HuntingNet.com Forums

HuntingNet.com Forums (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/)
-   Northeast (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/northeast-26/)
-   -   Sure seems quite around here (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/northeast/299132-sure-seems-quite-around-here.html)

bowtruck 08-02-2009 03:18 PM

Im thinking that guy would sink your little boat corny.

Cornelius08 08-02-2009 03:18 PM

"You know you have never discredited any of my post Zeus."

Oh NOOOO. Of course not. You never lied about poll votes and got caught either. lmao.

bowtruck 08-02-2009 03:21 PM

nope i havent but you have lmao

bawanajim 08-02-2009 03:24 PM

Any of you Nancys sending for another doe tag?:s13:

Cornelius08 08-02-2009 03:25 PM

Funny guy liar truck. Anyway dont feel bad. I also found patsy's pic. He has on his fishin' outfit waiting for you to pick him up. Maybe he can help you balance out that boat.

Cornelius08 08-02-2009 03:28 PM

Yes Jim. Not gonna use though. Just like to give pgc a donation each year for doing such a fine job.


How bout you?

bowtruck 08-02-2009 03:34 PM

its your boat corny float it as you please

Cornelius08 08-02-2009 03:44 PM


bowtruck 08-02-2009 04:25 PM

so your wife works at micky D whats your point corny

Cornelius08 08-02-2009 04:32 PM

If thats my wife, i guess that would make you my step son?. lmao.

The genetics are pretty obvious. Not hard to see where junior gets it. lmao:arms:

Now go get daddy a switch off the tree. NOW!...... (lol)

bawanajim 08-02-2009 05:48 PM


Originally Posted by Cornelius08 (Post 3398191)
Yes Jim. Not gonna use though. Just like to give pgc a donation each year for doing such a fine job.


How bout you?

I just might, maybe Obama will send me some stimulating cash. :cool15:

blkpowder 08-02-2009 06:10 PM


Originally Posted by bawanajim (Post 3398276)
I just might, maybe Obama will send me some stimulating cash. :cool15:

And a new smart car to haul out your kill.:cool15:


blkpowder 08-02-2009 06:12 PM


Originally Posted by Cornelius08 (Post 3398178)
Nice shades Forest.

I didn't know male zebra's got pregnant?:eek2:

Maverick 1 08-03-2009 08:16 AM

I know you guys are having fun but if we can bring the subject back on topic a bit. What do you think is going to happen when 50,000 hunters hit that same 600 square mile tract of land? What happens when most are highly skilled hunters such as BTBowhunter, Bawanajim, DougE, Blkpowder, bowtruck, livbucks, and pats? They are all alowed to shoot a buck and two doe and they are allowed to roam around on that 600 square mile tract of land as they wish.

Cornelius08 08-03-2009 12:21 PM

I didn't know male zebra's got pregnant?

SInce he's a male zebra, Wonder if the father was a horse, if the baby will still be call a zorse?

DougE 08-03-2009 12:31 PM


Originally Posted by Maverick 1 (Post 3398701)
I know you guys are having fun but if we can bring the subject back on topic a bit. What do you think is going to happen when 50,000 hunters hit that same 600 square mile tract of land? What happens when most are highly skilled hunters such as BTBowhunter, Bawanajim, DougE, Blkpowder, bowtruck, livbucks, and pats? They are all alowed to shoot a buck and two doe and they are allowed to roam around on that 600 square mile tract of land as they wish.


I'm not sure what your point is but I'll try to answer anyway.I imagine the same thing will happen that's been happening.The northern tier will see very little pressure except on the easiest to access places

bluebird2 08-03-2009 01:59 PM

It takes very little hunting pressure to harvest less than 4 DPSM and that is why the hunting pressure in 2G is so low.

Screamin Steel 08-04-2009 04:10 AM


Originally Posted by blkpowder (Post 3398293)
I didn't know male zebra's got pregnant?:eek2:



You know...they say stripes are very slimming! LOL

blkpowder 08-04-2009 05:05 AM


Originally Posted by Screamin Steel (Post 3399342)
You know...they say stripes are very slimming! LOL



They ain't working for that dude!:s8:

BTBowhunter 08-07-2009 03:25 PM


Originally Posted by Maverick 1 (Post 3398701)
I know you guys are having fun but if we can bring the subject back on topic a bit. What do you think is going to happen when 50,000 hunters hit that same 600 square mile tract of land? What happens when most are highly skilled hunters such as BTBowhunter, Bawanajim, DougE, Blkpowder, bowtruck, livbucks, and pats? They are all alowed to shoot a buck and two doe and they are allowed to roam around on that 600 square mile tract of land as they wish.


