|
Originally Posted by Cornelius08
(Post 3454898)
"So deer numbers should be managed at levels that appease hunters yet cause untold financial damage to a larger number of the states residents?
" "human conflict" was not rated as "high" in many areas even when we have far fewer deer, so its a nonissue. There are tools some may use to micromanage if necessary. Auto collisions? The timber industry? Are those considered human conflicts?:confused0024: |
Originally Posted by Cornelius08
(Post 3454897)
"Not exactly,"
Yes exactly. "what was predicted was a higher percentage of 2.5+ bucks would be available to do the breeding. That has happened. More of the bucks available to breed are 2.5+. That doesnt mean that 1.5 bucks dont still breed." What was predicted was EXACTLY what I said, and I didnt bring it up to debate it, cause its not even debatable. "As for the rest of it, AR coupled with HR was supposed to increase competition. That doesnt mean the 1.5 bucks go quietly back to eatin acorns! " Not what I said. It also wasnt "my" theory. "They still chase seek and do all the other stuff rutting bucks do. Just because they don't all get to actually breed doesnt mean they would not try and to think that they would stop chasing and get fat is about as childish and naive a notion as ever I've heard." Then you agree pgc is full of **it yet again? because that was their conclusion, not mine. And i agree completely that indeed they were full of it. "You may have gone whimpering back to the potato chip bag when you got rejected for a better guy but in the deer world, the wimps don't give up and get fat, they simply tag along and wait for their chance." Dont know why you are explaining it to me. I made it very clear that pgc stated this and I too thought even then that they were full of **it. and it wasn that yearlings were never gonna do any breeding at all or going through some of the motions. Just that they would be decreased significantly. I buy that to a degree. But not in our situation where the only increases are to the percentage of 2.5 year olds and VERY little to the older buck, and most 2.5's are harvested, so really a nonissue here anyway. There was never anything said to imply that 1.5 bucks would experience better growth because older bucks were breeding. There was never anything implied that anything but the chance to get older would make the bucks bigger. The only thing predicted was that fewer of them would die from a bullet or a broadhead in their first year and that has happened. |
I didn't say that, but if that's the way you want the herd to be managed , I'm sure it would make a lot of hunters happy. A normal buck harvest is the harvest that the habitat has shown it can support. |
Originally Posted by bawanajim
(Post 3454908)
So by your definition the last five years harvest should be considered "normal"?
Could it be that he's finally seen the light??? Dont know what it was you said Jim but I'm impressed!!!!:barmy: |
So by your definition the last five years harvest should be considered "normal"? |
"Not to be argumentative but it seems to me that he threat of untold thousands of acres that will be posted if Sunday hunting is permitted."
What does that have to do with deer/human conflict???? That would be HUNTER/human conflict, and yes I had to designate a name for it, since as far as im aware there isnt any official one (LOL). It also isnt even an issue because its not legal anyway. "Auto collisions?" The timber industry? Are those considered human conflicts? Absolutely. And all taken into account, just as they were previously when human conflict was given ratings of high low or moderate by pgc. And none going to go away completely and shouldnt be expected to realistically. |
Originally Posted by bluebird2
(Post 3454918)
Only if you are dumber than an oak stump.
These are your words, are they not? "A normal buck harvest is the harvest that the habitat has shown it can support." |
These are your words, are they not? "A normal buck harvest is the harvest that the habitat has shown it can support." __________________ |
Originally Posted by bluebird2
(Post 3454972)
Yes ,those are my words and they are supported by the fact that the last time the habitat produced a buck harvest of less than 120K was 1979. From 1997 t0 2001 the habitat has been producing a buck harvest of over 176K. That is indicative of the buck harvest the habitat can support.
How many more highway miles are driven in this state today compared to 1979? Just a couple of reasons that todays nor the next decades harvest will not top harvest numbers from the past.:confused0024: |
How many acres of wildlife producing cover have been turned in to mini malls and McMansions in the last twenty Five years? How many more highway miles are driven in this state today compared to 1979? |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:59 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.