Why are hunters bashing "Duck Dynasty hunters"

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: Why are hunters bashing "Duck Dynasty hunters"

Postby SAHunter1983 » Mon Nov 11, 2013 9:42 am

Duck dynasty has taken it to far by creating a MAX4 Murse, yes folks that is right a Murse or Man purse for the more metrosexual fashionable male hunters... The end of duck hunting as we know it is upon us. Mark my words, THE END IS NEAR!!!

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk
User avatar
SAHunter1983
hunter
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:04 am
Location: San Antonio, TX


Re: Why are hunters bashing

Postby clampdaddy » Mon Nov 11, 2013 9:44 am

ohioboy wrote: ground hog isnt so bad. they do eat grass.

I'll take your word for it. My buddy works with a guy that recently moved out here from Arkansas and he was wanting some squirrel. We told him that we'd need to take a drive up to the hill country and get a few grays but he insisted on trying one of our local ground squirrels. I warned him about the diseases they have been known to carry but he wasn't worried so we went out to my families ranch and he dumped a few alfalfa fed squeaks and after soaking them for a day or two in buttermilk then grilling he said they were "like eating a damn pine cone".
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3359
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Why are hunters bashing

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Nov 11, 2013 9:54 am

ohioboy wrote:
TomKat wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:
jaegerfisherman wrote: ....More and more people want to shoot a boone and crocket and could care less about the meat. Horn hunting more than going after meat to eat....

I wish this were the case in where I hunt. Every shlub in the hills is ready to dirt the first barely legal buck they see.

You can't eat the horns, which is why I have never passed on a legal deer.

In PA they screwed about 100,000 people per year out of a deer so that a few people can get a booner.

The math is simple. Number of deer born = number of deer that die over the course of a year to keep the population constant. You have to reduce the population by 4 or more doe to make room for a 2.5, 3.5, 4.5, and eventually the 5.5 year old shooter and that means a hell of a lot less fawns and a hell of a lot less deer harvested per year.

Duck hunters argue for shooting less hens so there are more young drakes to kill. But deer hunters that want to do the same are slubs :rolleyes:

If it's your land, do what you want, but on public land in most states it's clear what the public wants. More meat in the freezer and not more bone on the wall.


Would it be possible to express your thoughts in this post with a graph or chart Spinner?


i did laugh at this one. well done.

If he couldn't follow the simple math, I don't know how a graph would help, but I have some figure that might help TomKat understand the problem with too many bucks.

This
Image

will never lead to any of these

Image

which means less of these
Image

OMG, he shot a barely legal buck Image

But it tasted very good :yes:

Now I need to get out and get another one of those this year or any other. The freezer is nearly empty.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15202
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Why are hunters bashing

Postby clampdaddy » Mon Nov 11, 2013 9:59 am

SpinnerMan wrote: ...The best management strategy is harvest nearly all of the 1.5 year old buck and as many doe as necessary to maintain a healthy herd. That's what the vast majority of hunters want.


The vast majority of hunters want to kill more deer, that's no secret. Just like the vast majority of us would like to kill more ducks. Maybe you have researched the topic but the math doesn't add up for me. If you cull all of the 1.5 year old bucks this year, than all of the 1.5 bucks next year, repeat over and over for the next 10 years, do you think you'll have enough mature bucks to keep your does serviced? I say bump up the age limit and let those bucks get big enough that natural selection can really work. You guys have mountain lions in Illinois?
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3359
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Why are hunters bashing

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Nov 11, 2013 10:06 am

clampdaddy wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote: ...The best management strategy is harvest nearly all of the 1.5 year old buck and as many doe as necessary to maintain a healthy herd. That's what the vast majority of hunters want.


The vast majority of hunters want to kill more deer, that's no secret. Just like the vast majority of us would like to kill more ducks. Maybe you have researched the topic but the math doesn't add up for me. If you cull all of the 1.5 year old bucks this year, than all of the 1.5 bucks next year, repeat over and over for the next 10 years, do you think you'll have enough mature bucks to keep your does serviced? I say bump up the age limit and let those bucks get big enough that natural selection can really work.

YES. They did that for generations in PA. It worked just fine. So well that they had to progressively increase the doe harvest because the population was growing and getting too large.

You keep thinking about these mule deer that just can't get the job done. Whitetails have no such problem. If it takes longer for the Mule Deer buck to breed successfully and maintain a stable population, then that is what you are forced to do. I have no idea, but it has been well tested in practice and the numbers worked as demonstrated by the growing population sustained over many generations for whitetails.

