PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
02-13-2007 | 11:29 AM
#61
Thread Starter
Giant Nontypical
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,195
Likes: 0
From: PA.
RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
ORIGINAL: 3 gobblers
sproulman I agree with you . But what season was it you ended the 8 point,s life archery, rifle, cause next someone,s gonna tell you the rut was way late this year for that buck to go that far for some tang
sproulman I agree with you . But what season was it you ended the 8 point,s life archery, rifle, cause next someone,s gonna tell you the rut was way late this year for that buck to go that far for some tang
i saw this buck before bear season in archery,he was all over place..
3 gobblers, i never saw that in 50 years of hunting the buck,usually buck stayed in about a 1 mile area..archery friends i talk to at club said they could never pattern a buck here in wmu2g this year..they would set up and find buck 3 days later 1 mile away..
i also noticed the scraps made were from same buck i got and i dont think he returned to scraps after he made them from what i saw..i think he was looking for doe in heat and could not catch up to one do to lack of doe..
everytime i saw this buck in archery, the doe that he was after was always trying to get away from him,doe running full speed to get away..
archery is extremely hard now to pattern a buck as ,i think, they are not staying home anymore do to lack of doe..
02-13-2007 | 11:39 AM
#62
Thread Starter
Giant Nontypical
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,195
Likes: 0
From: PA.
RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
northpa, bucks here in wmu2g NEVER left area ,say 1 mile when we had lots of doe..maybe that helps..
NOW, do to lack of doe, they are NORMALLY going 3 miles..they are also making scraps for 3 miles,not 1 mile they used too..
as for studys,well, you just got a study from ole sproul..
as for seeing buck, i am in woods A LOT.. hunt same area,50 years..have retired friends, we have coffee ,sit and watch football, compare info, we trap , i stopped,in woods all time..
we all hunt same areas we have for longtime..we know what is there..
sorry i got off topic again..
NOW, do to lack of doe, they are NORMALLY going 3 miles..they are also making scraps for 3 miles,not 1 mile they used too..
as for studys,well, you just got a study from ole sproul..
as for seeing buck, i am in woods A LOT.. hunt same area,50 years..have retired friends, we have coffee ,sit and watch football, compare info, we trap , i stopped,in woods all time..
we all hunt same areas we have for longtime..we know what is there..
sorry i got off topic again..
02-13-2007 | 12:30 PM
#63
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
Sproulman, everything you say about one mile has been long ago disproven. Those studies were done in the "hay days" of lots of doe. It simply is an old wives tale.
There is absolutely no way you could have known, in the past,if a buck left an area and traveled three miles, eveytime he may have done that.
Especially so since deer travel more after dark than in daylight.
To go that far is about 45 minutes effort for a deer. And if he is on the scent of an estrus doe, you might as well figure a lot less than 45 minutes.
On the gun season opener that is well past the peak of the rut when most does have already been bred. If a doe or doe fawn is in heat (which some are) at that time, she is a rare commodity and she is very popular since most of the action is over. Yup a buck would walk three miles for her.
There is absolutely no way you could have known, in the past,if a buck left an area and traveled three miles, eveytime he may have done that.
Especially so since deer travel more after dark than in daylight.
To go that far is about 45 minutes effort for a deer. And if he is on the scent of an estrus doe, you might as well figure a lot less than 45 minutes.
On the gun season opener that is well past the peak of the rut when most does have already been bred. If a doe or doe fawn is in heat (which some are) at that time, she is a rare commodity and she is very popular since most of the action is over. Yup a buck would walk three miles for her.
02-13-2007 | 01:23 PM
#65
Fork Horn
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
From:
RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
GOOD !!!!!! That way there's no need for them to be employed !! Shut the entire agancy down...get rid of everyone...after all what are they going to do now that they have eliminated their own need .......what a freekin' joke !!
02-13-2007 | 01:31 PM
#66
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
I'm guessing you are the "newb" george.
But, I'll go along with your club scenario anyway.
True, if a buck is overloaded with opportunities, he has no need to travel for more.
That situation happens in an out-of-balance herd structure and pertains only to rut activity.
In a natural herd structure bucks will be more evenly matched in numbers with does. Thus more competition and more travel. By doing so the genetics are spread around over a wider area by the most dominant bucks.
Notice I didn't say "superior" and also note that I don't think genetics is something we hunters can control. But nature designs things that way in spite of mans influence.
