S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: never happen in PA
2012/01/29 17:35:37
(permalink)
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: never happen in PA
2012/01/29 17:42:06
(permalink)
RSB--no sense wasting any more of my time with you today, I used the math to prove you wrong on the collard deer sudy months ago and you still try to use it. Your own Biologists put out research papers saying you are wrong and you continue to spin it. Neighboring states say you are wrong and you ignore them. You claim HR didn't affect the buck numbers when any grade schooler would know better. You are definitely one of a kind. Have a good day.
|
RSB
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 932
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/08/11 22:55:57
- Status: offline
RE: never happen in PA
2012/01/29 17:49:21
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: S-10
Anyone being even the least bit honest and honorable would certainly expect the buck harvest to be lower now than before antler restrictions, even if no herd reduction had occurred.
R.S. Bodenhorn
Doc- This is the claim I am showing cannot possibly be true----If you want to say having to count points may save a couple hundred a year statewide I would not dispute that but herd reduction cost us 21,218 BB a year so it is not even close.
Even Alt said we would only see a reduced buck kill the first year of AR and we all expected that but it should have only been for one year had it not been for Herd Reduction.
It is the same thing that happened with the Elk in Colorado when they went to 4 on a side. One years pain and harvests return to normal except for somewhat bigger Elk.
Yet again the historical facts concerning button buck harvests do not support your opinions. It is true that there were a couple years when the statewide antlerless harvest were increased enough that it also affected the number of button bucks being harvested but that was so far back in the past it has virtually a zero affect on today’s buck populations or harvests. The fact is the button buck harvests of the past half dozen years are right in line with what they had historically been before those few herd reduction years. Following are the statewide button buck harvests per square mile along with the 2.5 and older bucks harvested for the past twenty years. Year_________button buck_______2.5> bucks 1991__________1.28______________0.60 1992__________1.03______________0.67 1993__________1.28______________0.77 1994__________1.30______________0.61 1995__________1.39______________0.71 1996__________1.03______________0.56 1997__________1.17______________0.73 1998__________1.01______________0.78 1999__________0.97______________0.87 2000__________1.47______________0.83 2001__________1.39______________0.98 2002__________1.73______________1.17 2003__________1.53______________1.38 2004__________1.37______________1.39 2005__________1.19______________1.29 2006__________1.16______________1.33 2007__________1.15______________1.07 2008__________1.05______________1.31 2009__________0.98______________1.23 2010__________0.99______________1.43 R.S. Bodenhorn
|
psu_fish
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3192
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2008/08/28 22:37:11
- Location: PA
- Status: offline
RE: never happen in PA
2012/01/29 18:00:49
(permalink)
arent you the one RSB saying NOT to compare PRE AR vs POST AR numbers? .99% of BB's in 2010 is greater % overall than 1.28 % in 1991 way to pander to Doc with the stats 
post edited by psu_fish - 2012/01/29 18:02:29
|
RSB
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 932
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/08/11 22:55:57
- Status: offline
RE: never happen in PA
2012/01/29 18:02:56
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: S-10
How ANYONE could possibly think that by reducing the herd by 40% over a few years the results would be that within a few more years things would be back to "normal" (as in harvest numbers before the HR and antler restrictions) is beyond by comprehension
_____________________________
DR. TROUT'S OUTDOORWORLD
I don't know Doc--perhaps you should ask RSB --He is the one making the claim. 