And the last thing I want in natural selection. I want hunter selection and take starvation, disease, bobcats, wolves, and coyotes largely out of the equation.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15202
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Why are hunters bashing

Postby clampdaddy » Mon Nov 11, 2013 10:13 am

SpinnerMan wrote: ...You keep thinking about these mule deer.....


Uh, yeah....as in my original post was aimed at hunters "in my area". Shoot all the whitetails you want. Our herds are suffering and it damn sure isn't because of trophy hunters.
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3359
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Why are hunters bashing

Postby ohioboy » Mon Nov 11, 2013 10:45 am

clampdaddy wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote: ...You keep thinking about these mule deer.....


Uh, yeah....as in my original post was aimed at hunters "in my area". Shoot all the whitetails you want. Our herds are suffering and it damn sure isn't because of trophy hunters.

blame willie and the buck commander crew.
User avatar
ohioboy
hunter
 
Posts: 2168
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:28 pm
Location: MoCo, MD

Re: Why are hunters bashing

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Nov 11, 2013 10:52 am

clampdaddy wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote: ...You keep thinking about these mule deer.....


Uh, yeah....as in my original post was aimed at hunters "in my area". Shoot all the whitetails you want. Our herds are suffering and it damn sure isn't because of trophy hunters.

Do you harvest doe at all? Why if your herds are suffering? Killing doe and not "inferior" bucks IS trophy hunting when the population is suffering. What else would you call it? What is the theory by which this helps a suffering population?

The problem with antler restricts is that the most genetically superior, in terms of antler growth, are the first to go. They can become legal a year or two sooner than those with poor genetics for antler growth. It may not be as important for your deer population as it is where I grew up. Before the antler restrictions, spikes and fork horns were very rare among the 1.5 year old buck. My family shot a lot of buck over the years and most were young buck and there were no spikes, one 3 pointer (which was more prized by my dad than all the small 8's that was the norm), and a few 6's. Now they are more common because of unnatural selection. When I was around 14, I still remember the guy that got a spike because it was so rare. It's the only one I ever saw on my grandfather's farm, dead or alive.

The only thing that really reduced the buck harvest is that often times the only thing you can tell about the buck before you shoot it is that it is a buck, so you couldn't shoot it after the antler restrictions were imposed. We aren't hunting in the wide open. It's often in the brush on pressured deer on the move. The biggest buck anyone in my family ever got was my first deer and with antler restriction, I could have never shot it. It was running when I saw it. No way to know if legal. I just saw a huge buck Sunday a week ago archery hunting. Did it meet antler restrictions? No idea. It was screened by the brush so I couldn't shoot it with bow, but easily with any gun. I would have took my chances and performed a ground check because it was freaking huge, but even at 25 yards I couldn't count points with its head down behind the brush, but I could have easily got a bullet through to the vitals with a careful shot.

However, the point all along is that not caring about putting bone on the wall does not make you a shlub and neither does being a trophy hunter. Neither should force the other to do things their way. Maintaining a health and stable population that satisfies the most hunters should be the management plan. What it takes to do that will vary with the local conditions and hunter preferences. It's the same problem with everything government does. It is human nature to think "my" preferences are the best preferences and anyone that prefers something else is a shlub so we should discount their preferences and give me what I want. Obamacare or deer management. This is probably the leading cause of government inefficiency and failure.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15202
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Why are hunters bashing

Postby clampdaddy » Mon Nov 11, 2013 11:32 am

SpinnerMan wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote: ...You keep thinking about these mule deer.....


Uh, yeah....as in my original post was aimed at hunters "in my area". Shoot all the whitetails you want. Our herds are suffering and it damn sure isn't because of trophy hunters.

Do you harvest doe at all? Why if your herds are suffering? Killing doe and not "inferior" bucks IS trophy hunting when the population is suffering. What else would you call it?....


If you meant inferior bucks instead of does then I'd call it common sense. Like I said before, our deer aren't eating themselves out of house and home like yours do back east. What would culling does accomplish? At the ranch if we want more calves we don't shoot the cows.

