FishUSA.com Forums
Forums Home Search Photo Gallery Calendar Policies Logout Old Boards FishUSA.com Tackle Shop My Profile My Forums My Subscriptions My Address Book My Inbox Member List RSS News Feed
Log In      

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Hunting Boards] >> Big Game Hunting >> RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/24/2008 11:04:30 PM   
Dr. Trout

 

Posts: 918
Joined: 3/3/2002
From: Jefferson County
Status: offline 		Nope --- have not had a cig since the surgery in November..

and YES I am dying to get out there and catch some fish..!!!!

_____________________________

TIL LATER..



http://members.tripod.com/drsems/outdoorworld.html

(in reply to SilverKype)
Post #: 31
RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/24/2008 11:15:22 PM   
SilverKype

 

Posts: 3546
Joined: 1/24/2005
From: State
Status: offline 		Good for you Doc! 



_____________________________

It's hard to beat a Ross.

(in reply to Dr. Trout)
Post #: 32
RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/25/2008 12:00:49 AM   
MuskyMastr


Posts: 1554
Joined: 6/30/2005
From: The 1st Trench
Status: offline 		It is interesting that PGC also states that they could not get enough locations to cooperate to be check stations.   In WVA places beg to be check stations.  They aren't collecting any real data other than numbers and distributing a permanant carcass tag, but it would be better than the numbers we are getting.

_____________________________

All my heroes smell like fish.

(in reply to SilverKype)
Post #: 33
RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/25/2008 12:28:30 PM   
SilverKype

 

Posts: 3546
Joined: 1/24/2005
From: State
Status: offline 		How would it be better than the numbers we are getting MM?

_____________________________

It's hard to beat a Ross.

(in reply to MuskyMastr)
Post #: 34
RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/25/2008 3:44:38 PM   
scaremypsu

 

Posts: 131
Joined: 6/25/2006
Status: offline 		Didn't you just read what Dr Trout has posted.  He is correct, with check stations there is no way of estimating non compliance.  By checking processors, the pgc gets a large sample size (over 80,000) to estimate non compliance.  Same with banding ducks and geese, reward band studies estimate reporting rates so they can be adjusted.  This gives a more accurate estimate of harvest rates.  The method used to determine harvest has been peer reviewed and published in the Journal of Wildlife Management, one of the most well known journals in the field.  It is accepted as a scientificallly valid means of calculating harvest by experts in the field and is better than check stations.    

(in reply to SilverKype)
Post #: 35
RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/25/2008 10:37:40 PM   
Dr. Trout

 

Posts: 918
Joined: 3/3/2002
From: Jefferson County
Status: offline
I just could nenevr understand how or why hunters who KNOW they have been "caught" harvesting a deer would not send in their cards....

By "caught" I mean they know a WCO or Deputy saw the deer...saw them.. and took down their license info...

I would really like to know if the PGC can single out those folks and what that reporting rate is ?????

I do understand why folks who drop off the deer at a processors could feel they would not get "caught".. they figure the PGC will not "check" their deer while it is there.... and thus the PGC will not be looking for a card from them...

If we are not happy with the harvest reports we have to stop and realize there is only one thing to do to make it better and only one person to blame....

send in the cards and those that don't are the ONLY ones keeping the system from being any better than it is now...

Let's not go down that punish those that don't road...

remember.. everyone knows... the PGC can prove they did not get a card... they CAN NOT prove you did not send it....

"almost impossible to prove a negative..."

thus those that IMHO can not call themselves sportsmen do not send in cards...

they could CARE LESS about any attempt at better harvest reporting and they are also the ones that will fight and avoid any other sysytem of reporting...

They just want to shoot their deer every year and are the first to SHOUT and blame the PGC for everything THEY THINK is wrong with hunting in Pa...

_____________________________

TIL LATER..



http://members.tripod.com/drsems/outdoorworld.html

(in reply to scaremypsu)
Post #: 36
RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/26/2008 2:53:21 AM   
MuskyMastr


Posts: 1554
Joined: 6/30/2005
From: The 1st Trench
Status: offline 		1.  Does anyone believe that more hunters butcher thier own deer now than did 20 years ago?   I do.  The formula in the method has not changed to account for this.