That is not the claim I made at all and you know it. What I have said all along is that even though we have fewer deer today we still have more than would have if we had continued to allow the deer to destroy their own food supply for another decade. We also have more deer today with the better buck/doe ratio and breeding success than we would have today without the better buck/doe ratio we have had the past few years. What you, and the people like you, so totally fail to understand is that deer numbers are very much a product of their environment and influenced by the environmental conditions they are faced with. Nature, not the Game Commission, guarantees that you CAN NOT carry more deer than the food supply will support for more than short-term periods of ideal conditions. Those years of ideal conditions ended and nature did just as nature promises to do when hunters, or anyone else, demand more deer than the food supply is able to support through the winter. Fortunately we had a couple years of herd reduction and better buck/doe ratios before the harsh winters or the population crash would have been even worse and longer felt then it has been. R.S. Bodenhorn
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: never happen in PA
2012/01/29 18:12:11
(permalink)
Anyone being even the least bit honest and honorable would certainly expect the buck harvest to be lower now than before antler restrictions, even if no herd reduction had occurred. R.S. Bodenhorn Tell again what you have said all along
|
RSB
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 932
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/08/11 22:55:57
- Status: offline
RE: never happen in PA
2012/01/29 18:18:07
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: S-10
RSB--no sense wasting any more of my time with you today, I used the math to prove you wrong on the collard deer sudy months ago and you still try to use it. Your own Biologists put out research papers saying you are wrong and you continue to spin it. Neighboring states say you are wrong and you ignore them. You claim HR didn't affect the buck numbers when any grade schooler would know better. You are definitely one of a kind. Have a good day.
You have never proven anything other than that you don’t understand much of anything about wildlife management or the deer population/habitat relationships. The biologists most certainly have never put out anything proving me wrong either, in fact very much to the contrary. I have pretty much a direct line to those biologists and they have no problem with what I have been pointing out and explaining to the public. As for what neighboring states have to say about their deer management programs and direction I will once again say that has nothing what so ever to do with what the Pennsylvania deer are telling us. Those other states have had a different management direction for decades. Just like New York has allowed for WAY larger doe harvests for decades than what Pennsylvania had. Most likely because of that their buck/doe ratio never got a far out of balance as it has in Pennsylvania. That is why each state and area needs to manage based on what the deer are telling the professional researchers instead of what hunters or other profess with their opinions. Nor have I ever claimed that herd reduction had no effect on today’s buck numbers, I am sure it has even though in most areas the evidence indicates it was the environmental conditions that caused the largest reductions instead of hunter harvests. With that said though the evidence is really starting to look like there are a lot more deer, both bucks and does, out there than many hunters believe there are. R.S. Bodenhorn
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: never happen in PA
2012/01/29 18:21:07
(permalink)
|
RSB
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 932
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/08/11 22:55:57
- Status: offline
RE: never happen in PA
2012/01/29 18:23:10
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: psu_fish
arent you the one RSB saying NOT to compare PRE AR vs POST AR numbers?
.99% of BB's in 2010 is greater % overall than 1.28 % in 1991
way to pander to Doc with the stats
Nope never said that at all as long as you are comparing apples to apple instead of trying to compare apples to pumpkins as some of you try to do when you want to compare buck harvest before antler restrictions when all bucks with an piece of bone his head to harvests with antler restrictions. I have used before to after antler restrictions a lot to show how things have improved in recent years. R.S. Bodenhorn
|
psu_fish
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3192
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2008/08/28 22:37:11
- Location: PA
- Status: offline
RE: never happen in PA
2012/01/29 18:28:07
(permalink)
And I'm showing it to prove that while BB harvest is "down", actually it is up because the herd is greatly reduced since 1991.
|
RSB
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 932
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/08/11 22:55:57
- Status: offline
RE: never happen in PA
2012/01/29 18:35:23
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: S-10
Anyone being even the least bit honest and honorable would certainly expect the buck harvest to be lower now than before antler restrictions, even if no herd reduction had occurred.
