|
RE: stupidest regs
wow some pretty friged up regs
|
RE: stupidest regs
[quote]ORIGINAL: bigtim6656
i fell good about indiana now. Not sure which one is the worst here. i would say the fact you must by a license for each derr you buy 25 each for your normale license and 25 for the first bonus anterless and 15 for the rest. But we can kill 7 deer in my county and the next county i can get 8 more and if i went county to county i could kill more then 300 does [quote] I don't have to buy a license for each. in fact I never will have to buy one in Indiana again. Liftime license sure is nice. |
RE: stupidest regs
Man I love Missouri!
The only one I can think of right now is the antler restrictions. I really don't like those. |
RE: stupidest regs
ORIGINAL: robbcayman ORIGINAL: minnesotadeer We are only allowed one deer per year now too in pretty much the southern half of the state because they claim numbers are down substantially. It was just in the paper this past weekend that statwide, about 62,000 some archery hunters took about 24,000 deer, giving bowhunters a success rate of just over 24 percent. Compare that to gun hunters who took 216,000 plus deer with a 37 percent success rate. Instead of complaining about it, I actually approached the Big Game director via e-mail, asking if they'd consider allowing bowhunters a buck and doe tag, so they could still only take one doe for population management purposes. I used the reasoning of the lower success rate and that the influx of new bowhunters due to this change would be minimal - and that the DNR always has the freedom to change it back if they feel it causes problems. He said they'd consider it. I can see your point, but at $10 a pop times maybe another 10,000-15,000 deer or so, if that high,I'm thinking they don't consider the extra tag revenue enough of a factor. I'm waiting to see the new population density maps come out on the DNR web site and to see in a year or two if the one deer limit and limited doe gun tags has made a difference and will eventually allow us two again. At least they're trying to keep a good population (it's usually well over a million estimated deer to 500,000 hunters who harvest about 200,000 of them), I guess versus some states that try to eradicate it. The other thing to consider is that there are many more gun hunters in our state, about 9 times as many,as there are bowhunters. Getting an extra permit because of weapon choice wouldn't likely sit well with them. |
RE: stupidest regs
In MA, No Hunting on Sunday.[:@]
|
RE: stupidest regs
well the only one i cant understand is in missouri you can only take one buck before rifle season and then your next after rifle season. or take both after rifle season. its like they are scared we are gonna shoot all the bucks so the gun hunters wont have any to hunt.....whatever. i still have unlimited does in my county.
|
RE: stupidest regs
In Pennsylvania, it is illegal to wear pants while hunting.
|
RE: stupidest regs
ORIGINAL: quiksilver In Pennsylvania, it is illegal to wear pants while hunting. |
RE: stupidest regs
Step aside people................... for I live in Massachusetts-
land of the idiot, liberal, do-nothing, give-away-everything wombats! This one beats everything I've read so far (and I've read them all) When you purchase your deer hunting license here in MA, you automatically get two (2) buck tags & zero (0) doe tags. In order to legally take a doe in MA, one must apply first for an antlerless permit for a specific zone (of which, there are 14). If picked, you are only allowed to take ONE (1) doe in that specific zone- no other! If you're not picked, tough luck- you can try to apply for anantlerless permit in a zone that still has remaining doe tags available. This- in a state that has about an 8;1 doe to buck ratio (and that's a conservative estimate). What do you think of that doozy!! Rob |
RE: stupidest regs
This- in a state that has about an 8;1 doe to buck ratio (and that's a conservative estimate). |
RE: stupidest regs
ORIGINAL: GMMAT This- in a state that has about an 8;1 doe to buck ratio (and that's a conservative estimate). Believe me- it's possible. - We have an ocean that borders 2/5th's of our state's total boundaries (so they ain't leaving or coming in that way). - The eastern 1/3 of our state is DENSELY populated (so no hunting allowed whatsoever in ALOT of these cities/towns). - 1/2 of our northern border is shared with a state (VT)that, for the most part,doesn't allow does to be taken (so does coming in from VT only add to our doe population). - We have the CT River dividing the western-most 1/3rd of the state from the eastern-most 2/3rd's (this significantly keeps alot of the does on the side of the river which is substantially more densely populated & where hunting isn't allowed). Combined withyears & yearsof theabove-mentioned "strict doe-taking limits", what do the think the result would be? Rob |
