Rod Clute on MOOD

[Pinefarm]

Anyone see MDNR whitetail specialist Rod Clute on Michigan Out of Doors tonight? Pretty good stuff. I'm glad to see him getting out on TV and keeping us informed. I think an ounce of good faith PR sure goes a long ways. I would hope to see him making bi-annual updates on MOOD even after the 2006-2010 plan is enacted. I believe they said he'll be on again next week.

[hondodeerhunter]

Yep saw him on there. Sounds like next weeks interview should be really interesting also.

[marksman72]

Any specifics?

[buckslayerII]

The most interesting thing he said was that their current way of estimating the harvest #'s for a given season only has an error of +/-2%!!!!! Come on, it'd be greater than that if they polled 100% of the hunters:~)) I agree that states with mandatory check-ins probably don't get any better numbers than MI, but 2%?!?!?!?!?

Next week should be an interesting discussion as well. Do you think Jimmy was "flying from the cuff" or asking predetermined questions to Mr. Clute?

[Rusher]

He also stated he was very excited with everyone's opionions and suggestions, "right". I thought Jimmy was about to sit on Rod's lap and call him daddy.:lol:

[Pinefarm]

"Do you think Jimmy was "flying from the cuff" or asking predetermined questions to Mr. Clute?"

Doesn't matter either way. It's just good to know that MDNR understands that we like to hear from the policy makers. That's why the population goal meetings were so refreshing even though they turned out being bitch sessions by the end of the night. It's when we only get silence that all sorts of wild speculation breaks out on web sites such as M-S.
I thought Clute did a fine job explaining the "counting" process and I thought he did a good job talking about Ohio's system and also others that have mandatory call in checks.
If we are to have major changes in deer regulations, I'd hope to hear from MDNR on MOOD every couple of weeks.
As I said before, if I heard correctly, next week they're going to touch on 1 buck vs 2 buck tags. One thing to keep in mind is these words from the MDNR web site...
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10363_10856_10905-28543--,00.html

Some tough choices are ahead if we continue to aspire to a herd with 35 percent antlered bucks in the fall population. We have reached the point where further increases in antlerless deer harvest will not have much impact on the buck-to-doe ratio. To further improve the percentage of bucks in the fall herd, we will have to find acceptable ways to reduce the buck harvest.

Continued bucks-only hunting to rebuild herds may complicate the problem by placing all of the hunting pressure on antlered deer. That will decrease the buck-to-doe ratio and eventually return us to the situation where we started in the mid-1980s. Now, we should evaluate regulations that will allow the careful taking of specified numbers of antlerless deer in areas with smaller herds. We need to consider the advantages and disadvantages of regulations to reduce buck harvest in ways that are acceptable to hunters and landowners.

[buckslayerII]

"I thought Clute did a fine job explaining the "counting" process and I thought he did a good job talking about Ohio's system and also others that have mandatory call in checks. "

Bob - I thought he did a fine job as well, and I agree that mandatory checks probably aren't any better than our current system. It's the +/-2% accuracy he stated that made me chuckle, especially when he says the Ohio (the example he used) claims an accuracy somewhere in the mid-80% range - correct me if I heard that wrong.

I also agree that some changes in harvesting bucks would be nice. However, other than Jimmy mentioning the discussion of a 1 buck limit on next week's show, I've yet to hear anyone from the DNR discuss concerns with the buck harvest numbers. Granted, I might not be listening/talking to the right personnel, but the only place I've seen discussion is among us on this board and some reports I've read from the public meetings. It was not mentioned at all in my Roscommon meeting.

It is good to see the MDNR giving us some "heads up" on MOOD. I'd look forward to a 2-3 minute blurb from them on every show - could be as easy as a recorded phone conversation.

[William H Bonney]

I agree it was nice to finally see someone talk about it but I honestly believe we're worse off then we believe.


The most interesting thing he said was that their current way of estimating the harvest #'s for a given season only has an error of +/-2%!!!!! Come on, it'd be greater than that if they polled 100% of the hunters:~)) I agree that states with mandatory check-ins probably don't get any better numbers than MI, but 2%?!?!?!?!?