R.S. Bodenhorn
Tell again what you have said all along
Do you have a serious ready comprehension problem? First of all I did not say there had not been any herd reduction, as you seem to be trying to make it sound. Which is it that you can’t support your position without misrepresenting what others have to say or you simply can’t understand what other are saying? I simply said that antler restrictions would obviously reduce the buck harvest simply because half of the largest age group of bucks out there in the fall, the 1.5 year old bucks, most likely will not even be legal for harvest. Then throw in the fact that hunters have to look for points instead of just shooting at the first opportunity should lead any logical person to understand that just antler restrictions, even if we still had the same number of deer, will result in fewer bucks being harvesting. That should be a no brainer for anyone being honest and honorable in what they expect. But, people like you try to use the decline in buck harvests as an indication the program isn’t working is wrong and very misleading if not dishonest. The deer management program, and especially, antler restrictions most certainly is working toward a better deer management program for the future even if it does mean some hunters can’t kill the first buck that gives them a glint of antler. R.S. Bodenhorn
|
psu_fish
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3192
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2008/08/28 22:37:11
- Location: PA
- Status: offline
RE: never happen in PA
2012/01/29 18:38:32
(permalink)
Buck harvest also declines when the herd is reduced and there are less does to breed and make more bucks
post edited by psu_fish - 2012/01/29 18:40:06
|
RSB
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 932
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/08/11 22:55:57
- Status: offline
RE: never happen in PA
2012/01/29 18:40:39
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: psu_fish
And I'm showing it to prove that while BB harvest is "down", actually it is up because the herd is greatly reduced since 1991.
That obviously isn’t true either or the percent of button bucks in the total antlerless harvest would be increasing. But, since the percentage of button bucks in the total harvest is not increasing all indications, once again from the real deer instead of just from hunter opinions and perceptions, proves that both the button buck populations and harvests are pretty much in line with what they have historically been. R.S. Bodenhorn
|
psu_fish
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3192
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2008/08/28 22:37:11
- Location: PA
- Status: offline
RE: never happen in PA
2012/01/29 18:45:19
(permalink)
Oh really?
Post the deer per square mile in 1991 and also in 2010
|
crappiefisher
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3590
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
RE: never happen in PA
2012/01/29 18:47:43
(permalink)
"Crappy.. just think maybe because those young ones DID get a deer, even if it was a small buck or doe they may be "hooked" on deer hunting now.. " "that was the reason for mentored programs... get the youth involved and interested..." Yeah I know, just pointing out that AR isn't what ( yunnizes ) cracked up to be with a bunch ov ADULT TAGS killing spikes on up through the system. Why you against the early doe youth hunt but think the early Sr. hunt is good?? That's the best time to thin out Doe for a healthy heard. More food left & the bucks don't waste as much time breeding 'em if they ain't there when they come into heat. They would waste a lot ov energy only to have 'em shot a little later in the season on a bunch. Never mind.... crappy
post edited by crappiefisher - 2012/01/29 18:49:32
|
RSB
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 932
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/08/11 22:55:57
- Status: offline
RE: never happen in PA
2012/01/29 18:47:48
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: psu_fish
Buck harvest also declines when the herd is reduced and there are less does to breed and make more bucks
That is obviously true but it is equally obvious, to knowledgeable people, that fewer deer is not the only thing that will cause a decline in buck harvests. Making half of the largest age group of bucks illegal to harvest is certainly a way to low the buck harvest even if you do not reduce the deer population or number of bucks in that population. Are you trying to tell us that protecting more bucks would not or should not reduce the future buck harvests? R.S. Bodenhorn
|
psu_fish
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3192
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2008/08/28 22:37:11
- Location: PA
- Status: offline
RE: never happen in PA
2012/01/29 18:52:15
(permalink)
I could care less about protecting bucks for future harvest, AR is the bait and switch for HR
Stats are easily manipulated and plenty of people on here see through the smoke screen put up by the PGC
I get it. Deer numbers needed reduced, but the mechanisms used by the PGC was very misleading
|
RSB
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 932
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/08/11 22:55:57
- Status: offline
RE: never happen in PA
2012/01/29 18:56:44
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: psu_fish
Oh really?
