farm hunter wrote:
I can explain this further if you would like - but I already feel - that what I've written will bore most people.
Well you are not boring me and it shouldn't bore anybody that is concerned and cares about deer management here in NY.
You make some good points as well and in fact I don't disagree with most of what you say. We'll just have to agree to disagree on the definition of how you determine if a herd is healthy or not.
farmhunter wrote:
You assume that there hasn't been any problems - and that the management goals have remained the same over the last 60 years.
Actually I don't assume there haven't been any problems, I said that I don't see any evidence of problems and that the people who claim there is a problem don't provide any evidence to back up their claim. My personal observation is that the deer I see and take are/were healthy and strong.
I agree that the management goals have changed in the last 10 years but AR advocates still argue for example that we still have high doe:buck ratios for example and that this is "unhealthy". Well that, without a controlled study demonstrating it, is only speculation. I simply don't believe you can say "the doe:buck ratio is X therefore the herd is not healthy" or "the average age of buck in the herd is X therefore the herd is not healthy. I believe the health of the herd is determined by what I have said before...
If the individuals within the population display a normal or low incidence of maladies i.e. disease, genetic disorders, nutritional deficiency and also display other physical characteristics within the normal range for their age e.g. weight I would consider the herd healthy.
Again, I am primarily against AR because IMO it promotes a trophy hunting mentality that is in the long run is unhealthy for the sport. I believe it would indeed result in more trophies taken but when I look at the big picture I believe it would net out as a negative.