I found out some Shocking info about where Californias Deer Population may have gone

[Mike7]

Interesting topic/topics. I think it is important to keep an open mind if you are a forester, and consider that things that you think are settled science are not, and in the future you may be working from a completley different paradigm.

Separate from the discussion above regarding quality of forage, saying Glyphosate is safe for deer is far from the truth at this time in my opinion. First of all, one has to look at the quality of the study and conflicts of interest in every single study they try to use in order to inform their opinion. Second, look at the study's bias and your own personal bias. And third, understand the limitations of the study.

Herbicides have not been used steadily on forest land since the 70's, but instead have been used off and on, and with different emerging products used over that period, as we learned about the ill effects of prior products through lawsuits and observation of effects over longer exposures. Ecosystems are complex, just as are the effects of these chemicals. You don't know what you don't know, and I don't think anyone knows completely what the long term effects are of some of these chemicals which can cause endocrine disruption in mammals, and potentially affect the next generation more than the current generation after exposure. Remember when we all thought that eating and drinking out of plastic was completely safe, until by pure chance, researches at Washington State University found out otherwise.

 

[boom]

I feel betrayed and upset that our pristine forests are being managed with all the care of a Monsanto soy bean patch in Illinois.

i apologize..i found this statement to be everything i look for in a statement. funny, witty, smart....

hahah..thanks for dropping this nugget on us.

sucks about the rest of it. unbelievable sounding.

 

[541hunter]

Interesting topic/topics. I think it is important to keep an open mind if you are a forester, and consider that things that you think are settled science are not, and in the future you may be working from a completley different paradigm.

Separate from the discussion above regarding quality of forage, saying Glyphosate is safe for deer is far from the truth at this time in my opinion. First of all, one has to look at the quality of the study and conflicts of interest in every single study they try to use in order to inform their opinion. Second, look at the study's bias and your own personal bias. And third, understand the limitations of the study.

Herbicides have not been used steadily on forest land since the 70's, but instead have been used off and on, and with different emerging products used over that period, as we learned about the ill effects of prior products through lawsuits and observation of effects over longer exposures. Ecosystems are complex, just as are the effects of these chemicals. You don't know what you don't know, and I don't think anyone knows completely what the long term effects are of some of these chemicals which can cause endocrine disruption in mammals, and potentially affect the next generation more than the current generation after exposure. Remember when we all thought that eating and drinking out of plastic was completely safe, until by pure chance, researches at Washington State University found out otherwise.

You are right nothing is settled science. Glyphosate was developed in 1970 and has been widely used in all forms of agriculture including forestry since then. How many generations of ungulates have been produced since? Lots of boom and bust populations of deer in that almost 50 year period. I would argue from anecdotal evidence that if there were any significant effect that whitetails would be gone due to the use of round up in ag fields.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WV Mountaineer]

Interesting topic/topics. I think it is important to keep an open mind if you are a forester, and consider that things that you think are settled science are not, and in the future you may be working from a completley different paradigm.

Separate from the discussion above regarding quality of forage, saying Glyphosate is safe for deer is far from the truth at this time in my opinion. First of all, one has to look at the quality of the study and conflicts of interest in every single study they try to use in order to inform their opinion. Second, look at the study's bias and your own personal bias. And third, understand the limitations of the study.

Herbicides have not been used steadily on forest land since the 70's, but instead have been used off and on, and with different emerging products used over that period, as we learned about the ill effects of prior products through lawsuits and observation of effects over longer exposures. Ecosystems are complex, just as are the effects of these chemicals. You don't know what you don't know, and I don't think anyone knows completely what the long term effects are of some of these chemicals which can cause endocrine disruption in mammals, and potentially affect the next generation more than the current generation after exposure. Remember when we all thought that eating and drinking out of plastic was completely safe, until by pure chance, researches at Washington State University found out otherwise.

Mike, I would agree in most situations. What isn't debatable and doesn't apply, because the science can't change. Food, security, and less predators equals more deer. It's non-debatable.




As far as herbicide effects, I don't think anyone here is suggesting that it is a guarantee. But, everyone seems secure enough to allow herbicide use on their food, to be used on food fed to our beef, etc...., with the same implications. Once again, what isn't debatable is Huntingdog45 isn't blaming cats or any other potential cause with the degree they are affecting the deer herd. Only the forest industry. My goodness, don't forget the obvious in a blind rage. FWIW, If it were affecting the deer through digestion, it would likely be affecting the cats eating the deer to some degree as well.