Sproulman's reference was to opening dayof gun season. That is a time we should expect most does are already bred and, apparently, the buck he mentioned had located a doe that was near to coming in heat. There's not one thing unusual about what he described, in my book.
Aside from the rut, bucks commonly travel 2 -7 or more miles. You can dispute it, but it is foolish to do so, when radio collars absolultey prove this true. And yes, they also prove it true during rut times and even when we had a lot of does. (see below)
To think that, even with large numbers of does, they will come into heat in stages where a buck simply has to finish one and another in the immediate area, will be perfectly timed to be ready and waiting for him is --- well, kind of like saying the gals at your club will take a rain check until you get back to them.
But, I'll go along with your club scenario anyway.
True, if a buck is overloaded with opportunities, he has no need to travel for more.
That situation happens in an out-of-balance herd structure and pertains only to rut activity.
In a natural herd structure bucks will be more evenly matched in numbers with does. Thus more competition and more travel. By doing so the genetics are spread around over a wider area by the most dominant bucks.
Notice I didn't say "superior" and also note that I don't think genetics is something we hunters can control. But nature designs things that way in spite of mans influence.
Sproulman's reference was to opening dayof gun season. That is a time we should expect most does are already bred and, apparently, the buck he mentioned had located a doe that was near to coming in heat. There's not one thing unusual about what he described, in my book.
Aside from the rut, bucks commonly travel 2 -7 or more miles. You can dispute it, but it is foolish to do so, when radio collars absolultey prove this true. And yes, they also prove it true during rut times and even when we had a lot of does. (see below)
To think that, even with large numbers of does, they will come into heat in stages where a buck simply has to finish one and another in the immediate area, will be perfectly timed to be ready and waiting for him is --- well, kind of like saying the gals at your club will take a rain check until you get back to them.
02-13-2007 | 01:58 PM
#68
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
ORIGINAL: NorthPA
I'm guessing you are the "newb" george.
But, I'll go along with your club scenario anyway.
True, if a buck is overloaded with opportunities, he has no need to travel for more.
That situation happens in an out-of-balance herd structure and pertains only to rut activity.
In a natural herd structure bucks will be more evenly matched in numbers with does. Thus more competition and more travel. By doing so the genetics are spread around over a wider area by the most dominant bucks.
Notice I didn't say "superior" and also note that I don't think genetics is something we hunters can control. But nature designs things that way in spite of mans influence.
Sproulman's reference was to opening dayof gun season. That is a time we should expect most does are already bred and, apparently, the buck he mentioned had located a doe that was near to coming in heat. There's not one thing unusual about what he described, in my book.
Aside from the rut, bucks commonly travel 2 -7 or more miles. You can dispute it, but it is foolish to do so, when radio collars absolultey prove this true. And yes, they also prove it true during rut times and even when we had a lot of does. (see below)
To think that, even with large numbers of does, they will come into heat in stages where a buck simply has to finish one and another in the immediate area, will be perfectly timed to be ready and waiting for him is --- well, kind of like saying the gals at your club will take a rain check until you get back to them.
I'm guessing you are the "newb" george.
But, I'll go along with your club scenario anyway.
True, if a buck is overloaded with opportunities, he has no need to travel for more.
That situation happens in an out-of-balance herd structure and pertains only to rut activity.
In a natural herd structure bucks will be more evenly matched in numbers with does. Thus more competition and more travel. By doing so the genetics are spread around over a wider area by the most dominant bucks.
Notice I didn't say "superior" and also note that I don't think genetics is something we hunters can control. But nature designs things that way in spite of mans influence.
Sproulman's reference was to opening dayof gun season. That is a time we should expect most does are already bred and, apparently, the buck he mentioned had located a doe that was near to coming in heat. There's not one thing unusual about what he described, in my book.
Aside from the rut, bucks commonly travel 2 -7 or more miles. You can dispute it, but it is foolish to do so, when radio collars absolultey prove this true. And yes, they also prove it true during rut times and even when we had a lot of does. (see below)
To think that, even with large numbers of does, they will come into heat in stages where a buck simply has to finish one and another in the immediate area, will be perfectly timed to be ready and waiting for him is --- well, kind of like saying the gals at your club will take a rain check until you get back to them.
25+years in the outdoors, Not a newB at all. But very keen on detail and statements made from the past.
