ive never hunted them. Only seen one in the wild many years ago. But recently was getting one on my trailcams, a fawn went missing on one trailcam where I was watching them grow up, same cam that photod the cat. Im hoping to get out there and use the new foxpro before fawns drop this spring.

It’s also not that they don’t know. This 2023 paper identifies cougars as the leading cause of mortality for female deer. https://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/management_plans/mule_deer/Chapter_8_Predation.pdf

 

[Koda_]

Most of them actually in Blacktail country.

Probably true. More land on the east side but more habitat in the coast range?
I would wonder though if that makes it even more critical for the mule deer on the east side as less habitat would confine them. Just guessing because I don't know habitat percentage.
Also have to factor in coyote, bear, bobcat and now wolves.

Re the study you shared. Ive only read a little about compensatory vs additive depredation... starts to go over my 'not a biologist' head but I cant imagine where climate change is having a greater impact (eastern Oregon is naturally drier climate) to not simultaneously magnify the herd numbers dropping exponentially from depredation.
Consider that predators can still thrive on other productive species when deer numbers are declining...

edit to add, I think this validates my theory:
"
Nevertheless, when mule deer are below carrying capacity due to poor
habitat quality, extreme weather (e.g., drought, harsh winter), or other limiting factors predation
is more likely to be additive and affect population performance (Ballard et al. 2001). "

 

[Koda_]

It’s also not that they don’t know. This 2023 paper identifies cougars as the leading cause of mortality for female deer. https://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/management_plans/mule_deer/Chapter_8_Predation.pdf

This is a very good article, it validates some of my thoughts and debunks some (to be honest)

One thing Im suspicious about is they say they increased cougar quotas (in response to declining deer herds) but IMO the quotas last I checked were suspiciously low.

Appreciate you shared this link.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

The science doesn't need to be unsettled since it has never been settled in the first place. And conversely, the burden of proof is also on the climate alarmists to prove that human activity is the cause of climate change. That altering human activity will reverse, stop, or slow down climate change. That the climate change we are experiencing is not just another natural cycle in an ever changing world.

Of course none of that can be proven, so it makes a great slippery slope argument/yeah but what's the harm argument. Plays on insecurity and fear. The greatest manipulative tool we have. Pushed by a group of people that travel in private jets to a location where they then are taken by helicopter to be picked up in a motorcade of Expeditions spending a week in pure opulence telling the rest of us how to save the planet.

One of these billionaires has a larger carbon footprint than the entirety of Rokslide. But they offset that with carbon credits, paying money to not cut down trees, that were never going to be cut down in the first place. Trees that are only doing the dirty work of scavenging the CO2 when companies or people pay them to do so. Well they scavenge it all the time but it only counts when someone pays for it. It's almost like magic!!

Sent from my moto g power 5G - 2023 using Tapatalk

THIS right here!

 

[PLhunter]

This is a very good article, it validates some of my thoughts and debunks some (to be honest)

One thing Im suspicious about is they say they increased cougar quotas (in response to declining deer herds) but IMO the quotas last I checked were suspiciously low.

Appreciate you shared this link.

The quotas are almost useless because we as hunters never meet them. Without dogs it’s hard and almost no one puts in dedicated e species specific effort.

 

[PLhunter]

The science doesn't need to be unsettled since it has never been settled in the first place. And conversely, the burden of proof is also on the climate alarmists to prove that human activity is the cause of climate change. That altering human activity will reverse, stop, or slow down climate change. That the climate change we are experiencing is not just another natural cycle in an ever changing world.

Of course none of that can be proven, so it makes a great slippery slope argument/yeah but what's the harm argument. Plays on insecurity and fear. The greatest manipulative tool we have. Pushed by a group of people that travel in private jets to a location where they then are taken by helicopter to be picked up in a motorcade of Expeditions spending a week in pure opulence telling the rest of us how to save the planet.

One of these billionaires has a larger carbon footprint than the entirety of Rokslide. But they offset that with carbon credits, paying money to not cut down trees, that were never going to be cut down in the first place. Trees that are only doing the dirty work of scavenging the CO2 when companies or people pay them to do so. Well they scavenge it all the time but it only counts when someone pays for it. It's almost like magic!!

Sent from my moto g power 5G - 2023 using Tapatalk

Except it is proven. We can show and measure that we increase the concentration of carbon dioxide and we know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. That’s the proof. That’s the part you’d need to be able to refute. But you can’t you continue to use the logical fallacy of both straw man and of plea to ignorance. “We cannot know for absolute certain every effect therefor any evidence is invalid”.

But we can know a lot and do. We do know that we are increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere through our human activities and one would hypothesize that would create climactic changes and ocean ph changes and we are indeed observing those changes supporting that hypothesis. You’re saying nothing to refute those basic scientific realities.