RE: stupidest regs
here you buy a tag for each deer
ORIGINAL: minnesotadeer ORIGINAL: robbcayman ORIGINAL: minnesotadeer We are only allowed one deer per year now too in pretty much the southern half of the state because they claim numbers are down substantially. It was just in the paper this past weekend that statwide, about 62,000 some archery hunters took about 24,000 deer, giving bowhunters a success rate of just over 24 percent. Compare that to gun hunters who took 216,000 plus deer with a 37 percent success rate. Instead of complaining about it, I actually approached the Big Game director via e-mail, asking if they'd consider allowing bowhunters a buck and doe tag, so they could still only take one doe for population management purposes. I used the reasoning of the lower success rate and that the influx of new bowhunters due to this change would be minimal - and that the DNR always has the freedom to change it back if they feel it causes problems. He said they'd consider it. I can see your point, but at $10 a pop times maybe another 10,000-15,000 deer or so, if that high,I'm thinking they don't consider the extra tag revenue enough of a factor. I'm waiting to see the new population density maps come out on the DNR web site and to see in a year or two if the one deer limit and limited doe gun tags has made a difference and will eventually allow us two again. At least they're trying to keep a good population (it's usually well over a million estimated deer to 500,000 hunters who harvest about 200,000 of them), I guess versus some states that try to eradicate it. The other thing to consider is that there are many more gun hunters in our state, about 9 times as many,as there are bowhunters. Getting an extra permit because of weapon choice wouldn't likely sit well with them. |
RE: stupidest regs
OK.....I was hoping we wouldn't have to do this....lol....but here goes...
Let's say (just to keep things simple) that your buck:doe ratio IS 1:8. Let's also make some assumptions....and if you don't agree with them....we'll back up and punt or call another play. Let's assume that each fall there are 80,000 does and 10,000 bucks in the "herd" (1:8). Let's say that 2/3 of the does get bred, successfully. So now we have 53,600 pregnant does. Let's assume (and this will help your assertion ;)) that they only give birth, on average to one fawn, each. So now we have 53,600 new deer in the herd. OK....the chances of a deer fawn being a doe or a fawn are 50%. So....we now have 26,800 more bucks in the herd than we had when the mating season began. Now....to recap....our herd is now 143,600 strong. What kind of %-age do you want to use as a fawn mortality rate? Let's use 20%. So we now only have 21,440doe fawns and 21,440 buck fawns.What about mortality rate for the adults? Let's use 10% (VERY low, likely....especially for your climate). So now we have 72,000 does and 9,000 bucks. Catching up.....we have 72,000 does,9,000 bucks.....21,440 doe fawns and 21,440 buck fawns. Total herd of 123,880....of which 30,440 are bucks and 93,440 are does. Your buck:doe ratio is "roughly" 1:3. Where did I go wrong? |
RE: stupidest regs
ORIGINAL: GMMAT OK.....I was hoping we wouldn't have to do this....lol....but here goes... Let's say (just to keep things simple) that your buck:doe ratio IS 1:8. Let's also make some assumptions....and if you don't agree with them....we'll back up and punt or call another play. Let's assume that each fall there are 80,000 does and 10,000 bucks in the "herd" (1:8). Let's say that 2/3 of the does get bred, successfully. So now we have 53,600 pregnant does. Let's assume (and this will help your assertion ;)) that they only give birth, on average to one fawn, each. So now we have 53,600 new deer in the herd. OK....the chances of a deer fawn being a doe or a fawn are 50%. So....we now have 26,800 more bucks in the herd than we had when the mating season began. Now....to recap....our herd is now 143,600 strong. What kind of %-age do you want to use as a fawn mortality rate? Let's use 20%. So we now only have 21,440doe fawns and 21,440 buck fawns.What about mortality rate for the adults? Let's use 10% (VERY low, likely....especially for your climate). So now we have 72,000 does and 9,000 bucks. Catching up.....we have 72,000 does,9,000 bucks.....21,440 doe fawns and 21,440 buck fawns. Total herd of 123,880....of which 30,440 are bucks and 93,440 are does. Your buck:doe ratio is "roughly" 1:3. Where did I go wrong? You went "wrong" with not accounting for the strict limits placed on being able to take a doe. You went "wrong" on your "2/3rd's of the does get successfully bred" guesstimate. Once a buck hooks up with a doe, he ain't leaving her for another doe until she will no longer stand for breeding. All the while, there are other does who are able to be bred & AREN'T being bred. Try your calculation again with THIS assumption- 1/4 of the does get bred. Add to that the the mortality rate of bucks being higher than that of does- I'd say 2 to 1. Now re-run your calculation with those parameters & see what kind of numbers you come up with. Rob |