Post the deer per square mile in 1991 and also in 2010
I don’t know nor care what the total statewide deer population was in 1991 or 2010. Do you? I do know that in 1991 there were more deer in many parts of the state than there should have been as per the available food supply. I also know that the deer to food supply balance was much better in 2010 than if had been prior to the herd reduction years. Those are the facts that are important to the future of having the highest possible and long-term sustainable deer numbers. I would much prefer having a lower but more stable deer population than one that is being controlled with boom and bust cycles based on the environmental conditions like we had before the current management direction. R.S. Bodenhorn
|
RSB
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 932
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/08/11 22:55:57
- Status: offline
RE: never happen in PA
2012/01/29 19:03:35
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: psu_fish
I could care less about protecting bucks for future harvest, AR is the bait and switch for HR
Stats are easily manipulated and plenty of people on here see through the smoke screen put up by the PGC
I get it. Deer numbers needed reduced, but the mechanisms used by the PGC was very misleading
Antler restrictions were and are needed to have the best possible deer management program when you have as many hunters out there harvesting bucks as we had in Pennsylvania. The herd reduction had to happen with or without antler restrictions for the simple reason the habitat (read that as deer food) simply could not sustain the number of over winter deer we once had. Nature proved that and there is nothing the Game Commission or anyone else could do to change that fact. Hunters simply have to come to terms with the fact that they cannot have more deer than nature is going to allow. It can’t happen for more than short-term periods of ideal conditions no matter how much you wish for it. R.S. Bodenhorn
|
psu_fish
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3192
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2008/08/28 22:37:11
- Location: PA
- Status: offline
RE: never happen in PA
2012/01/29 19:09:46
(permalink)
Yes I do care. If there was 20 deer per square mile in 1991 and the BB rate is 1.28/sq mile, the kill rate is 1.28/20 = 0.064 If there is 5 deer per square mile in 2010, and the BB rate is .99/sq mile, the kill rate is .99/5 = 0.198 So even as while the reduction from 1.28 to .99 looks good on the surface, more BB's as % are getting killed now then before
post edited by psu_fish - 2012/01/29 19:12:56
|
psu_fish
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3192
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2008/08/28 22:37:11
- Location: PA
- Status: offline
RE: never happen in PA
2012/01/29 19:12:42
(permalink)
Was is AR needed when 1.5 y/o bucks are fine breeding? I'm fine with HR, I really am, but you dont need to AR to accomplish HR.
|
RSB
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 932
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/08/11 22:55:57
- Status: offline
RE: never happen in PA
2012/01/29 19:40:05
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: psu_fish
Yes I do care.
If there was 20 deer per square mile in 1991 and the BB rate is 1.28/sq mile, the kill rate is 1.28/20 = 0.064
If there is 5 deer per square mile in 2010, and the BB rate is .99/sq mile, the kill rate is .99/5 = 0.198
So even as while the reduction from 1.28 to .99 looks good on the surface, more BB's as % are getting killed now then before
First of all I will assure you there were way more than 5 deer per square mile in 2010 or hunters would not have harvested the 6.98 deer per square mile they did harvest. In 1991 hunters only harvested 8.57 deer per square mile without antler restrictions protecting a high percentage of the 1.5-year-old bucks. Based on these facts I suspect that statewide we probably had about the same number of deer in 2010 as what we had in 1991. Of course there are places with more deer now than they had in 1991 and other places with fewer and perhaps even places with a lot fewer. In 1991 hunters harvested 1.28 button bucks per square mile, which was 24.1% of the total antlerless harvest for that year. In 2010 the 0.99 button bucks harvested per square mile was only 23.0% of the antlerless harvest. R.S. Bodenhorn
post edited by RSB - 2012/01/30 10:11:22
|
RSB
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 932
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/08/11 22:55:57
- Status: offline
RE: never happen in PA
2012/01/29 19:50:03
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: psu_fish
Was is AR needed when 1.5 y/o bucks are fine breeding? I'm fine with HR, I really am, but you dont need to AR to accomplish HR.