 

[Koda_]

The quotas are almost useless because we as hunters never meet them. Without dogs it’s hard and almost no one puts in dedicated e species specific effort.

yes, thats why I think they should drop tag requirements and limits on cougars like we do for coyotes. Even if temporary.
The quotas are still suspiciously low too especially knowing we virtually will never achieve them without dogs.

A while ago I looked up ODFW cougar estimates prior to Measure 18 passing and the population estimate was IIRC around only 1000 cougars statewide.
I think now we have at least 6500 last I checked.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

Can somebody answer this one?

Roundabout 2008, to reduce emissions, diesel trucks were required to have diesel particulate filters (DPF) installed and start using diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) fluid.

Shortly on the heels of this, diesel trucks were required to have exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) pumps added to further reduce emissions, essentially pumping exhaust through the intake with fresh air to "re-burn" the bad stuff.

DPF, DEF, and EGR systems cause diesel engines to run less efficiently. As a result, the engines have to work harder to do the same amount of work, producing more emissions.

These systems add a significant amount of weight to trucks, requiring the engines to run harder and produce more emissions to do the same amount of work.

The components for these systems all have to be manufactured in plants supplied by fossil fuel burning power plants, creating net new sources of emissions that didn't exist before they were mandated.

The palladium and platinum that are required for these systems have to be mined and distributed all over the world using machines that burn fossil fuels. Again, net new emissions that didn't exist before they were mandated.

The finished systems have to be shipped and distributed all over the world, creating net new emmissions that didnt exist before they were mandated. The amount of emissions from giant container ships is staggering.

These systems were also mandated for farm and construction machinery as well as over the road semi-tractor trailers. Making theses engines less efficient and having to work harder to do the same amount of work.

Sooooooooooooooooo... Has any reliable and reputable organization ever done a study to determine whether these systems, that were designed to reduce overall emissions, actually achieved this goal? Or, have they actually increased net emissions worldwide?

 

[PLhunter]

The science doesn't need to be unsettled since it has never been settled in the first place. And conversely, the burden of proof is also on the climate alarmists to prove that human activity is the cause of climate change. That altering human activity will reverse, stop, or slow down climate change. That the climate change we are experiencing is not just another natural cycle in an ever changing world.

Of course none of that can be proven, so it makes a great slippery slope argument/yeah but what's the harm argument. Plays on insecurity and fear. The greatest manipulative tool we have. Pushed by a group of people that travel in private jets to a location where they then are taken by helicopter to be picked up in a motorcade of Expeditions spending a week in pure opulence telling the rest of us how to save the planet.

One of these billionaires has a larger carbon footprint than the entirety of Rokslide. But they offset that with carbon credits, paying money to not cut down trees, that were never going to be cut down in the first place. Trees that are only doing the dirty work of scavenging the CO2 when companies or people pay them to do so. Well they scavenge it all the time but it only counts when someone pays for it. It's almost like magic!!

Sent from my moto g power 5G - 2023 using Tapatalk

Also, if you’re going to make a claim that the science isn’t settled or established you should probably refer or defer to some science. Just saying so as a guy doesn’t make it so.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

The quotas are almost useless because we as hunters never meet them. Without dogs it’s hard and almost no one puts in dedicated e species specific effort.

Like wolves in wilderness areas, without efficient access, guys can't effectively or economically hunt or trap these populations. So you end up with these incubators that produce a never ending stream of predators to spread.

 

[PLhunter]

Can somebody answer this one?

Roundabout 2008, to reduce emissions, diesel trucks were required to have diesel particulate filters (DPF) installed and start using diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) fluid.

Shortly on the heels of this, diesel trucks were required to have exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) pumps added to further reduce emissions, essentially pumping exhaust through the intake with fresh air to "re-burn" the bad stuff.

DPF, DEF, and EGR systems cause diesel engines to run less efficiently. As a result, the engines have to work harder to do the same amount of work, producing more emissions.

These systems add a significant amount of weight to trucks, requiring the engines to run harder and produce more emissions to do the same amount of work.

The components for these systems all have to be manufactured in plants supplied by fossil fuel burning power plants, creating net new sources of emissions that didn't exist before they were mandated.

The palladium and platinum that are required for these systems have to be mined and distributed all over the world using machines that burn fossil fuels. Again, net new emissions that didn't exist before they were mandated.

The finished systems have to be shipped and distributed all over the world, creating net new emmissions that didnt exist before they were mandated. The amount of emissions from giant container ships is staggering.

These systems were also mandated for farm and construction machinery as well as over the road semi-tractor trailers. Making theses engines less efficient and having to work harder to do the same amount of work.

Sooooooooooooooooo... Has any reliable and reputable organization ever done a study to determine whether these systems, that were designed to reduce overall emissions, actually achieved this goal? Or, have they actually increased net emissions worldwide?

