Some nice bucks (pic)
02-25-2009 | 04:47 PM
#261
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,236
Likes: 0
RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
I know the digital pics are so much better, but I have only been using a digital for a couple of years.
These are pics of pics andI was having a heck of a time photographing glossy photos.
I surely hope you don't mind me cropping out my Dad's and Son's faces??
These are pics of pics andI was having a heck of a time photographing glossy photos.
I surely hope you don't mind me cropping out my Dad's and Son's faces??
02-25-2009 | 04:52 PM
#263
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Likes: 0
RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
Wrong! Pure spin and you know it! It means that the very top end bucks didn't vary much as measured by antler score. The average quality was decreasing, however because the average came form far fewer bucks in the high end category. that would have meant far more small bucks percentage wise at those times.
LOL!! I used your words. cant have it both ways sport!
That is pure unadulterated crap and you know it. once again you are a proven liar.
02-25-2009 | 05:23 PM
#264
Thread Starter
Giant Nontypical
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,220
Likes: 0
From: SW PA USA
RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
ORIGINAL: bluebird2
You don't have a clue what you are talking about. the record book buck have nothing to do with the average buck in the herd. They are the exception to the rule and do not represent the avergae buck in the herd.
That is pure unadulterated crap and you know it. once again you are a proven liar.
Wrong! Pure spin and you know it! It means that the very top end bucks didn't vary much as measured by antler score. The average quality was decreasing, however because the average came form far fewer bucks in the high end category. that would have meant far more small bucks percentage wise at those times.
LOL!! I used your words. cant have it both ways sport!
That is pure unadulterated crap and you know it. once again you are a proven liar.
Maybe you wouldn't confuse yourself if you stuck to one story. Telling the truth is the easiest way to do that. When recalling what you said, it;s easy if there was only one version to remember.
Try it. It may be tough at first but I think you'll find it will reduce your stress level
02-25-2009 | 05:38 PM
#266
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Likes: 0
RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
What IS significant is that the immediate past two decades (and this one is not over yet) produced the two highest numbers of high quality bucks from (as you so adamantly claim) a smaller total population of deer.
02-25-2009 | 05:58 PM
#267
Fork Horn
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
From:
RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
ORIGINAL: Matt / PA
WMU's 4B and 5B (me on the right) checkin' in!
(just because
)
I absolutely believe that 2G picture........I was basically called a liar earlier this year because a buddy and I spotted several P&Y quality bucks from the Sproul State forest one of which looked eerily similar to that one on the bottom right.
And it took us all of 1hr to find them on State forest!
WMU's 4B and 5B (me on the right) checkin' in!
(just because
)I absolutely believe that 2G picture........I was basically called a liar earlier this year because a buddy and I spotted several P&Y quality bucks from the Sproul State forest one of which looked eerily similar to that one on the bottom right.
And it took us all of 1hr to find them on State forest!
02-25-2009 | 06:04 PM
#268
Thread Starter
Giant Nontypical
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,220
Likes: 0
From: SW PA USA
RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
ORIGINAL: bluebird2
That is what you posted and it was a flat out lie. During the past two decades the herd was an at all time high and i never claimed the highest number of high quality buck came from a smaller population. the simple fact is you lie to cover up your ignorance.
What IS significant is that the immediate past two decades (and this one is not over yet) produced the two highest numbers of high quality bucks from (as you so adamantly claim) a smaller total population of deer.
As the herd was reduced from 1980 to the 1998 the average antler score decreased.
02-25-2009 | 06:15 PM
#269
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Likes: 0
RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
No , you are lying once again. you took a quote of RSB and attributed to me or you took a comment of mine about the population in 2g and attributed to the state wide herd. Which lie are you guilty of this time?
02-25-2009 | 06:33 PM
#270
Thread Starter
Giant Nontypical
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,220
Likes: 0
From: SW PA USA
RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
Here it is LIAR The entire post as it apppears on the preceding page. I took the liberty of copying the whole thing including the header in case you decide to pull a the corny stunt of editing after the fact.
Oh, and here's the link to the page
http://www.huntingnet.com/forum/tm.aspx?m=3343130&mpage=26&key==
bluebird2
titleAndStar(1886,0,false,false,"","")
Non-Typical
[align=center][/align]
Posts: 1886
Joined: 4/4/2008
Status: online
window.google_render_ad();
[quoteHere are the results of the top two hundred rifle being combined with the top hundred bow entries:
Period……………………number entered……………………..average antler score
> - 1931.…………………….16.……………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦............170.0
1931-1940.………………….22.………………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.............170.3
1941-1950.………………….43.………………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.............175.4
1951-1960.………………….19.………………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.............172.6
1961-1970.………………….16.………………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.............169.1
1971-1980.………………….11.………………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.............165.6
1981-1990.………………….42.………………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.............168.4
1991-2000.………………….77.………………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.............164.3
2001 - >……………………..54.……………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.............168.3
Here is another way of looking at the data RSB posted. The biggest buck were produced from 1931 to 1970 , which was the period with the highest DD and the worst over browsing in the NC counties. As the herd was reduced from 1980 to the 1998 the average antler score decreased. Then from 1998 to the present the herd, the combined effects of a record deer population still didn't produce the quality of buck that were harvested in 1941 to 1950.
Oh, and here's the link to the page
http://www.huntingnet.com/forum/tm.aspx?m=3343130&mpage=26&key==
bluebird2
titleAndStar(1886,0,false,false,"","")
Non-Typical
[align=center][/align]
Posts: 1886
Joined: 4/4/2008
Status: online
window.google_render_ad();
[quoteHere are the results of the top two hundred rifle being combined with the top hundred bow entries:
Period……………………number entered……………………..average antler score
> - 1931.…………………….16.……………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦............170.0
1931-1940.………………….22.………………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.............170.3
1941-1950.………………….43.………………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.............175.4
1951-1960.………………….19.………………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.............172.6
1961-1970.………………….16.………………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.............169.1
1971-1980.………………….11.………………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.............165.6
1981-1990.………………….42.………………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.............168.4
1991-2000.………………….77.………………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.............164.3
2001 - >……………………..54.……………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.............168.3
Here is another way of looking at the data RSB posted. The biggest buck were produced from 1931 to 1970 , which was the period with the highest DD and the worst over browsing in the NC counties. As the herd was reduced from 1980 to the 1998 the average antler score decreased. Then from 1998 to the present the herd, the combined effects of a record deer population still didn't produce the quality of buck that were harvested in 1941 to 1950.