Some nice bucks (pic)
02-24-2009 | 07:01 PM
#232
Banned
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,978
Likes: 0
From:
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.
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.
02-24-2009 | 07:19 PM
#233
Thread Starter
Giant Nontypical
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,220
Likes: 0
From: SW PA USA
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.
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.
02-25-2009 | 04:04 AM
#234
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Likes: 0
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.
02-25-2009 | 04:21 AM
#235
Thread Starter
Giant Nontypical
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,220
Likes: 0
From: SW PA USA
RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
ORIGINAL: bluebird2
Once again your inherent bias prevents you from seeing the forest for the trees. There are many reasons why the number of record buck decreased in the NC counties and the main reason is the population decreased from 45 DPSM in 1975 to around in 1979 and it has been reduced even more during the last 8 years.At the same time timber harvests increased 30M BF in 1979 to over 70M BF during the 80s, so there was more than enough food for the much smaller herd.
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.
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.
02-25-2009 | 04:25 AM
#236
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,236
Likes: 0
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.
02-25-2009 | 04:31 AM
#237
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Likes: 0
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.
02-25-2009 | 04:33 AM
#238
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Likes: 0
RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
RSB presented a very compelling case and your response is nothing more than grasping for straws
02-25-2009 | 04:41 AM
#239
Thread Starter
Giant Nontypical
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,220
Likes: 0
From: SW PA USA
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.
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.
02-25-2009 | 04:45 AM
#240
Thread Starter
Giant Nontypical
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,220
Likes: 0
From: SW PA USA
RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
ORIGINAL: bluebird2
By failing to account for the age of the bucks in the record buck ,RSB failed to prove anything about the effects of the habitat or the effects of ARs.
RSB presented a very compelling case and your response is nothing more than grasping for straws