ORIGINAL: chickory
ORIGINAL: bearklr
1994 157,030 238,051
1995 182,235 248,348
1996 153,432 197,565
1997 176,677 220,339 tags 797,000 used 745,000
1998 181,449 196,040 tags 797,000 used 745,000
1999 194,368 184,224 tags 890,000 used ?
2000 203,221 301,379 tags 830,650 used 828,000
2001 203,247 282,767 tags 780,250 concurrent season
2002 165,416 352,113 tags 1,029,350.
2003 142,270 322,620 tags 1,040,000
when you have low tag allocations you will have a high antlered harvest follow
when you have a high tag alloc. you will have a lower antlered harvest follow
So let me get this straight. If the tag allocations are really low than the following year the anter harvest will be really high because there are more doe popping out deer and vice versa. That means with tag allocations being at an 8 year low in 2001 then we should have had a he// of a year in 2002. Oh wait...we didn't. Your proof positive explanation and data sure make your argument rock solid
.
yep, they sure do killer.
because in 2001 we had some thing that changed the hunters success rate. Like concurrent seasons
something like that or the converse like switching from rifle to shotgun affect success rate. But if you have no change to success rate then you have a pretty predictable outcome, just like the article from our friends at the PGC says.
Lets go down to the chart again and review the numbers. Put your finger on the first line....move it over and down some..... ype, thats it and it says.....less deer = less deer
OK lets look at you "rock solid" data. I'll try and make this as simple as possible. So you are telling me that concurrent seasons have changed the hunters success rates. Now what I want you to do is put your finger on the antler harvest for 2000 and note that number (write it down if you have to) Now move your finger to 2001 in the same column (that would be down
) and note the drastic change you were talking about in success rate...oh...wait a second it didn't really change at all. Now put you finger on the doe harvest for 2000 (once again write the number down
) now move your finger down once again and note the drastic increase in hunters success for concurent seasons. Holy $#@! I can't believe it. The doe harvest actually FELL by a whopping 18,000 which in the overall picture isn't that much of a change in success rate. And if it did come into play it would only harm you previous argument of tag allocations because more doe in the woods (Due to the drastic decrease in success from 2000 to 2001) would mean MORE buck the next year (as you stated earlier) when in fact there was less. So maybe you should be the one learning how to move you finger around the chart.