![]() |
RE: Pennsylvania hunters about to be "HOSED"
I guess I should have said that RSB is not out to disparage reasonable, truthful, intelligent hunters who care |
RE: Pennsylvania hunters about to be "HOSED"
"Just imagine though,posting on here from where he sits? "
I honestly dont know how he does it without being able to see. Cant see with your head up your... Hes an extremist and more a friend of the loony ecofruits than hes ever been or ever will be to the hunter. |
RE: Pennsylvania hunters about to be "HOSED"
ORIGINAL: Maverick 1 Michigan has fewer people chewing up their forest??? I would really love to know what you mean by that one D i c k. Care to explain yourself? Michigan is significantly larger in land mass then Pennsylvania, 56,803.82 square miles to 44,816.61 in Penna, yet Michigan has few people requiring infrastructure such as homes, roads, shopping centers, etc. Pennsylvania has about 268 people per square mile compared to Michigan having only about 175 people per square mile. Every person living in any state or area requires a certain amount of infrastructure to meet their needs. More people, with more infrastructure equates to less habitat that is available for wildlife. With less habitat and more infrastructure there will generally be less wildlife available per individual living in the more populated states. That is probably the reason Michigan has a better hunter success rate. They have fewer people and fewer hunter yet more habitat to support deer. R.S. Bodenhorn |
RE: Pennsylvania hunters about to be "HOSED"
OF course it has NOTHING to do with the fact their wildlife management isnt dictated by treehuggers and a rediculous deer slaughter campaign.[8D]
|
RE: Pennsylvania hunters about to be "HOSED"
ORIGINAL: Cornelius08 OF course it has NOTHING to do with the fact their wildlife management isnt dictated by treehuggers and a rediculous deer slaughter campaign.[8D] More opinion with no supporting facts! R.S. Bodenhorn |
RE: Pennsylvania hunters about to be "HOSED"
Every person living in any state or area requires a certain amount of infrastructure to meet their needs. More people, with more infrastructure equates to less habitat that is available for wildlife. With less habitat and more infrastructure there will generally be less wildlife available per individual living in the more populated states. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:09 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.