 

[Mike7]

Mike, I would agree in most situations. What isn't debatable and doesn't apply, because the science can't change. Food, security, and less predators equals more deer. It's non-debatable.




As far as herbicide effects, I don't think anyone here is suggesting that it is a guarantee. But, everyone seems secure enough to allow herbicide use on their food, to be used on food fed to our beef, etc...., with the same implications. Once again, what isn't debatable is Huntingdog45 isn't blaming cats or any other potential cause with the degree they are affecting the deer herd. Only the forest industry. My goodness, don't forget the obvious in a blind rage. FWIW, If it were affecting the deer through digestion, it would likely be affecting the cats eating the deer to some degree as well.

I completely agree. The causes are likely multifactorial, but I wouldn't completely rule out herbicides and pesticides being a possible direct component in the mix. I personally am not comfortable with the agricultural use of many of these substances. This is where GM crops are scary to me...because of the level of herbicides that crops may be able to take without dying. I remember as a kid seeing Boise Cascade aerial spray quite a lot of 2,4-D & 2,4,5-T in the 70's until people challenged them on their practices. It probably was a lot easier back then though to know something was going on, when helicopters flew over and opened up the sprayers as soon as they got past your house.



Yes, with heavy metals, you might expect greater effects further down the food chain in predators, but is that going to be true of herbicides and pesticides which are stored and eliminated differently from the body? We know some of these substances increase bladder cancer rates significantly in humans as they are eliminated in the urine. Some are suspected endocrine disrupters as well, and may affect fertility, immune function, and even central nervous system function to varying degrees in mammals.



Various individuals within a species are affected to differing degrees from chemical exposure and some species are affected more than others (I kind of suspect that whitetail deer will not die out until right before coyotes, ravens, and cockroaches). How much immune function does a blacktail deer have to lose before it dies easier during a hard winter, how much CNS function loss needs to occur before a lion captures it easier, and how much fertility can it lose before it begins to have an affect on overall herd numbers, considering the level of feed, roads/hunting, and predators already built into a particular area?



Working for the forest service in Oregon & in California in the 90's, we had a lot of lions (especially in N. CA where I saw a lion every few weeks since my job included driving around the forest at night), a high road density, a lot of logging going on all of the time, ground prep burns of logging units prior to replanting, and I don't remember any regular spraying of logging units on the national forest lands, yet we had a lot of blacktail deer in CA & mule deer in OR. So what is really different now?


Well, there was a lot of logging on forest service lands back then without a lot of spraying on the districts that I worked on anyway. Also we did regularly do prescribed burns of winter range at that time which I am not sure they do so much now but we were also suppressing every other fire. And we had all kinds of forest service workers out effectively patrolling the district daily while doing their regular jobs, and had about one law enforcement officer per district I believe. All of this was possible I assume because of all of the timber dollars, and maybe that discouraged some poaching, I don't know?

 

[Beendare]

Good posts...like the one above by Mike7.

I'm not saying spraying doesn't have any affect....but there are many reasons why saying, "Its the spraying!" doesn't make sense.

The predators mentioned by many is of course a big one. But another is effectiveness. you make it sound like spraying kills everything these deer can eat.

I have hunted clear cut areas up in Nor Cal, Or, Wash, Ak and BC for many decades. I can tell you that they can spray...but it ain't going to kill all of the browse in those areas....no way. There is still food for those deer.

I challenge you to show me a clear cut that is devoid of browse for more than 6 months.

You speak of mother nature....yeah...she is resilient. She bounces back. it would take tanker trucks of spray to keep those clear cut areas down for any length of time. Its crazy how thick those areas get after a few years.

BTW, i'm not sanctioning the spraying....just saying its not one thing.

And i happen to be the kind of guy that goes to the lumber yard regularly and i like the fact there is lumber. Trees are a manageable resource...lets manage them wisely.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

I completely agree. The causes are likely multifactorial, but I wouldn't completely rule out herbicides and pesticides being a possible direct component in the mix. I personally am not comfortable with the agricultural use of many of these substances. This is where GM crops are scary to me...because of the level of herbicides that crops may be able to take without dying. I remember as a kid seeing Boise Cascade aerial spray quite a lot of 2,4-D & 2,4,5-T in the 70's until people challenged them on their practices. It probably was a lot easier back then though to know something was going on, when helicopters flew over and opened up the sprayers as soon as they got past your house.