The problem was and is that in Pennsylvania we have so many hunters they were over harvesting the bucks and not leaving enough males in the deer population to get enough of the does bred during the correct time the next fall. In some parts of the state there were so few bucks in the fall population over 20% of the adult does were not being bred at all and of those that were bred it was taking over five months. The 1.5 year old bucks are fine in doing the breeding we just did not have enough of them or other adult bucks to get the job done in many parts, if mot all parts, of the state. Those old breeding rates before antler restrictions were horrible and had we continued on that course I am confident we would have both fewer bucks and total deer in our populations today than we do have. The detractors of the deer program try to paint antler restrictions as simply a ploy to get hunters to kill more does but that is not true and really is just a red herring argument used by those that either refuse to understand the truth or in some cases are purposely trying to undermine the program for selfish and personal reasons. R.S. Bodenhorn
|
psu_fish
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3192
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2008/08/28 22:37:11
- Location: PA
- Status: offline
RE: never happen in PA
2012/01/29 20:53:12
(permalink)
So with RSB numbers: 1991 kill rate was 8.57/square mile. PA has 46,055 square miles. 8.57 x 46,055 = 399,927 deer killed by RSB #'s 1.28 BB killed per sqaure mile in 1991 x 46,055 = 58,950 BB killed in 1991 statewide per RSB #'s 2010 kill rate was 6.98/square mile. PA has 46,055 square miles. 6.98 x 46,055 = 321,464 killed per RSB #'s .99 BB killed in 2010 per square mile x 46055 = 45,595 BB killed statewide per RSB #'s Therefore: That is roughly 78,463 less deer in 2010 vs 1991. Based on these facts I suspect that statewide we probably had about the same number of deer in 2010 as what we had in 1991 Oh really, RSB? -78,463 is probably the same number of deer?????
post edited by psu_fish - 2012/01/29 21:09:19
|
Dr. Trout
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4417
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
- Location: Jefferson County (2F)
- Status: offline
RE: never happen in PA
2012/01/29 22:27:16
(permalink)
You have to remember- about all the protected bucks there psu... in 1991 the harvest was much higher because of shooting any buck (no AR)... we can not do that now.. so there are lots of non-AR bucks still running around each year to make up a large part of the 78K difference you mentioned add all the bucks that would be killed in 2010 if we could shoot any and I think it would be about the same as the 1991 harvests... so it may very well be true the number is about the same as in 1991 ...
post edited by Dr. Trout - 2012/01/29 22:29:35
|
Cold
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 7358
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
RE: never happen in PA
2012/01/29 23:35:34
(permalink)
The detractors of the deer program try to paint antler restrictions as simply a ploy to get hunters to kill more does but that is not true and really is just a red herring argument used by those that either refuse to understand the truth or in some cases are purposely trying to undermine the program for selfish and personal reasons. Idunno, dUUd. As soon as the ARs went into effect, I know that myself and the guys I hunt with started getting an extra doe tag and taking two doe each year instead of just the one, as we went from having a decent shot at getting a buck to getting almost no chance. The problem was and is that in Pennsylvania we have so many hunters they were over harvesting the bucks and not leaving enough males in the deer population to get enough of the does bred during the correct time the next fall. Ah, I see. So on one hand, we have an overpopulation of deer, and on the other hand, the problem is that the hunters are preventing the deer from reproducing properly. It all makes sense now.