For the most part we don't shoot does, with some exceptions. As far as I know there are only special draw (mostly for junior hunters) doe tags here.
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3359
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Why are hunters bashing

Postby assateague » Mon Nov 11, 2013 12:21 pm

Because by killing does you keep the bucks healthier, and more likely to make it through the winter, to get a year older and bigger horned next year. Which I thought is what you wanted?
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Why are hunters bashing

Postby clampdaddy » Mon Nov 11, 2013 12:27 pm

assateague wrote:Because by killing does you keep the bucks healthier, and more likely to make it through the winter, to get a year older and bigger horned next year. Which I thought is what you wanted?

Our deer don't have to face those horrible winters. When the snow flurries hit the Sierras our herds migrate to stay below the snow line.
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3359
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Why are hunters bashing

Postby assateague » Mon Nov 11, 2013 12:31 pm

Do they have pretty good food sources year round there? I have no clue what your areas like. Even here, where our winters aren't too harsh, it's common to see some pretty strung out, skin and bones bucks roaming around by late February. And we have an unlimited doe harvest to boot.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Why are hunters bashing

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Nov 11, 2013 12:47 pm

clampdaddy wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote: ...You keep thinking about these mule deer.....


Uh, yeah....as in my original post was aimed at hunters "in my area". Shoot all the whitetails you want. Our herds are suffering and it damn sure isn't because of trophy hunters.

Do you harvest doe at all? Why if your herds are suffering? Killing doe and not "inferior" bucks IS trophy hunting when the population is suffering. What else would you call it?....


If you meant inferior bucks instead of does then I'd call it common sense. Like I said before, our deer aren't eating themselves out of house and home like yours do back east. What would culling does accomplish? At the ranch if we want more calves we don't shoot the cows.

For the most part we don't shoot does, with some exceptions. As far as I know there are only special draw (mostly for junior hunters) doe tags here.

Then I agree, it is not trophy hunting. If those buck are needed for mating because the younger buck don't get the job done, again that is not trophy hunting. If however, the young buck get the job done, then there is no basis other than trophy hunting for not shooting them and that is not what the general hunting population wants and it should not be imposed upon them because it has nothing to do with the health and stability of the population.

It doesn't make them shlubs if they don't care about the bone mass on top of their head. I don't understand why people care that much about antlers. I get why they care, but not as much as they care. I'd have been ecstatic if I got that huge buck I saw the other day, but I'm not going to pass on deer to increase the odds a little. A few years ago I actually had a very nice buck bedded down about 50 yards away from me when a nice doe walked behind me. I without hesitation eased around into shooting position on her. As it turned out I didn't get a shot as she blew through the shooting lane. Never crossed my mind to pass on her even though I had a pretty good chance at a buck that would have been near or better than my personal best buck and first buck with a bow.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15202
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Why are hunters bashing

Postby boney fingers » Mon Nov 11, 2013 1:25 pm

PA leads all states in deer/car collisions 115,000 I think; to say we have killed off all the deer is wrong. We kill more on highways than most states do by hunting. In PA, bucks have to have three point in some zones or 4 in others (three on the main beam is legal). Many 1 1/2 old bucks are legal and almost all 2 1/2 year olds are legal. Junior hunters can harvest any buck. Basically instead of killing a bunch of 1 1/2 old bucks, we now kill a bunch of 2 1/2 old bucks. I am for efforts to reduce the impact of the deer heard on the people who actually feel the impact (farmers and drivers). If as hunters we only take into consideration our needs, then we will not be left in charge of controlling the deer heard very long. The average deer yields about 35lbs of meat @4$/lb, that's less than $150. Most hunters have much more than that invested in killing a deer; if you want meat, it may well be cheaper at the store. That same deer can do thousands of dollars worth of damage when hit by a car and can destroy hundreds of dollars in crops; deer hunting is a sport that we use to fund the control of our deer population.
boney fingers
hunter
 
Posts: 748
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:30 pm

Re: Why are hunters bashing

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Nov 11, 2013 1:47 pm

boney fingers wrote:I am for efforts to reduce the impact of the deer heard on the people who actually feel the impact (farmers and drivers).
That means reduce the population. Period. Less deer. Less impacts.

boney fingers wrote:PA leads all states in deer/car collisions 115,000 I think; to say we have killed off all the deer is wrong.
Never said that. I said they chose to reduce the sustainable annual harvest by about 100,000 deer. Same population. Same number of deer collisions. Same amount of crop damage. But a higher ratio of buck to doe and therefore less fawns and less harvest.

boney fingers wrote:Basically instead of killing a bunch of 1 1/2 old bucks, we now kill a bunch of 2 1/2 old bucks.
And those 1.5 year old buck don't produce fawns. Every fawn NOT born is one less deer that can be harvested. If you don't kill that 1.5 year old buck, you have to kill a doe to make room for him to live another year.