RE: stupidest regs
You went "wrong" in not accounting for the ability for each MA hunter to take TWO bucks with one license in a single year. You went "wrong" with not accounting for the strict limits placed on being able to take a doe. You went "wrong" on your "2/3rd's of the does get successfully bred" guesstimate. Once a buck hooks up with a doe, he ain't leaving her for another doe until she will no longer stand for breeding. All the while, there are other does who are able to be bred & AREN'T being bred. Try your calculation again with THIS assumption- 1/4 of the does get bred. Add to that the the mortality rate of bucks being higher than that of does- I'd say 2 to 1. |
RE: stupidest regs
ORIGINAL: ducsauce Dan...maybe I shouldn't say what Virginia allows but I'll say it anyway.;) We're allowed six deer per year, three of those are either-sex tags. We can also buy unlimited "bonus" tags for does. I feel for you man. That's rough. |
RE: stupidest regs
ORIGINAL: GMMAT So when is your number valid? Before the season? After the season? Tell me and we'll back up and start over! What's your estimated herd in MA? Whats the harvst report for bucks taken? Does? When do you (what month) want to begin the exercise? See question, above. The numbers CAN NOT be "moving" once the season is over and all kills have been reported. OK...but you're way off. That would have every buck ONLY breeding 2 does, each. Thats a VERY conservative "guess"...and it's HIGHLY unrealistic even in more balanced herds. We'll meet somewhere in the middle if you want...but you have to see the writing on the wall.;) I wanna know where you pulled this from. Cite "something"!....lol OK, I'll try to address every question you asked & then askthree of my own. - My numbers are valid from the beginning of the hunting season (~10/13) as the survey is executed starting in July & finishes in September. My numbers aren't "moving" as you would like to imply. They are "static" and are tracked 6-year trailing. This means the DF&W tracks these numbers and publishes them along with the previous 5 year's data. - 85,000-90,000 deer herd in MA - 2006 Harvest Report (2007 not published yet) is as follows: * 10,479 total deer reported (7,088-gun / 3391-bow) * Average total harvest (since 2000) 11,758 * 2006 deer harvest breakdown by sex: 7,197-bucks / 3282-does (like I said, more like 2 to 1 mortality rate for bucks to does, this is in DIRECT corrolation to our retarded Harvest limits for does/bucks). - Bowhunters - 250,000 (that's 3+ bowhunters for every deer in thestate!) DOESN'T Include gun hunters- how's that for pressure? - You want me to "cite" something? Other thanyour apparent ignorance of our MA state deer herd? My numbers come from: Mass. Dept. of Fish & Wildlife 251 Causeway St. #400 Boston, MA 02114 617.626.1500 http://mass.gov/dfwele/ Now, here aremy3 questions to you (I'm dying to hear your response): - How many days, in the last 6 years, have you spent hunting Whitetail Deer in MA? - How many days, in the last 6 years, have you spent scouting Whitetail Deer in MA? - How many deer have you ever legally harvested in MA? Now who is "LOL" ??? :D The "writing on the wall" that you failed to comprehend, is the cumulative affect that the whacked out harvest limits (by sex) have created with respect to the buck;doe ratio here in MA. I've spent the last 44 years in MA- the last 26 hunting whitetail deer. I say with conviction that there are many hunters in this state who will attempt to harvest the first buck that comes within lethal range of their weapon of choice. Whether it's a 1.5 year old spike or a 4.5 year old 135 class mainframe 8. Many of these same hunters have to sit and pass as doe after doe walk by within range- because they have no legal permit to harvest any doe in the Zone in which they are hunting. Sad but true. Rob |
RE: stupidest regs
he is probably right I live in the neighboring state of R.I. and i would estimate the ratio to be similar. There is way more does than bucks . the mortality rate is to high for them
|
RE: stupidest regs
"Mortality rate" for the sake of resource management doesn't include harvest numbers. Totally separate. But we'll go with your fgures.