On that 2% deal,,, if you listened close,, that 2 % is +/- of what "they believe" the deer herd to be. I'm completely dumbfounded that I actually heard him say that. How on earth can you be + or - 2 % on an estimate to begin with???? How did they come up with the number "they believe" the herd to be in the first place??? That's the question Jimmy shoulda asked!!

[NorthJeff]

The same way they can poll 1000 voters from 100,000,000 and predict a president by + or - 4%....they can get an extremely accurate dead deer count by surveying 50,000 hunters out of 750,000. In fact, I'd be surprised if it was off as much as 2%.

On the otherhand, in states that have mandatory check-in, they openly admit they are only 80-85% accurate, and have to "fudge" in the numbers to make up the differance because that is how many people do not check their deer in, even though it is mandatory.

It's just math, and MI probably does a better job at counting dead deer, than most any other state in the country, even to the envy of wildlife biologists in other states that openly admit their systems are based more on PR, and a lot less on accuracy.

Counting dead deer is probably one of the most accurate things the DNR currently does, as far as deer numbers are concerned.

[dry flint]

What was interesting to me was
1. The +/-2% was statewide, he also stated that once it gets down to DMU level its more like +/-25 to 30% which was in line with what some other states claim as their statewide accuracy, and he felt good about that. If I think back to my college days and my statistical analysis class, with those results I would have had to take the class again.
2. The total herd population for Oct 2005 wont be calculated until May 2006 when the poll results are in. Then they will extrapolate that to get the Oct 2006 herd estimate. Then they will base the licensing policy for 2006. With this type of leap frog calculating I would be interested in the accuracy of past years.

???? Back in the 70"s when I took my hunter safty class, I was sure the instructor told us the deer population was calculated by input from Mail Carrier and County plow driver sitings during their routes. Anyone here of this and/or know if it was true and when this practice stopped.

[William H Bonney]

The same way they can poll 1000 voters from 100,000,000 and predict a president by + or - 4%....they can get an extremely accurate dead deer count by surveying 50,000 hunters out of 750,000. In fact, I'd be surprised if it was off as much as 2%.

On the otherhand, in states that have mandatory check-in, they openly admit they are only 80-85% accurate, and have to "fudge" in the numbers to make up the differance because that is how many people do not check their deer in, even though it is mandatory.

It's just math, and MI probably does a better job at counting dead deer, than most any other state in the country, even to the envy of wildlife biologists in other states that openly admit their systems are based more on PR, and a lot less on accuracy.

Counting dead deer is probably one of the most accurate things the DNR currently does, as far as deer numbers are concerned.
Tell Al Gore that:lol: All jokes aside, we may do a "decent" job on counting "dead deer", but its how he's going to arrive with a live figure is what puzzles me. I'll paraphrase what he said. He said by doing the estimates with the mailers on dead deer, they can calculate how many deer there "musta been" to begin with. Seriously,, how on earth are they coming up with this figure? " We killed 400,000 deer this year, so the number of live deer had to be X amount"(what "we believe" the amount to be). Sounds like "fuzzy math" to me.:rolleyes:

[jimmyboy]

How ya gonna calculate it if ya can't explain HOW ya calcaluate it?

[buckslayerII]

Off-topic: how do you quote just part of a previous post in yours?

On-topic: While watching that, I was also trying to convince my 5-yr-old daughter that it was time to stay in bed and that she didn't need to talk to mommy again, so I must've missed what the +/-2% actually applied to:lol: I thought he had referred to kill numbers, not overall population. It is just math AFTER assumptions are made.

That's an interesting article that BOB posted the link to. Read through it if you've got 15 minutes.

[Ferg]

Off-topic: how do you quote just part of a previous post in yours?



Hit the quote button - and then delete eveyrthing between that you don't want - being carful to leave the {quote=}and {/quote} part in the text -


ferg.....

[Finnlander]

I guess what we have to decide, is the overall size of the heard the most important thing or is it the populations of each individual DMU's. Having a camp in the Easten part of the UP, I can see where there numbers are skewed by 20% -35% and why people are so upset with the unequal disbursement of the herd. With having a potential of only a 65% accuracy in certain DMU's, Why would they question anyone being disgusted with them. Making a decision on the UP herd based the entire state is nuts.

