A pic of woods
07-21-2009, 02:30 PM
#62
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
I find it rather amusing that you and RSB want the herd to be managed based on the best science available, but when the science disagrees with your opinions you reject what the experts are saying. For example, you claim the habitat is reducing the herd in 2G, but the experts say that even in an over browsed contiguous forest non-hunting morality does not equal recruitment until the DD reaches 75 DPSM. Therefore, the max. CC of the habitat in TL should exceed 100 DPSM , so there is no reason to believe the habitat is controlling the herd anywhere in the state.
Where did I say non hunting mortality was exceeding recruitment?
07-21-2009, 05:35 PM
#66
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
I find it rather amusing that you and RSB want the herd to be managed based on the best science available, but when the science disagrees with your opinions you reject what the experts are saying. For example, you claim the habitat is reducing the herd in 2G, but the experts say that even in an over browsed contiguous forest non-hunting morality does not equal recruitment until the DD reaches 75 DPSM. Therefore, the max. CC of the habitat in TL should exceed 100 DPSM , so there is no reason to believe the habitat is controlling the herd anywhere in the state.
You just don’t understand a lot of what the experts are saying and then take what they have said and use it out of context to manipulate your make believe numbers into more make believe numbers. What you show is fairy-tail deer management instead of scientific deer management.
Nature is constantly proving you wrong, but you are so out of touch with nature you don’t even notice.
R.S. Bodenhorn
07-21-2009, 05:47 PM
#67
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
In 2007 87 does and 8 bucks were harvested on 2100 acres.Last year,8 bucks and 142 does were harvested on about 2300 acres.
I honestly don't know the total acres of suitable habitat.We have 3500 acres of undeveloped land,two golf courses,and two lakes.The total acreage is 9500 acres.Most of the residential areas are still actually forested as there's a restriction on what trees can be removed from your property.
I honestly don't know the total acres of suitable habitat.We have 3500 acres of undeveloped land,two golf courses,and two lakes.The total acreage is 9500 acres.Most of the residential areas are still actually forested as there's a restriction on what trees can be removed from your property.
If you honestly believe a harvest rate of 29 DPSM in 2007 and a harvest rate of 42 DPSM in 2008, isn't reducing the herd, then just like RSB, you have no credibility. BTW, in 2008 the highest harvest rate in the state was in 2B with 14 DPSM and the lowest was 2G with 3.84 DPSM.[/quote]
This is another perfect example of how bluebird manipulates data to suit his make believe fairy-tail deer management world.
He took over fourteen square miles of limited deer hunting area where the deer have free range of all fourteen square miles and then calculated the deer harvest for all of those deer on the less then three square miles open to even limited hunting and only with archery equipment.
Even though the hunters only have access to less then three square miles to hunt the deer still have all fourteen plus square miles to feed on and avoid hunters on.
The fact is the harvest in 2007 was only about 6.78 deer harvested per square mile and in 2008 it increased to about 12.71 deer harvested per square mile. That is a far cry from the 29 and 42 harvested per square mile that bluebird made up with his fuzzy math used to mislead people and misrepresent reality.
R.S. Bodenhorn
07-21-2009, 06:02 PM
#68
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RSB, you are twisting the data just as pgc and dcnr does to fit their agendas. The harvests were EXACTLY as bb stated.
3 square miles of the land were open to hunting. The other land was not hunted and therefore the stats cant really be applied in the manner you suggest. The harvest occurred on THREE square miles NOT 14! There is also no determining the overlap of those deers home ranges within that 3 square miles compared to the 14, or for that matter the surrounding properties...
If you want the herd reduced on the surrounding 11 square miles then it needs to be hunted. If its not hunted, the deer densities of the two areas shouldnt be expected to be equal.
You twist the data, just as pgc and dcnr do when speaking of deer densities. Same way dcnr tried to summarize and glaze over the results of the flyovers. Lots of territory with few to no deer, but god forbid if there were a pocket of 15 or so too close together and existing within the stateforest. That means hunters shouldnt be crying, but slaughtering some more of the "woods wreckers" lol.
Once again, bluebird, way to deliver the strap once you have 'em over the barrel. Bravo.
3 square miles of the land were open to hunting. The other land was not hunted and therefore the stats cant really be applied in the manner you suggest. The harvest occurred on THREE square miles NOT 14! There is also no determining the overlap of those deers home ranges within that 3 square miles compared to the 14, or for that matter the surrounding properties...
If you want the herd reduced on the surrounding 11 square miles then it needs to be hunted. If its not hunted, the deer densities of the two areas shouldnt be expected to be equal.