Let's use 90K as the herd pop. to keep things easy. My numbers are valid from the beginning of the hunting season - You want me to "cite" something? Other thanyour apparent ignorance of our MA state deer herd? So let's use these "cited" numbers. Total herd on 10/13.......90,000 Total number of does taken .......3282 Total number of Bucks taken.......7,197 Total number of herd - Post season - 79,521 Now....assuming you have a ("albeit in my mind RIDICULOUSLY high) 1:8 buck:doe ratio, let's do the math....again. You'd have roughly 8,836 bucks when the season is completed (and let me add.....your hunters are freakin AWESOME if they're finding all these elsuive creatures;)). You'd also have roughly 70,688 does. Total herd of 79,524. I'll even cave and give you your un-cited but again RIDICULOULSY low successful bred rate of 25%......but if we're gonna do that......we're ALSO gonna figure in a percentage of twins. You got your off-the-wall number enetered. I'll enter mine. I'll figure 1/2 the bred does to give birth to twins. Doesn't sound like too much of a stretch, to me. So.....17,672 does will drop 26,508 fawns.....1/2 of which WILL be bucks (on average). So now we have (total herd numbers).....your beginning 79,524 + 26,508 = 106,032 total herd.,,,of which we have 22,090 bucks. Buck:Doe ratio is now 1:5. We can go into REAL Mortality rates if you like.......and we can project these figures over 5 years if you want....and extrapolate. But it ain't gonna get any BETTER.....for you (or...should I say...for your doom and gloom outlook). Now who is "LOL" ??? :D Now, here aremy3 questions to you (I'm dying to hear your response): - How many days, in the last 6 years, have you spent hunting Whitetail Deer in MA? - How many days, in the last 6 years, have you spent scouting Whitetail Deer in MA? - How many deer have you ever legally harvested in MA? 2. See No. 1 3. See No. 1 If I hunted and scouted in MA.....would it change the way your deer herd replenishes itself? |
RE: stupidest regs
Jeff & Graydawg
I actually made up an excell spreadsheet that will calculate over time the B/D ratio inputting the different variables. Jeff is right, that the B/D ratio heading into hunting season can't be 8:1. BUT I will give graydawg some slack that a "percieved" B:D ratio can really look skewed when youobserve fawns and count them as "does". |
RE: stupidest regs
BUT I will give graydawg some slack that a "percieved" B:D ratio can really look skewed when youobserve fawns and count them as "does". By simple math it is nearly IMPOSSIBLE fora deer herd to ever get to much greater than 1:4 over a period of time. Hunter "perception" can see it differently....and again I used to as well. |
RE: stupidest regs
I did find one scenario that balances out to a 6:1 B/D ratio.
You have to kill 15% of your does in hunting season and assume that only half the number of does get bred and produce only one fawn each if they do. Have a 5% doe mortality outside of that. Kill 85% of your bucks in hunting season Have a 15% buck mortality Use a 20% doe fawn mortality and a 30% buck fawn mortality. That will give you a 6:1 B:D ratio heading into hunting season and keep your overall deer pops steady. |
RE: stupidest regs
Hell I could come up with a scenario that wipes bucks out completely, Ryan!....lol
You have to kill 15% of your does in hunting season and assume that only half the number of does get bred and produce only one fawn each if they do. Have a 5% doe mortality outside of that. Kill 85% of your bucks in hunting season Have a 15% buck mortality Use a 20% doe fawn mortality and a 30% buck fawn mortality. No offense....but these totally off the wall numbers do nothing but perpetuate the mindset some people have regarding these issues. THEY are far-fetched....and these numbers are .........hell they're just so unrealsitic it's crazy. Hell I just did the math,......and your scenario has each buck SUCCESSFULLYbreeding over 19 does....EACH! |
RE: stupidest regs
Exactly my point. To come up with the off the wall B:D numbers you have to REALLY enter in some bizarre inputs that aren't very realistic. I don't think anyone here can say thier herd is subjected to the conditions I put forth.