2.  As recently as two years ago Rosenberry himself (who I think is a pretty good biologist) explained to us how the system for estimating populations was wrong.  How long till they find the next glitch in  the system?

3.  Scare, I have worn the Journal of Wildlife management out over the past 6 years, and I will probably actually be in it here at some point in the very near future.   Read another 49 "peer reviewed journal articles" and you will have half as many as I have read this year.  The majority of which are related to wildlife populations and habitat management.  Non-Compliance is a static number even in either system.  Our system however does a poor job of factoring the number of home butchers, as those are poorly handled by the processing station system.

4. SK.  You raise a good question, But, How can it be worse?  If you force check stations you can drive some business back into the local economies, by forcing successful hunters to stop at these places.  Small business in the northern tier are screaming about how they are losing valuable hunting business each year, this puts faces back in thier doors. How is that a bad thing?  Plus when processors won't accept deer without the check tag, then you at least know that those ones were reported.  

_____________________________

All my heroes smell like fish.

(in reply to Dr. Trout)
Post #: 37
RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/26/2008 6:50:49 AM   
jlh42581


Posts: 4222
Joined: 10/13/2004
From: Milesburg, Pa
Status: offline 		I remember once they were investigating illegal deer kills and wanted to hear the info I had on it. As I sat with the deputy he rattled off my harvest for the last 8 years. He was like... you killed a buck on x day in y year... i about ****.

_____________________________

Jeremy
http://www.outdoorintegration.com

"The flies used for so discriminating a fish as the trout should, first of all, have the appearance of life."

(in reply to Dr. Trout)
Post #: 38
RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/26/2008 6:52:47 AM   
jlh42581


Posts: 4222
Joined: 10/13/2004
From: Milesburg, Pa
Status: offline 		Im all for the check station myself. Maybe they would take your tags then and keep this crap of people putting the tag back in their pocket and heading back out again a little at arms reach.

_____________________________

Jeremy
http://www.outdoorintegration.com

"The flies used for so discriminating a fish as the trout should, first of all, have the appearance of life."

(in reply to Dr. Trout)
Post #: 39
RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/26/2008 7:21:03 AM   
bingsbaits


Posts: 670
Joined: 3/1/2007
From: spartansburg,pa
Status: offline 		Too bad they can't make a total harvest report card you fill out and turn in when you get your new license and you can't get a new one with out it.(first time licensees excluded).
Would have a complete tally of your hunting harvest for the last year. Deer,Turkey,bear,small game, yotes. Sure would give them better numbers to work with.

One little glitch here in their numbers is the Amish community do all their own butchering and are terrible about sending in report cards.

On a different note took alittle ride around the Corry area to the State line(NY) and back. There was one block we drove around on the State line that had over 110 deer in the fields. One huge field had 55 deer.

< Message edited by bingsbaits -- 3/26/2008 7:23:55 AM >

_____________________________

......"Don't Piss down my back and tell me its raining!"....

(in reply to jlh42581)
Post #: 40
RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/26/2008 10:39:22 AM   
SilverKype

 

Posts: 3546
Joined: 1/24/2005
From: State
Status: offline 		Report cards turned in was 37% and 39% this year.  So many people want better data but less than half of our hunters don't even send in their cards.  I can't think of an excuse for that.  You?

_____________________________

It's hard to beat a Ross.

(in reply to bingsbaits)
Post #: 41
RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/26/2008 10:51:48 AM   
Dr. Trout

 

Posts: 918
Joined: 3/3/2002
From: Jefferson County
Status: offline
If more than half the successful hunters (that are KNOWN) fail to report I can not imagine the rate would be much different with those that butcher at home..

1 --
Check station do not work... many states that HAD them are dropping that idea and going to something else..


2 --
I am so TIRED of all this complaining about the small businesses up here......

I work at a small business selling groceries, fishing supplies, and hunting supplies, ETC... we have the most business during the summer.. tons of camps around here... we are busy after Thanksgiving and up to Tuesday of rifle season..and we'll be packed the first week-end of trout seaosn...

Is business slower than it used to be... YES...

but so is the number of folks coming to this area to camp/hunt/fish...