If you can support a population where 100 deer coming out of winter, how many fawns will they have? However many fawns are born is the total number of deer that need to die of all causes over the course of the year to get back to 100. The hunters get to take the ones that would not otherwise have died from predators, cars, etc.

If the population if 50/50 buck to doe, that's only 50 deer that can have fawns. If the population is 25/75 buck to doe, that is 50% more fawns born the next year and 50% more deer that can be harvested over the course of the year to get the population to where it needs to be going into winter. The PA Game Commission decided to reduce the sustainable harvest by increasing the buck/doe ratio so you can kill more 2.5 year old bucks. Why? That makes no sense given what the vast majority of hunters want.

That is a totally separate question from what the population level should be to address the question of accidents and crop damage. That is unless you think buck eat less crops and less likely to be in car collisions. Given that doe are smaller than buck, I'm sure they eat a little less, so you can even increase the population a bit and keep crop damage the same. As far as collisions with cars, the anecdotal evidence I have seen is that there is no difference and it may even be skewed a bit toward bucks. I'm sure there is data on that.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15202
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Why are hunters bashing

Postby clampdaddy » Mon Nov 11, 2013 1:53 pm

assateague wrote:Do they have pretty good food sources year round there? I have no clue what your areas like. Even here, where our winters aren't too harsh, it's common to see some pretty strung out, skin and bones bucks roaming around by late February. And we have an unlimited doe harvest to boot.

Honestly, the only skinny deer I've seen was one that appeared to have had a high velocity varmint rifle round blow up on its shoulder and was severely crippled, the other was a monstrous forked horn (you'd probably call it a four pointer. If you include eye guards it would be a six pointer) my buddy shot that was so old he didn't hardly have any teeth left. I'm sure there are probably lots of deer that get trapped in the high country but if they do its pretty much a guaranteed death sentence no matter how tough they are. In the Sierras if it doesn't hibernate or have wings, its probably not going to make it. The Donner Party is a good example of how much wildlife is available in the high Sierras once the snow starts falling. :lol3: Once you get out of the sierras and down into the foothills there is a lot of winter feed. All of the tall grass is no longer lush and green by then but its plentiful. Kind of like a low grade hay. Right now one of our biggest problems is the mountain lion population and poachers who shoot indiscriminately.
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3359
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Why are hunters bashing

Postby clampdaddy » Mon Nov 11, 2013 2:22 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote: ...You keep thinking about these mule deer.....


Uh, yeah....as in my original post was aimed at hunters "in my area". Shoot all the whitetails you want. Our herds are suffering and it damn sure isn't because of trophy hunters.

Do you harvest doe at all? Why if your herds are suffering? Killing doe and not "inferior" bucks IS trophy hunting when the population is suffering. What else would you call it?....


If you meant inferior bucks instead of does then I'd call it common sense. Like I said before, our deer aren't eating themselves out of house and home like yours do back east. What would culling does accomplish? At the ranch if we want more calves we don't shoot the cows.

For the most part we don't shoot does, with some exceptions. As far as I know there are only special draw (mostly for junior hunters) doe tags here.

Then I agree, it is not trophy hunting. If those buck are needed for mating because the younger buck don't get the job done, again that is not trophy hunting. If however, the young buck get the job done, then there is no basis other than trophy hunting for not shooting them and that is not what the general hunting population wants and it should not be imposed upon them because it has nothing to do with the health and stability of the population.

It doesn't make them shlubs if they don't care about the bone mass on top of their head. I don't understand why people care that much about antlers. I get why they care, but not as much as they care. I'd have been ecstatic if I got that huge buck I saw the other day, but I'm not going to pass on deer to increase the odds a little. A few years ago I actually had a very nice buck bedded down about 50 yards away from me when a nice doe walked behind me. I without hesitation eased around into shooting position on her. As it turned out I didn't get a shot as she blew through the shooting lane. Never crossed my mind to pass on her even though I had a pretty good chance at a buck that would have been near or better than my personal best buck and first buck with a bow.