|
wayne c
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3473
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
RE: never happen in PA
2012/01/30 01:44:20
(permalink)
Before antler restrictions all a hunter had to do was see a glint of an antler then take the first shot opportunity they had. Im well aware of that. But you also have many fewer legal bucks that hunters are competing over. The fact that hunters are now harvesting fewer of the available legal bucks is also supported with the harvest results from the collared deer studies within the various regions of the state. VARIOUS regions? Thats a pretty liberal attitude in regard to VERY DARN FEW regions within regions! lol. But no... Actually those collared deer studies are a joke and nothing more, and youre attempting to use them in a manner they certainly should never be used, unless the intent is purely to decieve. Thats due to tiny sample sizes and limited areas of limited # of units and there were no "collared studies" to compare them to from prior years in those same areas. There is also much to question when it comes to hunter willingness to shoot collared deer (and has been mentioned to be a concern with these type studies). Its certainly not a factor for "everyone" but most certainly for some Im sure. And that alone would badly slant the results of such a limited study. Very reasonable to understand why some wouldnt shoot a collared deer. Heck youd have guys out there thinking anything and everything from, Its someones pet got loose, to maybe it was being used in some type of movement study which would be hindered by killing the deer. Also given a harvest of less than 50% of buck population is insane. With a recent harvet level of around 120k, Can you even imagine how many bucks we would be carrying into each preseason for that to be the case with that only representing half of only the legal bucks? HA HA HA! I used 50% and thats actually a little higher than the average of the "study results" lmao, that you presented. Also if you harvested only such a small percentage of your buck, with steady doe numbers youd steadily stockpile buck and the numbers would grow and grow. Again absurd. Take such a small percentage of buck harvested and counter an increase in buck by further lowering the numbers of doe compared to currently, and the herd does nothing but shrink and with it, the buck harvest to unsustainable levels. That coupled with the fact our buck harvests have not been on increasing trends for the mostpart suggests that your theory is bunk. Nothing but your usual vividly imaginative damage control efforts.
post edited by wayne c - 2012/01/30 02:06:21
|
wayne c
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3473
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
RE: never happen in PA
2012/01/30 02:09:41
(permalink)
So on one hand, we have an overpopulation of deer, and on the other hand, the problem is that the hunters are preventing the deer from reproducing properly. It all makes sense now. It does get rather comical at times doesnt it? lol. Especially when pgcs data shows that there wasnt a thing wrong with breeding timing in the first place, and thats a fact shown on their annual reports. Its also even been stated by pgc that their concerns in that regard, were unfounded. And Im speaking about in general, across the board, and as attested to by pgcs data. Not some special little insignicant localized area that Rsb has marked on his gps. lol.
post edited by wayne c - 2012/01/30 02:10:10
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: never happen in PA
2012/01/30 06:01:08
(permalink)
The detractors of the deer program try to paint antler restrictions as simply a ploy to get hunters to kill more does but that is not true and really is just a red herring argument used by those that either refuse to understand the truth or in some cases are purposely trying to undermine the program for selfish and personal reasons.
R.S. Bodenhorn It must be the detractors you are refering to are your own fellow PGC employees because they are the ones using the Red Herring argument you are refering to. The following is taken from page 51 and 52 of the PGC's "Draft Whitetail Management Plan 2009-2018" right after they explain that hunters are starting to resist killing more does than they have been.----------QUOTE: To meet management objectives, the game commission employed a new strategy by providing new opportunities for hunters to harvest older antlered males while seeing fewer deer. It was hoped this new approach would improve hunter tolerance for reduced deer populations and permit the game commission to meet it's deer management objectives. I don't know how much clearer you need to make it that AR was simply a ploy to sell HR. And RSB wonders why he doesn't have any credibility. 
|
psu_fish
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3192
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2008/08/28 22:37:11
- Location: PA
- Status: offline
RE: never happen in PA
2012/01/30 08:07:39
(permalink)
The problem was and is that in Pennsylvania we have so many hunters they were over harvesting the bucks and not leaving enough males in the deer population to get enough of the does bred during the correct time the next fall. Ah, I see.
So on one hand, we have an overpopulation of deer, and on the other hand, the problem is that the hunters are preventing the deer from reproducing properly. It all makes sense now. It's clear as mud, Cold 
post edited by psu_fish - 2012/01/30 08:10:06
|