#1 reason or complaint ---- The youngsters just aren't into that any more.. they'd rather stay home on the computers, the play organized sports, and NOW the price of gas

Less hunters in the area as a whole and less anglers too.....

I do not believe our loss of business has anything to do with deer numbers or deer hunting...

Wal-marts... K-marts.. and fast food places are taking the business away from the moms and pops of this world....

The moms and pops just do not want to admit they can't compete on prices.... so for many --- it sounds better to blame the PGC



LOL





_____________________________

TIL LATER..



http://members.tripod.com/drsems/outdoorworld.html

(in reply to bingsbaits)
Post #: 42
RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/26/2008 11:13:36 AM   
SilverKype

 

Posts: 3546
Joined: 1/24/2005
From: State
Status: offline 		Did anyone see the USP complaining about the low kill numbers?

Wouldn't this be a GOOD thing for someone that wants MORE deer?  Drrr!!!

If it was high, they'd be complaining too.  They sound like a bunch of crazy women!!!

_____________________________

It's hard to beat a Ross.

(in reply to Dr. Trout)
Post #: 43
RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/26/2008 12:37:10 PM   
S-10

 

Posts: 1160
Joined: 1/21/2005
Status: offline 		Doc-- If check stations don't work why are your buddies at QDMA supporting them and if they are too expensive why do your friends at the DCNR support them and say they are NOT expensive to operate. Care to share with us a few states that have quit check stations?  There are a couple that are testing mail in or internet reporting but tell us how many have actually quit. Then see how many states have them. I can think of a dozen or so without research.

(in reply to SilverKype)
Post #: 44
RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/27/2008 9:19:59 AM   
Mikastorm


Posts: 2222
Joined: 10/18/2006
Status: offline

_____________________________

Today’s mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground!



(in reply to S-10)
Post #: 45
RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/27/2008 4:29:34 PM   
scaremypsu

 

Posts: 131
Joined: 6/25/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MuskyMastr

1.  Does anyone believe that more hunters butcher thier own deer now than did 20 years ago?   I do.  The formula in the method has not changed to account for this.

2.  As recently as two years ago Rosenberry himself (who I think is a pretty good biologist) explained to us how the system for estimating populations was wrong.  How long till they find the next glitch in  the system?

3.  Scare, I have worn the Journal of Wildlife management out over the past 6 years, and I will probably actually be in it here at some point in the very near future.   Read another 49 "peer reviewed journal articles" and you will have half as many as I have read this year.  The majority of which are related to wildlife populations and habitat management.  Non-Compliance is a static number even in either system.  Our system however does a poor job of factoring the number of home butchers, as those are poorly handled by the processing station system.

4. SK.  You raise a good question, But, How can it be worse?  If you force check stations you can drive some business back into the local economies, by forcing successful hunters to stop at these places.  Small business in the northern tier are screaming about how they are losing valuable hunting business each year, this puts faces back in thier doors. How is that a bad thing?  Plus when processors won't accept deer without the check tag, then you at least know that those ones were reported.  




Considering I am recieving a masters in wildlife biology, I do not believe you have read more journal articals than I have!  Either way, the method was still reviewed by experts, a few of which are profs at PSU.  Also, how do you figure it is lower for deer butchered at home than a processor?  The majority of the general public has no knowlege of how the harvest rates are calculated nor do they know that the pgc acctually goes out and checks up on the tags at a processor.  If I recall the reporting rate was between 40-50% for 2006, I would hope it isn't any less.  Since the public is unaware it would have less bias than if the majority of the hunting community was aware.  My final point is, your check station would provide a rate for neither so they are still less accurate.

< Message edited by scaremypsu -- 3/27/2008 4:45:25 PM >

(in reply to MuskyMastr)
Post #: 46
RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/27/2008 4:40:54 PM   
scaremypsu

 

Posts: 131
Joined: 6/25/2006
Status: offline 		I stand corrected the reporting rate for 2006/2007 was less than 40 %.

(in reply to scaremypsu)
Post #: 47
RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/27/2008 5:35:08 PM   
Dr. Trout

 

Posts: 918
Joined: 3/3/2002
From: Jefferson County
Status: offline 		S-10...

