stupidest regs
#71
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.
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?
#72
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).
* 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.
#73
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.
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.
#74
RE: stupidest regs
ORIGINAL: GMMAT
[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.
- 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).
* 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
#75
RE: stupidest regs
So you're gonna call me names, now???.....lol
GO TO THE LINK!!...lol It's YOUR state agency's link!
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
http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/recreation/hunting/deer/deer_harvest_2007.htm
Oh yeah....BTW.....it's official.............
GO TO THE LINK!!...lol It's YOUR state agency's link!
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
http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/recreation/hunting/deer/deer_harvest_2007.htm
Oh yeah....BTW.....it's official.............
#76
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Isle, MN
Posts: 1,469
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!
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
http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/recreation/hunting/deer/deer_harvest_2007.htm
Oh yeah....BTW.....it's official.............
So you're gonna call me names, now???.....lol
GO TO THE LINK!!...lol It's YOUR state agency's link!
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
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 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.
#78
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.
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.