You twist the data, just as pgc and dcnr do when speaking of deer densities. Same way dcnr tried to summarize and glaze over the results of the flyovers. Lots of territory with few to no deer, but god forbid if there were a pocket of 15 or so too close together and existing within the stateforest. That means hunters shouldnt be crying, but slaughtering some more of the "woods wreckers" lol.
Once again, bluebird, way to deliver the strap once you have 'em over the barrel. Bravo.
Last edited by Cornelius08; 07-21-2009 at 06:22 PM.
07-21-2009, 06:37 PM
#69
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
RSB, you are twisting the data just as pgc and dcnr does to fit their agendas. The harvests were EXACTLY as bb stated.
3 square miles of the land were open to hunting. The other land was not hunted and therefore the stats cant really be applied in the manner you suggest. The harvest occurred on THREE square miles NOT 14! There is also no determining the overlap of those deers home ranges within that 3 square miles compared to the 14, or for that matter the surrounding properties...
If you want the herd reduced on the surrounding 11 square miles then it needs to be hunted. If its not hunted, the deer densities of the two areas shouldnt be expected to be equal.
You twist the data, just as pgc and dcnr do when speaking of deer densities. Same way dcnr tried to summarize and glaze over the results of the flyovers. Lots of territory with few to no deer, but god forbid if there were a pocket of 15 or so too close together and existing within the stateforest. That means hunters shouldnt be crying, but slaughtering some more of the "woods wreckers" lol.
Once again, bluebird, way to deliver the strap once you have 'em over the barrel. Bravo.
3 square miles of the land were open to hunting. The other land was not hunted and therefore the stats cant really be applied in the manner you suggest. The harvest occurred on THREE square miles NOT 14! There is also no determining the overlap of those deers home ranges within that 3 square miles compared to the 14, or for that matter the surrounding properties...
If you want the herd reduced on the surrounding 11 square miles then it needs to be hunted. If its not hunted, the deer densities of the two areas shouldnt be expected to be equal.
You twist the data, just as pgc and dcnr do when speaking of deer densities. Same way dcnr tried to summarize and glaze over the results of the flyovers. Lots of territory with few to no deer, but god forbid if there were a pocket of 15 or so too close together and existing within the stateforest. That means hunters shouldnt be crying, but slaughtering some more of the "woods wreckers" lol.
Once again, bluebird, way to deliver the strap once you have 'em over the barrel. Bravo.
It is you and bluebird that are twisting the facts to suit your goofy and misguided agendas.
R.S. Bodenhorn
07-21-2009, 06:53 PM
#70
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
"Oh, ok then since we only have a handful of hunters on our game lands and other public land up here anymore, even the first day, and there are thousands of acres without a man track on them we should count those out of the areas being hunted?"
Unlike the 11 square miles mentioned, Its huntable land. The land being discussed was a particular parcel and not general statewide "underhunted" pockets. But the effects of the harvest on that particular land was the point as you know.
" I guess using that goofy method you and bluebird want to use we are probably harvesting in the neighborhood of 50-60 per HUNTED square mile up here in the northern tier."
We werent discussing the northern tier. We were discussing 3 square miles under strict and specific management conditions. Conditions which arent expressed statewide...across the northern tier...in Timbuktu.... or the other 11 square miles in question.
"It is you and bluebird that are twisting the facts to suit your goofy and misguided agendas."
Insult all you like. Its pretty much cut and dried common sense to anyone not trying to sell a failed deer management plan anyway. I cannot speak for bluebird, but my only "agenda" is to see reasonable and responsible deer management taking place and implemented by a non-extremist management agency. And I shouldnt need to fight for that, it should be a "given" with any reasonable management plan.
Unlike the 11 square miles mentioned, Its huntable land. The land being discussed was a particular parcel and not general statewide "underhunted" pockets. But the effects of the harvest on that particular land was the point as you know.
" I guess using that goofy method you and bluebird want to use we are probably harvesting in the neighborhood of 50-60 per HUNTED square mile up here in the northern tier."
We werent discussing the northern tier. We were discussing 3 square miles under strict and specific management conditions. Conditions which arent expressed statewide...across the northern tier...in Timbuktu.... or the other 11 square miles in question.
"It is you and bluebird that are twisting the facts to suit your goofy and misguided agendas."
Insult all you like. Its pretty much cut and dried common sense to anyone not trying to sell a failed deer management plan anyway. I cannot speak for bluebird, but my only "agenda" is to see reasonable and responsible deer management taking place and implemented by a non-extremist management agency. And I shouldnt need to fight for that, it should be a "given" with any reasonable management plan.
Last edited by Cornelius08; 07-21-2009 at 06:57 PM.