Unfortunately "my friends" at those organizations DO NOT agree with check stations being the best or more accurate method for estimating harvest figures.

Just like every organization not every member agrees with everything that gets printed in a magazine or on a website.

Maybe I should have said states were trying other methods currently instead of saying dropping check stations.

I have only first-hand knowledge of Delaware's system but letters from folks in Ohio and Delaware about them NOT being that great of a method. I know for fact that many hunters I knew in Delaware did not go to check stations.... just took the deer home and butchered it...

I took mine to the check station every time... hard to get them on the Air Force Base un-noticed ...LOL...

The check station was 14 miles from where I hunted and the quickiest I got in and out was about 45 minutes..... The harvest figures and number of hunters in that state make me laugh when I think how long it would take to process here in Pa....

Ever go to a bear check station ????
How long did that take and how many were processed there .... and how many were "working" the station ?

Did you know that the folks working at a deer check station are covered by insurance for injuries while lifting moving etc deer...... I can't imagine too many Moms and Pops wanting that added expense ..... would you ???

The check station I went to in Delaware had three men working there all day....
How is the PGC to pay all those employees... some may say they are already on the payroll... maybe.. but if they're at a check statioin who's watching the woods????

I'm retired now.. so maybe I could work at a station... let's just say my bosses would become a check station....

#1...They'd have to get me a helper
#2... 7 days a week.. 9 hours a day :
   6 weeks of archery...two weeks of rifle.. and then several weeks of late season....  even at minium wage that's a ton of money and for WHAT...

do you really think it would bring in that much more money.... and if it did increase business INSIDE the store ...what would that cost... another sales clerk to help the ones in there already... 

example - we already put on extra help during trout and rifle season....

With a check station.. two outside checking deer and others to help inside..
(4-6 employees) where we are using 2-3 now....NO WAY...

CHECK STATIONS ARE EXPENSIVE..it's a fact...







_____________________________

TIL LATER..



http://members.tripod.com/drsems/outdoorworld.html

(in reply to scaremypsu)
Post #: 48
RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/27/2008 5:53:48 PM   
S-10

 

Posts: 1160
Joined: 1/21/2005
Status: offline 		Well Doc-----You may want to talk to your buddy Kip Adams and ask him why he supports check stations, and find out why the folks at DCNR say they are not expensive. I can tell you that the small stores in Ohio and Illinois feel they are well worthwhile and at least 3 I know of don't hire anybody extra other than opening day of gun season for checking deer.

(in reply to Dr. Trout)
Post #: 49
RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/27/2008 7:24:58 PM   
Bull Lifter

 

Posts: 88
Joined: 2/1/2007
Status: offline 		Doc, deer check stations in ohio arent like that until gun season really. they are just local little shops that are opened, plus they give you like 24 hours to get it checked, thats not the big deal. But its just the employees of that shop checking the deer for the most part. They dont go out and hire a crew really. Just like S-10 said.
One time i saw them set up where i usually get my deer checked on the first day of gun season. the had a trailer and 2 people? i do believe it helps them to a certain extent, drive down, get gas if its a gas station get snacks and beverages and so on. little sports shops benfit for just being a book and getting outdoors peoples in there store and on the map. Word of mouth helps the small  businesses. I would know, i own one. only thing is i would say come check your deer at my place But we arent opened in the winter time.

Now really i dont know for certain if it would help totally since the game commision checks processors BUT for the home butchers it might help them think alittle bit about having a deer hanging around in gun season without it being properly checked. Everyones hung a deer in their tree to be seen, the right wront person might drive past them and pull in and say oh you need to get this checked...instead of saying oh its probably tagged..congrats..and then forget about the report card. Thats my kinda thinking though, that it might make someone nervous enough to say "i better get this checked so i dont get into trouble" instead of saying "its tagged we are okay...ill do the report card later" and later turns into oh i forgot.