Further more, I brought this up before and it was confirmed by CLUTE last night. There are a lot of "assumptions" they make with the surveys. Personelly I feel the + or -2% is a joke. You NEVER see any poll results that claim this accuracy. They have not been doing the surveys long enough to have the ability to be within the +- 2% range. NO WAY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!:dizzy: :dizzy:

I know there job of calculating the deer herd is darn near impossible and I do believe they are making strides in the right direction. I think they should be very careful claiming such accuracy, seeing that there credibility has been in question for many years.

[Ogre]

I'm trying to remember but I thought that Mr. Clute said that they simply took the survey response numbers and multiplied by 20 to come with the herd numbers for the previous year. Why the factor of 20 was used versus 19.5 or 24 was never explained. What was never explained was how last years x20 deer herd numbers become this years herd estimate. In other words what we are dealing with is a SWAG which is nothing more than what we already know.

[farmlegend]

With having a potential of only a 65% accuracy in certain DMU's, Why would they question anyone being disgusted with them.

I can think of one good reason: because the refrain from hunters is nearly always identical, regardless of circumstances, as is "not enough deer", "we don't have as many as they say", "we can't afford to reduce numbers by XX% or our kids will go to the mall", etc.

Even on this forum, any mention of the DNR's communications regarding anything at all about deer numbers is met by the same bitchfest.

[Finnlander]

Even on this forum, any mention of the DNR's communications regarding anything at all about deer numbers is met by the same bitchfest.
__________________



Nice attitude. Sorry if my opinion differs from yours. I guess you must be right. Tell me which part of my statement was incorrect instead of making a snide comment.

Do you seriously think they are within 2%. My family has been hunting the same grounds since 1936. I think we have a pretty good idea of our local herd.

[Ferg]

Wowa - easy fellas - back on track - sit down and breath - DO NOT get personal with these posts -

ferg....

[farmlegend]

Forget about opinions. In my post, I merely answered your question, which was, "With having a potential of only a 65% accuracy in certain DMU's, Why would they question anyone being disgusted with them". All I did was provide a reason why the DNR may get weary of those registering disgust.

I can well imagine, to the DNR, lots of noisy hunters sound a lot like a broken record.

[Finnlander]

FERG,

No problem here. I was just repeating what Clute stated last night. They could be as much as 35% off in individual DMU's. I was not aware quoting the man was a bitchfest. I like the idea of the DNR being a little more visable and interactive with the public. Does not mean I have to agree with everything he says. Overall I think they are doing a fine job. Just not buying the 2% number and I think it hurts there credibility claiming this.

[Finnlander]

FL,

Nevermind, I reread your post and agree they do hear a lot of complaining. Maybe some of it merited tho.

I guess you could get hardened hearing the same complaints over and over.

hopefully the DNR is on the right track. Being more public is always a good thing in my eyes. I appreciate that they will even entertain ideas.

[Liver and Onions]

I'm trying to remember but I thought that Mr. Clute said that they simply took the survey response numbers and multiplied by 20 to come with the herd numbers for the previous year. Why the factor of 20 was used versus 19.5 or 24 was never explained. What was never explained was how last years x20 deer herd numbers become this years herd estimate. In other words what we are dealing with is a SWAG which is nothing more than what we already know.

I think you may have misunderstood what Mr. Clute said. He said that the survey results multiplied by 20 would give the statewide deer kill. Deer kill, not deer herd size. 20 was used because about 1 out of 20 hunters will send in a survey. If the exact number of people buying a deer license was 710,000 and the exact number of hunters sending in a survey was 35,000 then the DNR would multiply by 20.29 and then round off.
It seems that I remember reading from past Deer Harvest Survey Results, that the margin of error was in the 3-4% range for statewide deer kill numbers. Not 2%. I'll check on that later.

L & O

[mecosta]

If you look at stats, you will find out quickly that if you are going to try and argue with the DNR about their stats on the deer kill you are going to loose your credibility on other issues fast. All of the things that people mention about people not sending them in, lying on what they shot because they used someone elses tag ect are part of the reason they have the +/- on the results. If you ask other states officers that have mandatory deer checks ect. I think that you would find that they would accross the board say our system for counting the overall deer kill is more accurate than theirs.

I was surprised about the DMU's possibly being off as much as they were. That is what everyone has said is the problem all along anyways. Maybe even though some sort of mandatory check would be better for the state even though the overall estimate would not be as accurate. The problem is with the management not being specific to certain areas anyway. Who cares if the overall # is off as long as the individual DMU's are more accurate?