Your answer is actually quite simple. The hunters on your list obviously have figured out how to adapt and would not all be hunting that same area. They would have figured out during their scouting missions that there was too much activity for the deer in the area and would have moved on to an area that would provide better chances. Maybe one day you'l truly understand the concept of knowing your hunting area and your quarry. Obviously you arent there yet or you wouldnt have asked the question.

bowtruck 08-07-2009 03:38 PM

Some like walking to the closest comfy looking stump. And think scouting is a total waste. I think i will waste some time that way tomorrow.

bluebird2 08-07-2009 03:38 PM


Your answer is actually quite simple. The hunters on your list obviously have figured out how to adapt and would not all be hunting that same area.
Once again you are flat out wrong. here is what happens when 52K + hunters hunt the same are and produce a harvest that exceeds recruitment.


Year antlered harvest antlerless harvest harvest PSM antlerless allocation

2003 10,110 20,370 7.4 52,000 2.55 tags/deer
2004 6,400 13,100 4.7 52,000 3.95 tags/deer
2005 5,000 6,200 2.7 29,000 4.70 tags/deer
2006 7,200 4,600 2.8 19,000 4.10 tags/deer
2007 5,100 6,600 2.8 26,000 3.94 tags/deer
2008 6,800 6,500 3.2 26,00


As you can see the harvest in 2g dropped from 30+K in 2003 to 13+K in 2008 solely due to the effects of HR and ARs.

BTBowhunter 08-07-2009 03:56 PM


Originally Posted by bluebird2 (Post 3402501)
Once again you are flat out wrong. here is what happens when 52K + hunters hunt the same are and produce a harvest that exceeds recruitment.


Year antlered harvest antlerless harvest harvest PSM antlerless allocation

2003 10,110 20,370 7.4 52,000 2.55 tags/deer
2004 6,400 13,100 4.7 52,000 3.95 tags/deer
2005 5,000 6,200 2.7 29,000 4.70 tags/deer
2006 7,200 4,600 2.8 19,000 4.10 tags/deer
2007 5,100 6,600 2.8 26,000 3.94 tags/deer
2008 6,800 6,500 3.2 26,00


As you can see the harvest in 2g dropped from 30+K in 2003 to 13+K in 2008 solely due to the effects of HR and ARs.

I didnt expect you to understand and I dont expect that you ever will.........

bluebird2 08-07-2009 04:25 PM


I didnt expect you to understand and I dont expect that you ever will
And I don't expect you will ever be able to handle the truth. I provided the data that shows what happens when 52K hunters produce a harvest that exceeds recruitment and you reply with pure unadulterated nonsense.

bawanajim 08-07-2009 05:31 PM


Originally Posted by bluebird2 (Post 3402519)
And I don't expect you will ever be able to handle the truth. I provided the data that shows what happens when 52K hunters produce a harvest that exceeds recruitment and you reply with pure unadulterated nonsense.

I saw five deer tonight, eating my clover.:woot:

bowtruck 08-07-2009 05:32 PM

Considering that 2004 3.95 tags/deer
2007 3.94 tags/deer
Doesnt look all that bad 05,06 tags/deer was more 05 being worst 06,07 both improved from 05. Whats the prob

bowtruck 08-07-2009 05:35 PM


Originally Posted by bawanajim (Post 3402566)
I saw five deer tonight, eating my clover.:woot:


well you must have half the deer herd from your whole managment unit there JIM:D

bawanajim 08-07-2009 05:46 PM


Originally Posted by bowtruck (Post 3402569)
well you must have half the deer herd from your whole managment unit there JIM:D


My goal is to have em all.:party0005:

BTBowhunter 08-07-2009 07:13 PM

Had a friend in from Florida and we spent a few days at camp this week. Cruised our corner of 2F two evenings for about an hour till dark and saw lots of new "recruits" :woot:

Had some backstraps over an open fire last night. Nothing like venison that you can cut with a fork to remind us why we spend so much time scouting all those different hunting spots.
:party0005:

bluebird2 08-08-2009 03:51 AM


Originally Posted by bowtruck (Post 3402568)
Considering that 2004 3.95 tags/deer
2007 3.94 tags/deer
Doesnt look all that bad 05,06 tags/deer was more 05 being worst 06,07 both improved from 05. Whats the prob

The problem is those harvests have produced the lowest deer density of any WMU along with the lowest harvest rates in an area that was once the center of deer hunting in the state.

