|
RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
|
RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
ORIGINAL: bawanajim A person with logic would be quick to realize that SGL will receive an overabundance of hunting pressure compared to private land so why would anyone be surprised at a lower number of deer than on land that can be controlled and regulated as the owner sees fit.:eek: |
RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
ORIGINAL: bluebird2 Well then using that goofy analogy explain what happened between the early nineties, when 2G hunters had been harvesting more deer for several year then any time since, that the hunters could continue to sustain those relatively higher harvests but couldn’t sustain even lower harvests for a shorter time period ten years later? Therein lies a large part of the problem. Hunter perceptions that there are more doe license being issued for some units, like unit 2G, then were allocated in the past. Though 52,000 might sound like a lot for a unit it really isn’t. That 52,000 license allocated for unit 2G in 2003 and 2004 equates to 12.64 licenses per square mile. Here are the years when the allocation for the north central counties exceeded 12.64 antler less licenses per square mile. Year……………..allocation/sq. mile 1968.…………………16.76 1969.…………………14.25 1977.…………………12.64 1979.…………………12.86 1986.…………………13.68 1987.…………………15.15 1988.…………………15.99 1989.…………………15.94 1990.…………………18.60 1991.…………………16.69 1992.…………………13.06 1993.…………………14.08 1994.…………………13.85 1995.…………………12.52 1996.…………………13.93 1998.…………………13.81 1999.…………………13.85 2000.…………………13.40 2002.…………………18.06 Now the allocations for unit 2G since 2003: Year………………..2G allocations per square mile 2003.…………………….12.64 2004.…………………….12.64 2005.……………………..7.05 2006.……………………..4.62 2007.……………………..6.32 2008.……………………..6.32 2009.……………………..6.32 Do you still want to try telling everyone that the problem is the allocations have been too high during ANY of the recent years for unit 2G? Your theories and conjecture just aren’t holding up to what the facts areproving. R.S. Bodenhorn |
RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands? allocations fr
Do you still want to try telling everyone that the problem is the allocations have been too high during ANY of the recent years for unit 2G? |
RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands? allocations fr
ORIGINAL: bluebird2 Do you still want to try telling everyone that the problem is the allocations have been too high during ANY of the recent years for unit 2G? You are absolutely correct that the harvests have been higher then fawn recruitment. That is exactly what I have been telling you and everyone else for all this time;fawn recruitment has crashed and resulted in a deer population crash. That is how nature works when it come to deer populations that are out of balance with their habitat. Now that we haveestablished that fawn recruitment has been lower and proven, with valid statistical data,that both the number of antler less licenses and the antler less harvests have been lower, in recent years, all you need to do is explain why the fawn recruitment is obviously so much lower now then it was backwhen hunters were harvesting more does year after year. Once you can do that you will finally be on the road to understanding at least the most basic of deer management principles. R.S. Bodenhorn |
RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands? allocations fr
Now that we have established that fawn recruitment has been lower and proven, with valid statistical data, that both the number of antler less licenses and the antler less harvests have been lower, in recent years, all you need to do is explain why the fawn recruitment is obviously so much lower now then it was back when hunters were harvesting more does year after year. You are absolutely correct that the harvests have been higher then fawn recruitment. That is exactly what I have been telling you and everyone else for all this time; fawn recruitment has crashed and resulted in a deer population crash. That is how nature works when it come to deer populations that are out of balance with their habitat. The herd is not obligated to produce enough fawns to match or exceed the harvest. It is the responsibility of the PGC to match the harvest with recruitment if the goal is to keep the herd stable. But the goal was to reduce the herd so they issued enough tags to produce a harvest that exceeded recruitment and the result has been fewer OW doe ,decreased recruitment and smaller harvests. |
RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands? allocations fr
ORIGINAL: bluebird2 Now that we haveestablished that fawn recruitment has been lower and proven, with valid statistical data,that both the number of antler less licenses and the antler less harvests have been lower, in recent years, all you need to do is explain why the fawn recruitment is obviously so much lower now then it was backwhen hunters were harvesting more does year after year. You are absolutely correct that the harvests have been higher then fawn recruitment. That is exactly what I have been telling you and everyone else for all this time; fawn recruitment has crashed and resulted in a deer population crash. That is how nature works when it come to deer populations that are out of balance with their habitat. The herd is not obligated to produce enough fawns to match or exceed the harvest. It is the responsibility of the PGC to match the harvest with recruitment if the goal is to keep the herd stable. But the goal was to reduce the herd so they issued enough tags to produce a harvest that exceeded recruitment and the result has been fewer OW doe ,decreased recruitment and smaller harvests. You just provided yet another example of how little you know about how nature and deer management really work. Fawn recruitment is a determined not only by the number of does but by the ability of those does to produce fawns that are born at the correct weight to survive after they are born. The fawns, no matter how many are born, are of no value to the future of hunting or deer populations if they die within a day or two of being born. That is why the professional deer managers work to get and then keep the deer her din balance with its food supply and total habitat. A deer herd living within the correct balance with its food supply and habitat will be MUCH more productive then a larger deer population that doesn’t have enough food in the correct places to use it during the critical winter and spring time periods. You simple don’t know enough about how nature works to have even a basic working knowledge of how deer management REALLY works. R.S. Bodenhorn |
RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands? allocations fr
These little guys were at my pond yesterday.
 |
RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands? allocations fr
RSB, youre unreal. lol.
The deer herd was raped. There are FAR fewer doe. Far fewer doe have far fewer fawns. Far fewer doe + far fewer fawns= far fewer tags needed to continue reduction.;) ....And that concluded the lesson for today. Nice pic Jim.;) |
RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands? allocations fr
Fawn recruitment is a determined not only by the number of does but by the ability of those does to produce fawns that are born at the correct weight to survive after they are born. The fawns, no matter how many are born, are of no value to the future of hunting or deer populations if they die within a day or two of being born. The simple fact is if the habitat was limiting the herd, non-hunting mortality would equal recruitment and no harvest would be required. But, in 2003 it took a harvest of 7.4 DPSM in 2G to reduce the herd and if those deer hadn't been harvested the OWDD would have increased by 7.4 DPSM and in 2004 the OWDD would have increased by over an additional 5 DPSM. Therefore , there is absolutely no evidence that the habita is controlling the herd. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:59 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.