Yes, with heavy metals, you might expect greater effects further down the food chain in predators, but is that going to be true of herbicides and pesticides which are stored and eliminated differently from the body? We know some of these substances increase bladder cancer rates significantly in humans as they are eliminated in the urine. Some are suspected endocrine disrupters as well, and may affect fertility, immune function, and even central nervous system function to varying degrees in mammals.



Various individuals within a species are affected to differing degrees from chemical exposure and some species are affected more than others (I kind of suspect that whitetail deer will not die out until right before coyotes, ravens, and cockroaches). How much immune function does a blacktail deer have to lose before it dies easier during a hard winter, how much CNS function loss needs to occur before a lion captures it easier, and how much fertility can it lose before it begins to have an affect on overall herd numbers, considering the level of feed, roads/hunting, and predators already built into a particular area?



Working for the forest service in Oregon & in California in the 90's, we had a lot of lions (especially in N. CA where I saw a lion every few weeks since my job included driving around the forest at night), a high road density, a lot of logging going on all of the time, ground prep burns of logging units prior to replanting, and I don't remember any regular spraying of logging units on the national forest lands, yet we had a lot of blacktail deer in CA & mule deer in OR. So what is really different now?


Well, there was a lot of logging on forest service lands back then without a lot of spraying on the districts that I worked on anyway. Also we did regularly do prescribed burns of winter range at that time which I am not sure they do so much now but we were also suppressing every other fire. And we had all kinds of forest service workers out effectively patrolling the district daily while doing their regular jobs, and had about one law enforcement officer per district I believe. All of this was possible I assume because of all of the timber dollars, and maybe that discouraged some poaching, I don't know?

I'm not going to disagree with anything you just posted. It is pretty much on everyone's mind. Only thing I will say is herbicides are most assuredly cheaper, not nearly as hard to control as burns, and not nearly as labor intensive. Maybe in a decade, Americas timber industry will boom again. Creating the same conditions that allowed Game species to peak. But, I'm guessing the two contributing factors over shadowing the rest are a lack of young succession in proportions there used to be, and predator numbers. Are there more contributors? Most certainly. But, likely not in any number large enough to displace where priority belongs in increasing deer numbers again.


If those two variables were addressed with increasing deer numbers as objective, the rest of the potential variables would be mute. I'm all for clean, healthy, prospering ecosystems. So, my mind is always open on how to do that better. But, this is truly a discussion based on ideological semantics unless the main contributor/s are addressed.

 

[ceng]

Beendare walking around clearcuts and seeing them shockingly devoid of deer feed is exactly where this started for me. Yes it’s multi factorial, but clearly food is one of the most critical aspects in population. I’m not for a second saying predators aren’t an issue, but I don’t think they explain the whole scenario. More feed improves reproductive rates and I would assume lowers fawn mortality. Some of that may even be related to allowing animals to spread out and not be so easily preyed upon. In some areas I wouldn’t be shocked to hear that cat numbers are going down, due to low deer numbers. I’m not sure the cats can compete with the numbers of bears that are eating fawns and then moving on to berries while the cats are depending on deer year round. Predator prey relationships at some time reach a bit of equilibrium, but add in lack of historical food source due to new logging practices and I think we have a big big issue.

 

[ceng]

And I don’t mean new like last five years. But 20-25 years. I think it’s taking its toll.

 

[N2TRKYS]

I wish forestry herbicides worked as well here as apparently it does in Cali.

 

[Wapiti66]

It's simple, the people you (Californians) elect don't want you hunting. Therefore they ban cat hunting and other predator hunting so that you don't have the deer to hunt because the cats are killing them all. Eventually you are deterred from it and quit hunting. Same thing is going on with wolves and grizzly bears in other states. Realize that this is the lefts final goal, to deter you from hunting. They don't really care about the cats, wolves, bears, deer, or elk....They are just using the predators to eliminate the game populations, which will lead to the end of hunting by default when there is not enough game left to allow hunting. Stop blaming herbicides and logging industries and start questioning the political garbage you have leading you on this blame game.