BTBowhunter 08-08-2009 04:52 AM


Originally Posted by bluebird2 (Post 3402765)
The problem is those harvests have produced the lowest deer density of any WMU along with the lowest harvest rates in an area that was once the center of deer hunting in the state.


There you go again! WRONG!!!

The mortality studies showed that only a fraction of the does that died in 2G were killed by hunters but you continue to ignore that fact.

bluebird2 08-08-2009 07:04 AM


There you go again! WRONG!!!

The mortality studies showed that only a fraction of the does that died in 2G were killed by hunters but you continue to ignore that fact.
That is absolutely ridiculous claim. The PGC biologist clearly stated that the rates in the mortality study did not reflect the true harvest rates for deer that weren't tagged.

The simple fact is that the large antlerless harvests in 2003 and 2004 resulted in harvests that exceeded recruitment which resulted in the lowest DD and the lowest harvest rates in the state and the PGC data clearly shows that to be true despite the spin and propaganda spread by you and RSB.

BTBowhunter 08-08-2009 10:51 AM


Originally Posted by bluebird2 (Post 3402855)
That is absolutely ridiculous claim. The PGC biologist clearly stated that the rates in the mortality study did not reflect the true harvest rates for deer that weren't tagged.

The simple fact is that the large antlerless harvests in 2003 and 2004 resulted in harvests that exceeded recruitment which resulted in the lowest DD and the lowest harvest rates in the state and the PGC data clearly shows that to be true despite the spin and propaganda spread by you and RSB.

Wrong again. They did NOT say that the rates DID NOT refllect the true harvest. They said MAY NOT. Big difference! They merely acknowledged that tagged deer COULD HAVE been left alone by hunters. Of course, the new study with less visible tags will clear that up, but you are denying the facts of the study and have chosen to ignore that hunters are obviously not the primary reason for the decline in deer numbers in 2G.

bluebird2 08-08-2009 04:39 PM


Wrong again. They did NOT say that the rates DID NOT refllect the true harvest. They said MAY NOT. Big difference! They merely acknowledged that tagged deer COULD HAVE been left alone by hunters. Of course, the new study with less visible tags will clear that up, but you are denying the facts of the study and have chosen to ignore that hunters are obviously not the primary reason for the decline in deer numbers in 2G

Only a fool would use the results from a doe mortality study conducted in 2007 to deny the effects of HR that occurred from 2000 to 2005. One has to be extremely gullible to believe that the same habitat that supported 19 PS DPSM in 2003 could only support 12 PS DPSM in 2005,while ignoring the fact that the harvest in 2003 removed 7.4 DPSM and the 2004 harvest removed 4.7 DPSM. If those deer hadn't been harvested the OW herd would have increased by over 12 DPSm instead of decreasing by 7 PS DPSM.

BTBowhunter 08-08-2009 06:45 PM


Originally Posted by bluebird2 (Post 3403155)
Only a fool would use the results from a doe mortality study conducted in 2007 to deny the effects of HR that occurred from 2000 to 2005. One has to be extremely gullible to believe that the same habitat that supported 19 PS DPSM in 2003 could only support 12 PS DPSM in 2005,while ignoring the fact that the harvest in 2003 removed 7.4 DPSM and the 2004 harvest removed 4.7 DPSM. If those deer hadn't been harvested the OW herd would have increased by over 12 DPSm instead of decreasing by 7 PS DPSM.

Priceless!! LMAOROTF!!

bluebird2 08-08-2009 07:43 PM

You must be laughing at yourself, because you can't produce anything to refute the facts I posted.

bawanajim 08-09-2009 06:20 AM


Originally Posted by bluebird2 (Post 3403289)
You must be laughing at yourself, because you can't produce anything to refute the facts I posted.


That alone is a real knee slapper. :s5:

bowtruck 08-10-2009 03:06 PM

Now thats is pure Comedy..


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:25 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.