(in reply to S-10)
Post #: 50
RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/27/2008 7:49:58 PM   
scaremypsu

 

Posts: 131
Joined: 6/25/2006
Status: offline 		Although its expensive, that is not the main problem with it.  It gives inaccurate information, states who use that system assume reporting rates are constant, some even assume reporting rates are 100%.  Studies show, including the one performed by the game commission, that reporting rate varies by WMU, county, deer seasons, deer sex, ect.  It is impossible to make an precise estimate without taking that into consideration.   If you are really interested in the topic here are a few publications.  There are plenty more but I do not have electronic copies.




< Message edited by scaremypsu -- 3/27/2008 9:00:18 PM >

(in reply to Bull Lifter)
Post #: 51
RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/27/2008 8:38:15 PM   
S-10

 

Posts: 1160
Joined: 1/21/2005
Status: offline 		Who says it's expensive except those who don't want to do it? Expensive compared to what? Which states assume reporting rates are consistant. Which states say the reporting rates are 100%. They know better but choose to just count real bodies as we used to do. Which fine are you willing to risk--the slap on the wrist for not sending in your report card or the hammer to the wrist for an untagged deer. Any state that wants to can do the same checking of processors etc, to refine their number and I believe some do. A lot of folks have a problem with turning in a report card knowing it will be mutiliplied by 2.7. If my card is worth 3 deer I want to shoot 3 deer.

(in reply to scaremypsu)
Post #: 52
RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/27/2008 9:14:26 PM   
scaremypsu

 

Posts: 131
Joined: 6/25/2006
Status: offline 		States that conduct check stations, they don't have a method otherwise to measure non compliance.  Apprently you didn't read the two publications I had posted for a short period.  The one evaluated estimations as well as cost between mandatory check in stations vs reporting via telephone.  Check stations were reported to have lower rates as a result of inconvienence.  There are plenty of papers plublished from universities that evaluate different methods used by state agencies to determine harvest rates as well as potential biases.  However I had to take them off, when I clicked the hyperlink my name and password were showing.

(in reply to S-10)
Post #: 53
RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/27/2008 9:30:20 PM   
S-10

 

Posts: 1160
Joined: 1/21/2005
Status: offline 		Most anything would be more expensive than a telephone call but the incovienence of going to a check station is overridden by the big fine if your deer doesn't have the proper tag.

(in reply to scaremypsu)
Post #: 54
RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/27/2008 9:49:43 PM   
scaremypsu

 

Posts: 131
Joined: 6/25/2006
Status: offline 		You would think the big fine would override the inconvience, however studies show that isnt the case.  The point of the telephone vs check station was to determine if you could get accurate information over the phone as a check station.  They found the data was similar, and was about 150,000 compared to 700,000 dollars.  It was also cheaper and easier to enforce along with compiling data. 

(in reply to S-10)
Post #: 55
RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/28/2008 2:06:08 PM   
RIZ

 

Posts: 712
Joined: 4/17/2002
Status: offline 		geez s-10 you want to make more hunters pay fines.  that should want them to hunt more in this state.    check stations are a joke, they add nothing to the data that can't be gotten on the phone, over the internet or by postcard.  actually i would do any of those 3 but would not go to a check station.  we're supposed to make it easier to prossess data not harder.

(in reply to scaremypsu)
Post #: 56
RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/28/2008 4:08:41 PM   
S-10

 

Posts: 1160
Joined: 1/21/2005
Status: offline 		(They add nothing to the data that can't be gotten over the phone, over the internet or by postcard.)---Well since the PGC is using deer health  to determine the license quota are the hunters supposed to age the deer, weigh the deer, check for disease and overall health? These are done at check stations during gun season that are manned by college wildlife students and commission personnel. Who takes tissue samples? If check stations are a joke why do most states use them in some form? Hell there are even some being used in Pa. Some states are totally mandatory, some are mandatory in certain counties or areas, some have a combination with something else and a few do something else. In our state both the DCNR and QDMA support them. You only get fined if you try to sneak one home without having it checked and metal tagged. Of course if you want to slip out and kill another one you may not like the concept. Do you consider the Bear check stations a joke. Too big a inconvience to take a deer after spending tons of money, driving, scouting, hours, maybe days hunting in all kinds of weather, and bitch about a hour to get it checked. Get real.