|
RE: stupidest regs
Exactly my point. To come up with the off the wall B:D numbers you have to REALLY enter in some bizarre inputs that aren't very realistic. I don't think anyone here can say thier herd is subjected to the conditions I put forth. |
RE: stupidest regs
Now, here aremy3 questions to you (I'm dying to hear your response):
- How many days, in the last 6 years, have you spent hunting Whitetail Deer in MA? - How many days, in the last 6 years, have you spent scouting Whitetail Deer in MA? - How many deer have you ever legally harvested in MA? 1. Never hunted or scouted deer inMA. 2. See No. 1 3. See No. 1 ------------------------------------------ So you've never, hunted, scouted or ever legally taken a deer in MA and you sit there and try to tell me the state of our herd? My numbers come from a published hardcopy report that I receive from the Mass DF&W. I'm sorry that you don't have a copy, mine is sitting at home & I was looking at it last night and typing verbatim from the published numbers. As for not seeing all the bucks- I'll give you that. But I don't think anyone can claim that all the does are being seen either. These aren't numbers that I'm extrapolating from what's showing up on my trailCam. These are numbers that are coming from the MAss. DF&W deer surveys conducted throughout the state. I find it extremely narrow-minded for someone who hasn't spent MINUTE ONE in the MA bush- to come on here and attempt to refute deer herd numbers that are published by the Mass. DF&W! Let me ask you just one more question- if bucks are so "elusive" compared to does, as you would have everyone believe, then why on earth are there twice as many bucks being harvested in MA than there are does? The numbers don't lie. The 2006 harvest data shows this clearly. Explain that. The point of my entire submission is the following: Hunters in MA should be on the "Earn a Buck" program similiar to that of Wisconsin. Every hunter should be required to whack a doe before they can take a buck. This in turn will promote a better buck;doe ratio, which will in turn create more competition for the bucks to breed to the fewer does that are left. This will create a healthier herd over the long term as only the dominant, superior bucks will earn the right to breed over a limited number of does. The way it is now- there is zero competition for bucks to breed to does. We have so many does, bucks don't need to move much at all in order to finda doecoming into estrous. We have bucks in the middle of the pre-rut that don't respond to horns or grunts as they don't care to spend their time & energy fighting another buck over a piece of turf- they simply move on as they know they will find more does over the next saddle or across the next ravine. As a result- bucks who SHOULDN'T be breeding are breeding does and helping in the creation of a less than optimal herd. Spend some time reading up on the MA deer herd problems beforeyou attempt to refute numbers published by our own state DF&W. I'm done. Rob |
RE: stupidest regs
Ive never liked the Mn reg that says your bow needs to be cased durring transit or unstrung,well dont mind the unstrung when I hunt recurve.......I have never seen anyone shoot a bow out of a p/u or car before let alone a recurve/longbow...
|
RE: stupidest regs
So you've never, hunted, scouted or ever legally taken a deer in MA and you sit there and try to tell me the state of our herd? My numbers come from a published hardcopy report that I receive from the Mass DF&W. As for not seeing all the bucks- I'll give you that. But I don't think anyone can claim that all the does are being seen either. I find it extremely narrow-minded for someone who hasn't spent MINUTE ONE in the MA bush- to come on here and attempt to refute deer herd numbers that are published by the Mass. DF&W! Let me ask you just one more question- if bucks are so "elusive" compared to does, as you would have everyone believe, then why on earth are there twice as many bucks being harvested in MA than there are does? The numbers don't lie. The 2006 harvest data shows this clearly. Explain that. Just because YOU aren't seeing them....and think the ratio is that far off.....doesn't mean everyone isn't finding them.;) and if we use those numbers to figure a buck:doe ratio (harvest numbers...and extrapolate)......it's not really gonna get any better for your assertion now, is it;)? The point of my entire submission is the following: Hunters in MA should be on the "Earn a Buck" program similiar to that of Wisconsin. Every hunter should be required to whack a doe before they can take a buck. This in turn will promote a better buck;doe ratio, which will in turn create more competition for the bucks to breed to the fewer does that are left. This will create a healthier herd over the long term as only the dominant, superior bucks will earn the right to breed over a limited number of does. The way it is now- there is zero competition for bucks to breed to does. We have so many does, bucks don't need to move much at all in order to finda doecoming into estrous. We have bucks in the middle of the pre-rut that don't respond to horns or grunts as they don't care to spend their time & energy fighting another buck over a piece of turf- they simply move on as they know they will find more does over the next saddle or across the next ravine. As a result- bucks who SHOULDN'T be breeding are breeding does and helping in the creation of a less than optimal herd. Spend some time reading up on the MA deer herd problems before to attempt to refute numbers published by our own state DF&W. |
RE: stupidest regs
Jeff,
Things are starting to make sense now- I see that you have two whole years of Bowhunting under your belt.......... you must know everything at this point- especially about deer herds in states you've never stepped foot in! I never said that the 8;1 doe to buck ratio was going to be "sustained", I simply stated that is where we find ourselves today (well, at least after the 2006 data was released. 2007 data is soon to be released, so we'll see what the delta is). In short- I'll ask that you do me a favor, please keep feeding the pastor's family with your harvested venison. But PLEASE, PLEASE, PUH-LEESE- stop announcing to all of us here on HNI what you DON'T KNOW about the Mass. deer herd. You simply don't know what you don't know- and that's a very dangerous place to be, especially given your status of Contributing Author here on HNI. I'm done trying to discuss something with someone who knows nothing about the specifics of the topic at hand. Rob |
RE: stupidest regs
Sunday hunting ban in any state. Stupid.
