Texas hunters generally agree Texas deer are smaller. You'll always have some acceptations, but the north-south thing has a lot of merit. Also, private ranches don't count at all. They can breed bigger deer.


http://discussions.texasbowhunter.co...d.php?t=495578

What TX lacks in size they make up for in numbers and the licenses reflect that. On the standard license you can take at least 5 deer. Some counties allow more. And, if you want you can fill all the deer tags with does so if meat is your thing (which it is if you're concerned about body size), then TX is pretty generous. Face it if you understand basic math it isn't too hard to figure out that 5 100 pound deer will give you a lot more meat than a single 200 lb deer. Many of the ranches are really proud of their big bucks, but that can be said in all states look at what a landowner voucher in CO can cost, but many ranches in TX will let you take does for free since they try to manage the herds and care more about antlers than meat.

Not trying to turn this into a TX vs everybody else thread. As a matter of fact despite the fact that I'm now working in TX I maintain my CO residency purely for resident hunting licenses. But I'm only doing so until I draw my bull tag for unit 2. I'm sitting on 21 points and that should get it next year. After that I'll switch my residency to TX so I can hunt year round for a $50 license. Not many places you can do that.

Each state has its pluses and minuses. In keeping with the OP's original question, those of you that say you will head to the high country aren't thinking about surviving the winter if everything goes belly up. Even the Indians headed to low winter range. If you think you can survive way up high, you're probably misguided. Hence my comment about heading to a southern river bottom. Much easier to survive since the winters are mild and water is handy. But, to each his own since it is a rhetorical question at best.

Living in the mountains is much easier in these times. People in a Alaska deal with more than I would here in Colorado. All you need is a sturdy cabin, and a snowmobile for the hard parts of winter. The rest of the time my Jeep will work. Hot weather drains me. I love the cold. A couple of elk, some deer, and lots of small game will be all I need each year. Plus, lots of mountain brookies.

I've thought of doing it many times without needing a disaster.

Have you ever heard of a guy named Dick Proenneke? He lived off the grid in AK for quite a while and hand built a cabin etc... and even he couldn't do it without some outside support. He had supplies flown in a couple times a year. He filmed a lot of his time up there and the films are still available. See what he did to make a cabin and live there and ask yourself if you could do the same at 70+ years of age? Remember when he started he was in his early 50s and he had been a master builder for the Navy's Seabees so he was pretty skilled at building things. Are you?

Not to burst your bubble but the odds of you surviving way up high at 70+ years of age are slim at best. Most likely you wouldn't last a year. Reality can suck but that doesn't make it any less reality.

which brings us to cannibalism. human would most likely be one of the easiest species to hunt and they are everywhere.

I imagine this will offend the delicate sensibilities of some but when the restraints of society break down this will quickly become a viable option.
even if you balk at eating human there will be those willing to eat you.

What is the other option? Live in the city and starve?

I'd get it done even if I lived in a tent. I wouldn't just give up like the majority would. I'm into the mountain man era. I have skills, and nobody said I have to do it all alone. I wouldn't be the only one with the same plans.

The funny thing about many people claiming they could just magically survive is that almost none of them have any real training or experience in doing so. I had to go through some pretty extensive survival training when I was on active duty and the first thing you realize is that your "great plan" is the first casualty. Take your "plan" and throw it away because things happen that you will not have planned for, then what do you do? Hurry up and make a decision because your very life depends on it.

You sure like to argue. I said what i'd do, and that's what i'd do. You have no idea what survival training I have. I've lived in the mountains the majority of my life. Even when I was in California I was at 7800ft.

I don't need your approval, and if I die I die, but i'd die trying.

Please no more red quotes.

I thought the premise was some sort of collapse. In which case meat would be meat. We had some pretty wild cattle running around Fort Hood, and I've heard stories from the old days about the range cattle. So, I guess it would be something close to hunting bison, or cape buffalo on a lessor scale.

The game populations could not support our population for very long. Then it wouldn't take very long for people to figure out where to look for meat. If you've already butchered it for them all the better.
Humor? Oh, I get it.

Think again.

The traditional deer population is smaller than the northern ones. Which is the way it goes for all populations. But many of the deer on larger properties are transplanted and bred for trophy appeal. This is why you see some larger deer coming out of various "hunting" operations. But if things are not going well and various luxuries like freezers have ceased to operate. A smaller deer would be preferred in the warmer weather as would small game, and fish in general. So point Texas.

Precolumbian Native Americans had an average lifespan of 25 years. All skeletal remains examined showed signs of malnutrition.

I equate cannibalism with shopping at Walmart. I only do it when it's absolutely necessary.

If you look at Texas alone it does appear to be a good choice. But as you back up and see the neighborhood. There would be an influx from all directions before too long. bellum omnium contra omnes. So, as Muley said higher elevations and harsher climates would buy you sometime. Alaska might not be the best choice but perhaps Canada's western territories would be the place to head. I'm sure Canada would attempt to keep the law and order mechanism in place as long as possible. Certainly, the bugs alone would keep people away during the warmer months. But the First Nations population would have to be avoided.

In the end the people who stuck together would have the best chance of survival. Simply rebuilding what has already proven itself as an effective system. Doesn't really sound all that bad does it?

Looks like another time we are going to have to agree to disagree Pete. I am allowed to disagree with you right?