[Whit1]

???? Back in the 70"s when I took my hunter safty class, I was sure the instructor told us the deer population was calculated by input from Mail Carrier and County plow driver sitings during their routes. Anyone here of this and/or know if it was true and when this practice stopped.

It wasn't deer that were counted in such a manner, but pheasants.

[Whit1]

[quote=Finnlander]IThey have not been doing the surveys long enough to have the ability to be within the +- 2% range. NO WAY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!:dizzy: :dizzy:
quote]

The MDNR has been working on their method of determining the deer harvest for over a 1/2 century. Yes, they have been working on it long enough to develop a statistically accurate model that has been peer reviewed.

Until last year I was a big fan of mandatory deer check-in, but after contacting state wildlife specialists in Ohio, WI, MO, and Maryland I've come to appreciate the accuracy of the way our DNR does the job.

I've printed email correspondence between a Ohio biologist and myself in which he praises MI's system over Ohio's. With mandatory deer check-in they NO IDEA of how to figure in non-complying hunters. There is no statisitcally accurate model for them to use so it is only guesswork.

Don't kid yourself guys and gals our DNR knows how to determine a harvest in an reasonably accurate manner. I had a hard time swallowing this myself, but if you do the research and be willing to admit that you were wrong (that's the biggest swallow...:lol:...it was for me!!!) you'll find that perhaps our DNR does know what they're doing.

[Ranger Ray]

Until last year I was a big fan of mandatory deer check-in, but after contacting state wildlife specialists in Ohio, WI, MO, and Maryland I've come to appreciate the accuracy of the way our DNR does the job.

I've printed email correspondence between a Ohio biologist and myself in which he praises MI's system over Ohio's. With mandatory deer check-in they NO IDEA of how to figure in non-complying hunters. There is no statisitcally accurate model for them to use so it is only guesswork.

That was a great post and changed my view on mandatory checks from in favor to against.

[olliek]

Rod Clute explained the deer kill figures at the NELP meeting last wed. this way: The DNR mails 50,000 surveys to license holders after the end of the deer season. They recieve about 35,000 returns. Based on those return numbers, they multipy the figures by 20 to reach thier estimated kill numbers.
Statistics have shown over the last 20 years or so, they have a + or - 2% or close to 4% accuracy. The 20 multipier comes from the approx 700,000 deer licenses sold. FWIW.

[William H Bonney]

[quote=Finnlander]IThey have not been doing the surveys long enough to have the ability to be within the +- 2% range. NO WAY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!:dizzy: :dizzy:
quote]

The MDNR has been working on their method of determining the deer harvest for over a 1/2 century. Yes, they have been working on it long enough to develop a statistically accurate model that has been peer reviewed.

Until last year I was a big fan of mandatory deer check-in, but after contacting state wildlife specialists in Ohio, WI, MO, and Maryland I've come to appreciate the accuracy of the way our DNR does the job.

I've printed email correspondence between a Ohio biologist and myself in which he praises MI's system over Ohio's. With mandatory deer check-in they NO IDEA of how to figure in non-complying hunters. There is no statisitcally accurate model for them to use so it is only guesswork.

Don't kid yourself guys and gals our DNR knows how to determine a harvest in an reasonably accurate manner. I had a hard time swallowing this myself, but if you do the research and be willing to admit that you were wrong (that's the biggest swallow...:lol:...it was for me!!!) you'll find that perhaps our DNR does know what they're doing.
Whit,, I've eaten crow before, actually more than once, but if all this is true,, and our DNR have such accurate numbers,, HOW ON EARTH HAS THIS TURNED INTO SUCH A DEBACLE!! That 2 % difference is based on "their guess" of how many deer are there.

I'll ask this again. If the numbers they have are that accurate and have been for 20 years, HOW ON EARTH HAS THIS TURNED INTO SUCH A DEBACLE???

[Whit1]

I'll ask this again. If the numbers they have are that accurate and have been for 20 years, HOW ON EARTH HAS THIS TURNED INTO SUCH A DEBACLE???

There are many reasons I'm sure and mine are only an opinion, but I'd hazzard to say the reasons would entail..in part.....