Noon cutoff for spring turkey in any state. Stupid. In Ohio, ok, I know it would be hard to write regulations for 3 counties, but it really needs to be done. I feel so bad for the raccoon hunters. Season comes in November 10th. The problem? There are 3 counties in Ohio that are on the leeward side of Lake Erie with the usual western/northwestern fall wind. What this means is from about mid to late November onward, those 3 counties are subject to lake effect snow. Lake effect snow usually is measured in feet and not inches. Once it hits, the coons hole up in a tree somewhere and hunting season is done unless we have a warm spell. That means the coon hunters have about 1-2 weeks of season. I am not a coon hunter, but I really feel for them. Stupid! I'm sure there are more, but those are the highlights. |
RE: stupidest regs
Things are starting to make sense now- I see that you have two whole years of Bowhunting under your belt.......... you must know everything at this point- especially about deer herds in states you've never stepped foot in! I never said that the 8;1 doe to buck ratio was going to be "sustained", I simply stated that is where we find ourselves today (well, at least after the 2006 data was released. 2007 data is soon to be released, so we'll see what the delta is). So you find yourselves in a one year 1:8 buck/doe ratio? How did it get that way in one year? What wil it be next year. You can't just have a "one year" ratio. It took a while to get there and it'll take a while to change it again. Yeah....some things are beginning to become clear to me, too;) In short- I'll ask that you do me a favor, please keep feeding the pastor's family with your harvested venison. But PLEASE, PLEASE, PUH-LEESE- stop announcing to all of us here on HNI what you DON'T KNOW about the Mass. deer herd. I'm done trying to discuss something with someone who knows nothing about the specifics of the topic at hand. When you purchase your deer hunting license here in MA, you automatically get two (2) buck tags & zero (0) doe tags. In order to legally take a doe in MA, one must apply first for an antlerless permit for a specific zone (of which, there are 14). If picked, you are only allowed to take ONE (1) doe in that specific zone- no other! If you're not picked, tough luck- you can try to apply for anantlerless permit in a zone that still has remaining doe tags available. And you said way back on page 6 that the 2007 info wasn't available. It took me about 5 minutes to find it. You killed 6,875 bucks in 2007. You killed 4,664 does. Wanna re-figure?;):D |
RE: stupidest regs
- 2006 Harvest Report (2007 not published yet) is as follows: * 10,479 total deer reported (7,088-gun / 3391-bow) * Average total harvest (since 2000) 11,758 * 2006 deer harvest breakdown by sex: 7,197-bucks / 3282-does (like I said, more like 2 to 1 mortality rate for bucks to does, this is in DIRECT corrolation to our retarded Harvest limits for does/bucks). [align=center]Statewide[/align] [align=center]5370[/align] [align=center]4160[/align] [align=center]1038[/align] [align=center]28[/align] [align=center]10596[/align] http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/recreation/hunting/deer/deer_harvest_2006.htm That looks like 6,408 bucks (including BB's)taken to 4,160 does. (2006) Now....admittedly...these numbers might be "off". But...if they are....you're state's wildlife page is "off".;) Wanna re-figure? Wanna keep speaking condescendingly? Wanna answer your own three questions and then answer how someone who's never been there knows more about it than you do? When someone tells you a buck:doe ratio is 1:8.....throw the big red flag up.;) |
RE: stupidest regs
hey peeker
one of the reasons that ohio has so many big bucks is because of the shotgun and muzzleloader rule and your 1 buck limit. Dont knock it. I travel up there every year from arkansasto hunt the gun season. My favorite trip of the year. Be proud of the deer herd your state has. |
RE: stupidest regs