Kinda cotradicts what you and the PGC has been saying? It wasn't about the AR program for the deer reduction but for their survival of all deer.So the herd reduction is all about the AR program after all as you are stating above. It's to make the larger bucks roam to spread out their genes instead of in one area. Less does sure would make this happen, Now wouldn't it?
In a natural herd structure bucks will be more evenly matched in numbers with does. Thus more competition and more travel. By doing so the genetics are spread around over a wider area by the most dominant bucks.
02-13-2007 | 02:18 PM
#69
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
Hell25 years ---- is not even up to "newb" status. That is pre-school.
Nope ya just don't get it.
There is no contradiction at all. Although you weren't even very clear on saying "how" it contradicted.
Let's see if we can clear this up in a simple way.
First, you conveniently left out that part about nature designing things that way and us not being able to control genetics.
Your sentence makes no sense:
WTH does that mean?
If you still don't understand, herd reduction -- it is simple. It is to reduce stress on habitat and through doing that, many other side benefits are realized.
Deer become healthier, since they now have better food sources and more of them. Healthier deer grow bigger and produce better. Fewer does means a more natural sex ratio. A natural sex ratio means more natural breeding and helps reduce stress on bucks.
Hopefully these things are taking place while habitat is recovering and serving some of the other 466 species of wildlife and also setting the stage simply for better conditions all around.
Ah Grasshopper, you are still confused.
"Larger" does not necessarily mean "genetically better." Note my mention of that above, in the post you misquoted.
Nope ya just don't get it.
There is no contradiction at all. Although you weren't even very clear on saying "how" it contradicted.
Let's see if we can clear this up in a simple way.
First, you conveniently left out that part about nature designing things that way and us not being able to control genetics.
Your sentence makes no sense:
It wasn't about the AR program for the deer reduction but for their survival of all deer.
If you still don't understand, herd reduction -- it is simple. It is to reduce stress on habitat and through doing that, many other side benefits are realized.
Deer become healthier, since they now have better food sources and more of them. Healthier deer grow bigger and produce better. Fewer does means a more natural sex ratio. A natural sex ratio means more natural breeding and helps reduce stress on bucks.
Hopefully these things are taking place while habitat is recovering and serving some of the other 466 species of wildlife and also setting the stage simply for better conditions all around.
It's to make the larger bucks roam to spread out their genes instead of in one area.
"Larger" does not necessarily mean "genetically better." Note my mention of that above, in the post you misquoted.
02-13-2007 | 02:28 PM
#70
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
ORIGINAL: NorthPA
Hell25 years ---- is not even up to "newb" status. That is pre-school.
Nope ya just don't get it.
There is no contradiction at all. Although you weren't even very clear on saying "how" it contradicted.
Let's see if we can clear this up in a simple way.
First, you conveniently left out that part about nature designing things that way and us not being able to control genetics.
Your sentence makes no sense:
WTH does that mean?
If you still don't understand, herd reduction -- it is simple. It is to reduce stress on habitat and through doing that, many other side benefits are realized.
Deer become healthier, since they now have better food sources and more of them. Healthier deer grow bigger and produce better. Fewer does means a more natural sex ratio. A natural sex ratio means more natural breeding and helps reduce stress on bucks.
Hopefully these things are taking place while habitat is recovering and serving some of the other 466 species of wildlife and also setting the stage simply for better conditions all around.
Ah Grasshopper, you are still confused.
"Larger" does not necessarily mean "genetically better." Note my mention of that above, in the post you misquoted.
Hell25 years ---- is not even up to "newb" status. That is pre-school.
Nope ya just don't get it.
There is no contradiction at all. Although you weren't even very clear on saying "how" it contradicted.
Let's see if we can clear this up in a simple way.
First, you conveniently left out that part about nature designing things that way and us not being able to control genetics.
Your sentence makes no sense:
It wasn't about the AR program for the deer reduction but for their survival of all deer.
If you still don't understand, herd reduction -- it is simple. It is to reduce stress on habitat and through doing that, many other side benefits are realized.
Deer become healthier, since they now have better food sources and more of them. Healthier deer grow bigger and produce better. Fewer does means a more natural sex ratio. A natural sex ratio means more natural breeding and helps reduce stress on bucks.
Hopefully these things are taking place while habitat is recovering and serving some of the other 466 species of wildlife and also setting the stage simply for better conditions all around.
It's to make the larger bucks roam to spread out their genes instead of in one area.
"Larger" does not necessarily mean "genetically better." Note my mention of that above, in the post you misquoted.