|
RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
How many different ways can it be shown?
|
RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
Btb, honestly, I dont. On average yes. By numbers of good buck? I wish that were the case, but no. At least thats not what Im seeing in 2A or 2C.
2A when compared to late 90's to early 2000's quality just aint quite the same. Dont know if the quality is off a bit due to more hunting pressure or what. and 2C is just flat beat these days. I dont make it up to 2b, but Id imagine its pretty good hunting in areas qualitywiseand I know that it has been for some time now. |
RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
We can agree on that. Better on average but fewer overall.
We'd probably agree that there are probably areas that are "beat" in every WMU as well. Having spent my early hunting years almost solely in 2F in the ANF, my perspective is that there have always been areas that were "beat" at least dating back to my start in 1969. I only know a couple of guys who really hunt2A and they hunt southwest Greene but I gotta tell you that they absolutely rave about it. They have a small chunk of private ground next to a SGL and they wind up on the SGL most of the time because that's where they've been getting the deer. They have taken some darn fine bucks 125-140ish in recent seasons. There's no doubt that in some areas you gotta move or change strategy but there are some great bucks out there and the numbers RSB took the time to calculate sure seem to support that things are improving in quality if not quantity. |
RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
A couple of things that are interesting is that you can still see how the number or quality bucks were steadily declining right up the point the deer populations increased in the southern tier. I am confident that is just more proof of how the habitat of the northern tier affected both the number and quality of the deer and especially the bucks. Furthermore, without knowing the age of the bucks that were entered ,your entire analysis is flawed. The number of hunters increased to about 1.3 M in the early 80's and the quality of our weapons and hunting gear resulted in higher hunting pressure which would mean fewer bucks would survive long enough to be record book bucks. Until you can prove the size of the average 2.5+ buck increased due to ARs, all your claims and theories about ARs are irrelevant and unproven. |
RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
ORIGINAL: bluebird2 A couple of things that are interesting is that you can still see how the number or quality bucks were steadily declining right up the point the deer populations increased in the southern tier. I am confident that is just more proof of how the habitat of the northern tier affected both the number and quality of the deer and especially the bucks. Furthermore, without knowing the age of the bucks that were entered ,your entire analysis is flawed. The number of hunters increased to about 1.3 M in the early 80's and the quality of our weapons and hunting gear resulted in higher hunting pressure which would mean fewer bucks would survive long enough to be record book bucks. Until you can prove the size of the average 2.5+ buck increased due to ARs, all your claims and theories about ARs are irrelevant and unproven. RSB presented a very compelling case and your response isnothing more thangrasping for straws. |
RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
Again BB you can't see past your nose. Timber production increased from almost nothing. The percentage of increase doesn't really mean much when it was coming from nothing to start with.
|
RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
When we had 45 DPSM in 1975 ,they were harvesting 50M BFT/year, in the 90s they were harvesting over 70M B Ft. /year with only 30 DPSM. So once again it you that doesn't know what he is talking about ,along with RSB and BTB.
|
RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
RSB presented a very compelling case and your response is nothing more than grasping for straws |
RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
ORIGINAL: bluebird2 When we had 45 DPSM in 1975 ,they were harvesting 50M BFT/year, in the 90s they were harvesting over 70M B Ft. /year with only 30 DPSM. So once again it you that doesn't know what he is talking about ,along with RSB and BTB. Deer densities have no effect on how much timber is harvested and timber harvest has no direct effect on deer density until regeneration begns to take place. Your point was simply pointless. |
RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
ORIGINAL: bluebird2 RSB presented a very compelling case and your response is nothing more than grasping for straws |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:21 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.