The interfence of politics/special interests

Demands of hunters to have a large deer herd above carrying capacity in many areas

The infestation of TB in a wild deer herd in part of the state

The threat of CWD

Hunters taking too many deer bucks and/or does OR not enough does

The science of deer management is not an exact science in that unlike a factory that produces a product that is easily inventoried, whitetails move around a great deal making them difficult to count.

Greed..........I'll let the readers of this post fill in the blank!

In truth some areas of the state offer excellent deer hunting while others do not. The deer herd is probably not in the "mess" that we sometimes make it out to be. Some of the "mess" may only be in our minds and yes, there are some major exceptions to this and I speak of NE Lower MI and the vast areas of state and federal property in the northern 2/3rds of the state.......UP and LP.

There are areas of interesting success, it appears. The MARS DMUs in the Central U.P. appears to be showing promise. I sure would like to see the final DNR data from the Clare DMU area. That also showed promise.

On the education front I think NorthJeff did an outstanding job in promoting a U.P. wide MARS area. That vote/survey showed over 60% approval. Jeff and I disagree on MARS, but kudos have to go out to the guy for putting his money, miles (many driving all over the U.P.), and grit. He took (takes) a lot of grief, but he keeps at it. Ed Spin can be put in the same class. Those guys believe in a certain deer management method and work to get it implemented.

All too often in these forums we focus (I'm guilty) on what divides us rather than set foot in and base our ideas on what unites us.

One thing we must get rid of if we are to survive is the concept, communicated directly or by inference, that deer management has to be done "MY WAY".

Okay, that's enough of my soapbox speechola!.........:lol:

[William H Bonney]

I'll buy half of those reasons Whit. Correct me if I'm wrong though, from what I've gathered from all the discussions regarding the deer herd is that the UP and NLP hunters aren't seeing any deer. To be honest,, I'm really starting to feel sorry for the people that hunt those areas.

[Whit1]

I'll buy half of those reasons Whit. Correct me if I'm wrong though, from what I've gathered from all the discussions regarding the deer herd is that the UP and NLP hunters aren't seeing any deer. To be honest,, I'm really starting to feel sorry for the people that hunt those areas.

You are correct in your summation of what are reading on these boards. Yes, there are hunters in the UP and NLP who are doing well and my hat is off to them, but the vast majority are suffering to varying degrees.

Here in NW Manistee County the hunting is still decent, although not at all what it was five years ago.

I haven't shot a buck in three years, taking 2 does in that time, but that was my choice. I did see spikehorns, but let them pass. I've shot enough deer/bucks in my time, with two wall hangers that I look at every day, and other well antlered bucks that COULD have been taken if I hadn't made the mistakes that I made at the time of opportunity.:lol:

Don't "feel sorry" guys like me though. We live up here and have other forms of recreational endeavors. I can walk out any door of the house and be deer hunting within 2 minutes and trout fishing (in season) in 10 minutes.

[Huntsman27]

Those spikes or does taste just as good as an 8pt. Its all about filling the freezer.

[Munsterlndr]

I think the largest area of the NLP that people are not seeing any deer in is the TB area. This is not the result of DNR mismanagement, it is the intended result of the TB eradication program. How quickly we forget the the threat that TB posed to Michigan deer hunting just a few short years ago.

I hunt in the Western part of the NLP. In Leelanau County I saw plenty of deer this year and was able to harvest a nice doe. I also hunted on some private land in Antrim County, where I took another doe during muzzleloading season. During that muzzleloading hunt, I saw 18 deer walking out of a cedar swamp in one afternoon. Mind you, this is after two months of bow season and after the regular rifle season and 6 deer had already been harvested off of this 80 acre parcel during during the regular seasons. Are there areas where there are fewer deer? Sure but the overall picture is not as bleak as you would imagine from hearing a lot of hunters B****.

[fairfax1]

Here's my opinion regarding 'debacle'.

Where you stand depends upon where you sit. Meaning, if you sit in the NLP or the UP ....hunting ain't what is was. If you sit in the SLP ...man, things are great.

Michigan is such a diverse state...north to south. That's why the State...who knows how many years ago....set up their hunting 'zones' into 3 parts.

We all come to this meeting place...M-S forums....with what could be very diverse experiences. You sit in the Superior side of the UP and see little; Skippy sits near Alpena and doesn't see what he use to see..and he's p*ssed; I sit in Montcalm and am overrun by deer. Who's view is legitimate? Who should the DNR listen to?