(in reply to RIZ)
Post #: 57
RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/28/2008 6:09:35 PM   
Bull Lifter

 

Posts: 88
Joined: 2/1/2007
Status: offline 		yeah driving to a check station isnt hard to do riz. most of the time they are conviently located enough that its to the point where they are on your way home. the way they have pa set up now with wmu's and point restrictions there is no need to feel like you're gonna get a fine driving up to a check station. i cant figure out how anyone figures you're going to get a fine for having to get your deer checked. A, you tagged the deer with a temp. tag, B. its either gonna be a doe or basically and 8 pt. so how do you figure you'll get a fine? that'd your fault if your that dumb not to tag it properly. all those tags say,  public land or private. sex male or female. time of day. and what else your name? oh and what ya killed it with. so if you mess that up....you deserve to get a fine.

i for one dont think they are a joke. im all for it. i think its a good way to interact with the deer management. you can ask them questions like hows this season going for everyone else and so on. I think basically everyone who doesnt like the idea just bitches about oh we have to do the GAME commisions work now to find out how many deer are being harvested. what would you rather have them do call everyone up after deer season and ask?
....actually thats not a terrible idea...they have all our names and numbers..they should call us and ask us on the phone...is Bob Smith in? yes one second..." hi htis is this pgc and we are calling you on your past season i'd like to ask if you harvested a deer and or how many?" ""yeah i got a buck wmu Z1.""   but that would take oh....possibly 800000 phone calls but hell telemarketers do it. but thats not a terrible idea.

(in reply to S-10)
Post #: 58
RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/28/2008 6:11:56 PM   
Bull Lifter

 

Posts: 88
Joined: 2/1/2007
Status: offline 		but they still should have check stations so they can actually know whats being shot. instead of just an 8 points they can see if they are gettting more mature deer or not. jsut think if they put on the report card deers age? about 90% of everyone would be screwed on aging a doe. or a decent sized buck..is that a 2 or a 3 year old bob? hell i dont know just say its first year?    thats why i like check stations they can age your deer and then THEY know a better idea of whats getting harvested.

(in reply to Bull Lifter)
Post #: 59
RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/28/2008 10:14:32 PM   
Dr. Trout

 

Posts: 918
Joined: 3/3/2002
From: Jefferson County
Status: offline
OKAY... it took a little while but.... Here is what Kip Adams wrote...
quote:



Doc,
 
Hello, it's good to hear from you. 

I've read the peer-reviewed study on Pennsylvania's deer harvest estimation technique and I agree that it provides the Game Commission with solid data.  I realize it is difficult to understand how it can be accurate given that less than 40% of successful hunters return a report card, but I've had enough statistics classes to at least make some sense of it. 

A point to remember is Pennsylvania is a big state and we shoot a lot of deer so even if less than half of the successful hunters return a card, there is still a lot of data for the PGC biologists to work with.
 
Regarding check stations, I worked for two state agencies (Florida and New Hampshire) prior to my employment with the QDMA and both had check stations. 
I now interact with multiple states that have check stations. 

As a biologist I like data, and check stations provide a lot of data to use for making management decisions. 
I realize there are logistical challenges to implementing check stations, especially given the financial woes of the PGC. 

If Pennsylvania had check stations, they likely wouldn't provide the PGC with a more accurate estimate of the deer harvest, but they would provide them with the opportunity to collect more data than they currently do on the report cards.
 
Kip Adams
Certified Wildlife Biologist &
Director of Education & Outreach - Northern Region
Quality Deer Management Association



< Message edited by Dr. Trout -- 3/28/2008 10:16:40 PM >

_____________________________

TIL LATER..



http://members.tripod.com/drsems/outdoorworld.html

(in reply to Bull Lifter)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Hunting Boards] >> Big Game Hunting >> RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages              Hot Topic w/ New Messages              Locked w/ New Messages
No New Messages              Hot Topic w/o New Messages              Locked w/o New Messages


Forums Home Search Photo Gallery Calendar Policies Logout Old Boards FishUSA.com Tackle Shop My Profile My Forums My Subscriptions My Address Book My Inbox Member List RSS News Feed
©2008 FishUSA.com

v. 2.4.5

   

0.156