ORIGINAL: GMMAT - 2006 Harvest Report (2007 not published yet) is as follows: * 10,479 total deer reported (7,088-gun / 3391-bow) * Average total harvest (since 2000) 11,758 * 2006 deer harvest breakdown by sex: 7,197-bucks / 3282-does (like I said, more like 2 to 1 mortality rate for bucks to does, this is in DIRECT corrolation to our retarded Harvest limits for does/bucks). [align=center]Statewide[/align] [align=center]5370[/align] [align=center]4160[/align] [align=center]1038[/align] [align=center]28[/align] [align=center]10596[/align] http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/recreation/hunting/deer/deer_harvest_2006.htm That looks like 6,408 bucks (including BB's)taken to 4,160 does. (2006) Now....admittedly...these numbers might be "off". But...if they are....you're state's wildlife page is "off".;) Wanna re-figure? Wanna keep speaking condescendingly? Wanna answer your own three questions and then answer how someone who's never been there knows more about it than you do? When someone tells you a buck:doe ratio is 1:8.....throw the big red flag up.;) Stay in NC and stop attempting to tell me what you DON'T know about the MA whitetail herd.............. you ARE the classic example of a tool. Rob |
RE: stupidest regs
So you're gonna call me names, now???.....lol
GO TO THE LINK!!...lol It's YOUR state agency's link!:D And you accuse ME of making up numbers? I had an idea what I was dealing with.........;) BTW....here's your 2007 stats, Einstein.....Striaght off the MASS Wildlife website.....and NOT from my rectum....lol:D http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/recreation/hunting/deer/deer_harvest_2007.htm Oh yeah....BTW.....it's official.............  |
RE: stupidest regs
ORIGINAL: GMMAT So you're gonna call me names, now???.....lol GO TO THE LINK!!...lol It's YOUR state agency's link!:D And you accuse ME of making up numbers? I had an idea what I was dealing with.........;) BTW....here's your 2007 stats, Einstein.....Striaght off the MASS Wildlife website.....and NOT from my rectum....lol:D http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/recreation/hunting/deer/deer_harvest_2007.htm Oh yeah....BTW.....it's official.............
 back to the stupidest regs topic :eek: in minnesota i think the stupidest reg is that you cannot bow hunt for deer while in possession of a firearm even if both seasons are open and you had a tag for both. so, you could rifle hunt or bow hunt, you just can't have both at the same time. There are times that I wouldn't mind bringing my bow with me while gun hunting. Same thing during bear season after archery for deer opens. you cannot hunt for bear while hunting for deer w/ a bow even though both seasons are open and you had tags for both. it all comes down to not being able to carry a firearm while bow hunting for deer. not a big deal at all, it's the best i could come up with in minnesota though. after reading this thread i guess our regs are pretty reasonable. |
RE: stupidest regs
i find this MA conversation entertaining. yall should pick it back up. LOL:D
|
RE: stupidest regs
ORIGINAL: minnesotadeer We are only allowed one deer per year now too in pretty much the southern half of the state because they claim numbers are down substantially. It was just in the paper this past weekend that statwide, about 62,000 some archery hunters took about 24,000 deer, giving bowhunters a success rate of just over 24 percent. Compare that to gun hunters who took 216,000 plus deer with a 37 percent success rate. Instead of complaining about it, I actually approached the Big Game director via e-mail, asking if they'd consider allowing bowhunters a buck and doe tag, so they could still only take one doe for population management purposes. I used the reasoning of the lower success rate and that the influx of new bowhunters due to this change would be minimal - and that the DNR always has the freedom to change it back if they feel it causes problems. He said they'd consider it. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:38 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.