|
RE: DCNR asks for less DMAP tags but....
Is there a new mod (self appointed)?
If so, shouldn't they be looking for banned members reregistering?;) Steve |
RE: DCNR asks for less DMAP tags but....
ORIGINAL: SteveBNy Is there a new mod (self appointed)? If so, shouldn't they be looking for banned members reregistering?;) Steve As for the little bit of joking in this thread, there is more than just one member who could have earned the bit of ribbing dealt out here. Some more than others perhaps, but there's more than just one. |
RE: DCNR asks for less DMAP tags but....
.......Uhhhhh......We can all seriously address serious posts. I can't much further address sreiously some or most of the stuff I see on here that chronically derides current game laws and present personal attacks on what is nothing nore than supposition and innuendo. If you care to follow this innane and convoluted philosophy presented by the one you seem to side with, that will be your own personal choice. I never said I agreed with Sproulman's posts, but it is undeniable that our herd has been reduced by over 40% and that breeding rates and productivity have not increased as predicted. Bt may consider his posts to be just joking and friendly ribbing, but if he was on the receiving end I doubt he would have the same opinion. Maybe you agree that 2G should be managed with a harvest rate of less than 3 DPSM for ever, but I doubt you would agree with the same harvest rate where you hunt. |
RE: DCNR asks for less DMAP tags but....
ORIGINAL: bluebird2 .......Uhhhhh......We can all seriously address serious posts. I can't much further address sreiously some or most of the stuff I see on here that chronically derides current game laws and present personal attacks on what is nothing nore than supposition and innuendo. If you care to follow this innane and convoluted philosophy presented by the one you seem to side with, that will be your own personal choice. I never said I agreed with Sproulman's posts, but it is undeniable that our herd has been reduced by over 40% and that breeding rates and productivity have not increased as predicted. Bt may consider his posts to be just joking and friendly ribbing, but if he was on the receiving end I doubt he would have the same opinion. Maybe you agree that 2G should be managed with a harvest rate of less than 3 DPSM for ever, but I doubt you would agree with the same harvest rate where you hunt. Why people continue to sit on the same stump year after year that they killed a deer or two from ages ago and is no longer productive eludes me. It doesn't take HR to cause a "favorite" spot to become unproductive at some point in time. If you have never experienced this, you just haven't done much hunting. I also hunt 2D, where I live. No argument. More deer in the areas I hunt here, generally. But on the other hand, I've had spots turn sour on me here also. I guess the point of this is that if a person doesn't adjust their hunting sites to be where the deer are at that point in time, the chance for success diminishes in porportion. A person has got to learn to be versatile. |
RE: DCNR asks for less DMAP tags but....
I guess the point of this is that if a person doesn't adjust their hunting sites to be where the deer are at that point in time, the chance for success diminishes in porportion. A person has got to learn to be versatile. But the point you are apparently missing is that hunters in 2G and most other WMUs are harvesting all the deer that can be harvested without reducing the herd even more. Therefore, if a significant number of hunters in 2G took your advice and moved to a new area , hunted harder and harvested more does, they would reduce the herd even more and make hunting harder and less enjoyable for the average hunter in the future. |
RE: DCNR asks for less DMAP tags but....
ORIGINAL: bluebird2 It appears that the intent of this thread was to bash and belittle Sproulman. None of the posts addressed the issue of whether the increased DMAP tags were necessary. No one has addressed the issue of whether HR has improved herd health or forest health statewide or in the Sproul or Elk SF. is it asking too much to ask all all posters to stick to the issues rather than bashing fellow hunters.  |
RE: DCNR asks for less DMAP tags but....
ORIGINAL: lost horn ORIGINAL: bluebird2 It appears that the intent of this thread was to bash and belittle Sproulman. None of the posts addressed the issue of whether the increased DMAP tags were necessary. No one has addressed the issue of whether HR has improved herd health or forest health statewide or in the Sproul or Elk SF. is it asking too much to ask all all posters to stick to the issues rather than bashing fellow hunters.
|
RE: DCNR asks for less DMAP tags but....
ORIGINAL: bluebird2 I guess the point of this is that if a person doesn't adjust their hunting sites to be where the deer are at that point in time, the chance for success diminishes in porportion. A person has got to learn to be versatile. But the point you are apparently missing is that hunters in 2G and most other WMUs are harvesting all the deer that can be harvested without reducing the herd even more. Therefore, if a significant number of hunters in 2G took your advice and moved to a new area , hunted harder and harvested more does, they would reduce the herd even more and make hunting harder and less enjoyable for the average hunter in the future. But most won't do that.My point is still that with what you seem to think of as lousy DPSM figures, some of us are still able to fill tags regularly. |
RE: DCNR asks for less DMAP tags but....
But most won't do that.My point is still that with what you seem to think of as lousy DPSM figures, some of us are still able to fill tags regularly. Nobody is denying that 11,700 hunters filled a tag in 2G in 2007, but in 2001 over 30, 000 hunters filled a tag in 2G. If hunters moved more and hunted harder would 2G sustain a harvest of 30 ,000 deer in 2008? |
RE: DCNR asks for less DMAP tags but....
ORIGINAL: bluebird2 But most won't do that.My point is still that with what you seem to think of as lousy DPSM figures, some of us are still able to fill tags regularly. Nobody is denying that 11,700 hunters filled a tag in 2G in 2007, but in 2001 over 30, 000 hunters filled a tag in 2G. If hunters moved more and hunted harder would 2G sustain a harvest of 30 ,000 deer in 2008? As far as harvest numbers go, the antlerless lic. allocation numbers for those years are quite different, I believe, are they not? I stated earlier on in this thread that deer numbers are not the same in 2G as they were years ago. My point that you keep missing is simply that it is still quite possible to fill your tag there with a little homework. Something a lot seem unwilling to do anymore. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:42 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.