 

[lyle_destroys]

The wrong people are sitting in high places making these decisions. People who arent sportsmen or outdoorsmen, amd people who put the influence of money before their morals. Very few, especially in California and Oregon that hold high positions represent you everyday average person.

Sent from my LG-M327 using Tapatalk

 

[Beendare]

And I don’t mean new like last five years. But 20-25 years. I think it’s taking its toll.

Ok, gotcha. Admittedly, I haven't seen what you have. I HAVE spent as many as 80 days a year doing hog depredation in many areas of Ca [for a decade]...and interacted with biologists, park rangers, wardens and many others that also spend a lot of time in the woods...I've been doing a lot of that stuff for over 3 decades....this aint my first rodeo.

I think the only way to know for sure if spraying is a factor is not from My anecdotal evidence...or yours.....or the guy down the street....sounds too much like the 3 blind men describing an elephant.

Instead I think it would take a detailed analysis with stuff like historical aerial photos to deduce a cause/effect.

 

[Beendare]

Heres another one for you...granted its Anecdotal evidence...

I have a buddy that just got back from spending 6 weeks in the Yolla Bollys...he has a cabin there. He has been hunting there for 40 years.He has been running cameras for years. He knows that area better than any biologist.

The deer population has collapsed over the last 30 years. Decades ago they would see many deer a day. This yr he went a week without a deer sighting. He only saw one buck...the one he shot...a dink forky. He saw something like 2 deer a week the whole trip.

No spraying in the Yolla Bollys....but I will give you one guess on what he gets on his game cams.....

 

[Backpack Hunter]

Heres another one for you...granted its Anecdotal evidence...

I have a buddy that just got back from spending 6 weeks in the Yolla Bollys...he has a cabin there. He has been hunting there for 40 years.He has been running cameras for years. He knows that area better than any biologist.

The deer population has collapsed over the last 30 years. Decades ago they would see many deer a day. This yr he went a week without a deer sighting. He only saw one buck...the one he shot...a dink forky. He saw something like 2 deer a week the whole trip.

No spraying in the Yolla Bollys....but I will give you one guess on what he gets on his game cams.....

Hippies?

 

[N2TRKYS]

Heres another one for you...granted its Anecdotal evidence...

I have a buddy that just got back from spending 6 weeks in the Yolla Bollys...he has a cabin there. He has been hunting there for 40 years.He has been running cameras for years. He knows that area better than any biologist.

The deer population has collapsed over the last 30 years. Decades ago they would see many deer a day. This yr he went a week without a deer sighting. He only saw one buck...the one he shot...a dink forky. He saw something like 2 deer a week the whole trip.

No spraying in the Yolla Bollys....but I will give you one guess on what he gets on his game cams.....

If he's not seeing any deer and thinks that the population is in bad shape, why did he shoot one?

 

[Cant hit em]

If he's not seeing any deer and thinks that the population is in bad shape, why did he shoot one?

Probably because If he didn’t shoot it the lions or bear would get it anyway, im assuming thats why. Californias laws are horrible pertaining to Mt lion and bear.

 

[Wapiti66]

What is the understory like where the clearcut logging takes place prior to the logging? Shrubs and grasses or dead pine needles? In my experience, which is limited in logging areas, the understory is just crunchy pine needles and wouldn't provide much if any food source for deer or anything. Just habitat to hide in. Again, this experience is limited in these areas and is definitely not in California. I ask because if the understory isn't providing food for the deer before the cutting, then the deer aren't losing any food source because it is being sprayed for a few years after the cutting happens.

 

[N2TRKYS]

Probably because If he didn’t shoot it the lions or bear would get it anyway, im assuming thats why. Californias laws are horrible pertaining to Mt lion and bear.

That maybe true. However, that logic gets applied around here when shooting small bucks. If I didn't shoot it my neighbors would. Well, the deer has a chance if you don't shoot it, but has zero chance if you do shoot it.

Managing forest and animals is easy. It's the management of people while trying to manage the forest and animals that's the hard part.

 

[William Sublette]

you know lions eat a ship load of deer right?



And you know the pillow biting smoothe brain liberals have made it a bigger crime to kill a lion than a person in dear ol Kali? Right?





Lions, bobcat, yotes, and bear all love deer, especially little baby melt in your mouth fawns.