I respect your view...understanding that maybe much of it could be emotional....but I really don't think what we have here is a 'debacle'. It's a communication problem and it's an expectation problem.

Communication problem....in that the DNR could be more active in explaining what they are doing and why....hell, every county seat newspaper out there is starvin' for copy...why the DNR doesn't send press releases to those little newspapers explaining there goals, their methodology, their poll survey...I'll never know. If I was their PR department I'd be spittin' "our story" to every editor in every county-rag every week. And it's the rural rags that hit most of the hunter community.

Then, it's an expectation problem....in that all of us hunters,first, remember the hordes of deer we had in the '90's; AND THEN, we see the hookn'bullet press toutin' the next "big buck" with photos of antlers galore.
We think it should be the way it was and we think it should be the way "North American Whitetail" shows it on their cover.

I also find credible Eric Sharpe's theory that Michigan just plain has too many hunters. And that saturation of habitat by too many human predators breeds an unhealthy competition for a limited resource.

I'm deadsolidperfectly convinced that that is fact. I think.

[Whit1]

That's a great post Fairfax in which you make a lot of valid points!

[jimmyboy]

Very well presented points Fairfax1-makes great food for thought.

[farmlegend]

I'm deadsolidperfectly convinced...

I knew it! Fairfax read all those Dan Jenkins novels.:D

[William H Bonney]

Great post fairfax. All great and valid points, which brings us back to Clute's "math". Most of the deer number arguements seem to revolve around the upper half of the state. I guess we could all agree,, "sumthin ain't right" with the numbers up there. I fimly believe, if the numbers are accurate, there would be no need for all these "meetings and discussions".

[Ibow]

Here's some numbers re current populations prior to this past Oct 1 in the NWLP management unit ...

Benzie County - 20% below goal.
Grand Traverse County - 27% below goal.
Kalkaska County - 30% below goal.
Lake County - 37% below goal.
Leelanau County - 24% below goal.
Manistee County - 19% below goal.
Mason County - 15% below goal.
Mecosta County - 38% ABOVE goal.
Missaukee County - 20% below goal.
Newaygo County - at goal.
Oceana County - 10% below goal.
Wexford County - 23% below goal.

It's one thing for them to have lowered their population goals from where they were in the late 80's and 90's. But now it would appear as though they cannot figure out how to get back to or down to even their current goals ... With land ownership patterns being what they are in the NLP and UP, apparently using the sex/age/kill model for counting deer doesn't work real well for DMU's with county lines as borders. It might help if they returned to real DMU's ... right now the field biologists don't have a clue how many deer they have at any given point and how many have been harvested at any given point.

[SIZE-MATTERS]

I am also one that didnt believe what the DNR said about how they counted deer. Not for a second did i believe them. Then sometime in the last year or so DEER AND DEER HUNTING magazine did an article on the SAK method of counting deer, thats SEX,AGE,KILL. Alot of the top deer biologists in the country agree this is the best method of counting deer. Ill go back and look over my old issues to see if i can find it and let you know what issue it was in. But after reading this i changed my mind.

fairfax1, i asked that question ''why dont you send a press release to shopping guides like we have here in eaton county'', i was told only major papers with large distrbutions were sent one. I then asked if i could put one there myself to help inform Eaton county of up coming meetings with the DNR. The answer i got was i could but just had to copy what they put in the larger papers, date-time-topic. I agree more people in this area read that shopping guide more than any other. So ill take it upon myself to let people know around here what is going on. I agree totally that information is key so the more people we get it too the better.

[Whit1]

I am also one that didnt believe what the DNR said about how they counted deer. Not for a second did i believe them. Then sometime in the last year or so DEER AND DEER HUNTING magazine did an article on the SAK method of counting deer, thats SEX,AGE,KILL. Alot of the top deer biologists in the country agree this is the best method of counting deer. Ill go back and look over my old issues to see if i can find it and let you know what issue it was in. But after reading this i changed my mind.
.


If you find the issue let me know; I'd like to read it.

[Ibow]

The S-A-K method works great in areas of like land ownership patterns. But when you're talking the northern lower and upper, it has been a complete disaster - look at the results after just a few short years of DMU border changes. :(