This is super interesting actually. So they have different targets. Vehicle emissions controls are targeted towards “smog” type pollutants. Soot, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, etc…. These have been very effective measures at reducing that type of air pollution. However, they do come with trade offs in greenhouse gas efficiency especially in diesel motors. So different targets. But without these emissions controls especially in densely populated areas the air quality would be forked.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

North America is not the globe…. It’s global warming, not jjohnsonElknewbie’s backyards warming during a winter. Average global temperatures are increasing. Globally last year was the hottest since we had records in 1850. Doesn’t mean every square mile will be hotter this year compared to last. It’s a big world. They changed the name because some people couldn’t understand it when where they were specifically was cold or colder. So they changed it hoping it would be easier to understand. But the basics of overall average annual temperature increasing never changed. They didn’t change it because the reality was different. They changed it because people were too dumb and were overly optimistic that anything could be done about it.

OMG, last year was the hottest in the last 170 years!? Wow! That's gotta be statistically significant in the backdrop of the last hundreds of millions of years.

Look, I'm all about conservation. I hate to see habitat and trees slashed and burned by humans for the exploitation of a resource. Trust me, I was born and raised in Iowa, a state that has been altered by man more than any other in this country. There are a few causes I can get behind, but the cult of climate change isn't one of them.

How many of these studies use correlation to falsely establish causation?
"Correlation does not mean causation. Correlation and causation can seem deceptively similar, but recognizing their differences is crucial to understanding relationships between variables."

If you trace back the sources and funding for the majority of climate change studies, eventually it leads back to a person or entity that is set to make money or gain power over people from the hysteria. Case in point, the United Nations.

 

[PLhunter]

Like wolves in wilderness areas, without efficient access, guys can't effectively or economically hunt or trap these populations. So you end up with these incubators that produce a never ending stream of predators to spread.

Yeah, people fail to realize how much effort it took to exterminate wolves. People think because it happened in the past we have to be so careful. But fail to realize what a monumental effort it took.

 

[KurtR]

You can talk all the climate change you want but until china and Russia agree to anything we are pissing in the wind. It’s simple here more crp more animals . The best years of deer hunting were the drought years and they were also the highest years of crp.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

You can talk all the climate change you want but until china and Russia agree to anything we are pissing in the wind. It’s simple here more crp more animals . The best years of deer hunting were the drought years and they were also the highest years of crp.

...and CRP rates are in the toilet now. Highest in this area are $180/ac whereas less than 10 years ago guys were signing up flat ground for around $300/ac with $100/ac signing bonuses. The best deer hunting in this part of Iowa IME experience was from roughly 1999-2010.

And it isn't only China and Russia. South and Southeast Asia pump out huge amounts of emissions, pollution, and garbage. The Pacific Ocean is a trash hole because of it. These emerging economies, that are competing with China for manufacturing, aren't going to sign up for global climate change initiatives that limit their growth potential.

 

[Rthur]

Actually, the volcano thing is a myth. It’s shared on Facebook lots but is verified false. We actually dwarf volcanoes in CO2 emissions. We kick their asses. Also, keep in mind that we do what we do AND the volcano. So even if it was equal, which it’s not, it’s another whole volcano erupting year after year…. Shotgun approach incoming in…

Which emits more carbon dioxide: volcanoes or human activities?

Human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of carbon dioxide released by volcanoes each year.

www.climate.gov

I wouldn't use the same organization that has invented global warming/climate change as a source to justify
your opinion.
The equivalent of fact checking on facebook.

R

 

[wesfromky]

And it isn't only China and Russia. South and Southeast Asia pump out huge amounts of emissions, pollution, and garbage. The Pacific Ocean is a trash hole because of it. These emerging economies, that are competing with China for manufacturing, aren't going to sign up for global climate change initiatives that limit their growth potential.

I agree. We humans are not going to solve, or even really slow down, the change in climate that our burning of fossil fuels is causing. Those of us that are older may mostly escape the worst of what is coming, but kids today are going to experience a radically different world.

"the apocalypse is already here it's just unevenly distributed"

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

@PLhunter what are your thoughts on the expansion of solar power fields on public lands out west and the potential impact on deer herds?

Also, when it comes to emissions, if you haven't already, look at what's happening with carbon sequestration. In Iowa, Summit Carbon Solutions is getting closer to getting state support to leverage emminent domain to steal land from property owners that have not so far agreed to sell or provide easements for their proposed pipeline.

"Summit's system would connect to ethanol plants in five states and transport their captured carbon dioxide to North Dakota for underground storage. The ethanol plants would then produce fuel that is classified "low carbon", enabling the producers to sell into new markets and to be eligible for generous federal tax credits." So essentially, more ag industry subsidies and incentives to grow more corn (and increase erosion, nutrient run-off, habitat loss, etc..., etc..., etc...).

So much for saving the planet, eh?

Edit: And guess who is backing these efforts in the state? Well, the co-founder and CEO of Summit, Bruce Ratsetter, is one of our GOP Gov. Reynolds largest donors. So, while a conservative would expect the GOP to stand for property rights, as always all you have to do is follow the money.