Spinner, believe me when I say that if we had the deer numbers I would have no problems shooting a little buck or a doe. I don't shoot them for the horns either. None of my bucks have been big enough to warrant having them mounted. Where I'm coming from is I hunted a good seven years before I shot my first buck. It was a forked horn, but a decent sized one. After that I figured that it wasn't my place to take little deer when so many junior hunters have not taken any. If hunting was just about getting meat I darn sure wouldn't hunt ducks, and if I did I would probably rather just shoot them on the water to save on ammo costs. Maybe the term "shlub" was not quite the right one to use but if I chose to creep up to the edge of a pond and water swat a limit of ducks, even though it is legal to do, I'm sure there would be some kind of colorful term applied.
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3359
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Why are hunters bashing

Postby ohioboy » Mon Nov 11, 2013 2:36 pm

clampdaddy wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote: ...You keep thinking about these mule deer.....


Uh, yeah....as in my original post was aimed at hunters "in my area". Shoot all the whitetails you want. Our herds are suffering and it damn sure isn't because of trophy hunters.

Do you harvest doe at all? Why if your herds are suffering? Killing doe and not "inferior" bucks IS trophy hunting when the population is suffering. What else would you call it?....


If you meant inferior bucks instead of does then I'd call it common sense. Like I said before, our deer aren't eating themselves out of house and home like yours do back east. What would culling does accomplish? At the ranch if we want more calves we don't shoot the cows.

For the most part we don't shoot does, with some exceptions. As far as I know there are only special draw (mostly for junior hunters) doe tags here.

Then I agree, it is not trophy hunting. If those buck are needed for mating because the younger buck don't get the job done, again that is not trophy hunting. If however, the young buck get the job done, then there is no basis other than trophy hunting for not shooting them and that is not what the general hunting population wants and it should not be imposed upon them because it has nothing to do with the health and stability of the population.

It doesn't make them shlubs if they don't care about the bone mass on top of their head. I don't understand why people care that much about antlers. I get why they care, but not as much as they care. I'd have been ecstatic if I got that huge buck I saw the other day, but I'm not going to pass on deer to increase the odds a little. A few years ago I actually had a very nice buck bedded down about 50 yards away from me when a nice doe walked behind me. I without hesitation eased around into shooting position on her. As it turned out I didn't get a shot as she blew through the shooting lane. Never crossed my mind to pass on her even though I had a pretty good chance at a buck that would have been near or better than my personal best buck and first buck with a bow.

Spinner, believe me when I say that if we had the deer numbers I would have no problems shooting a little buck or a doe. I don't shoot them for the horns either. None of my bucks have been big enough to warrant having them mounted. Where I'm coming from is I hunted a good seven years before I shot my first buck. It was a forked horn, but a decent sized one. After that I figured that it wasn't my place to take little deer when so many junior hunters have not taken any. If hunting was just about getting meat I darn sure wouldn't hunt ducks, and if I did I would probably rather just shoot them on the water to save on ammo costs. Maybe the term "shlub" was not quite the right one to use but if I chose to creep up to the edge of a pond and water swat a limit of ducks, even though it is legal to do, I'm sure there would be some kind of colorful term applied.

i am not too proud. done it. they tasted great. will do it again. maybe i need a "shlub" patch. :lol3:
User avatar
ohioboy
hunter
 
Posts: 2168
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:28 pm
Location: MoCo, MD

Re: Why are hunters bashing

Postby clampdaddy » Mon Nov 11, 2013 3:05 pm

ohioboy wrote: i am not too proud. done it. they tasted great. will do it again. maybe i need a "shlub" patch. :lol3:

Maybe a "punt gunner" patch? :lol3:
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3359
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Why are hunters bashing

Postby boney fingers » Mon Nov 11, 2013 4:52 pm

If the population if 50/50 buck to doe, that's only 50 deer that can have fawns. If the population is 25/75 buck to doe, that is 50% more fawns born the next year and 50% more deer that can be harvested over the course of the year to get the population to where it needs to be going into winter. The PA Game Commission decided to reduce the sustainable harvest by increasing the buck/doe ratio so you can kill more 2.5 year old bucks. Why? That makes no sense given what the vast majority of hunters want.

That is a totally separate question from what the population level should be to address the question of accidents and crop damage. That is unless you think buck eat less crops and less likely to be in car collisions. Given that doe are smaller than buck, I'm sure they eat a little less, so you can even increase the population a bit and keep crop damage the same. As far as collisions with cars, the anecdotal evidence I have seen is that there is no difference and it may even be skewed a bit toward bucks. I'm sure there is data on that.[/quote]

Wouldn't the question be whether one buck eats as much as a doe and 2 fawns as most crop damage occurs from the time the fawns are born until hunting season. The large harvest numbers that Pa had a few years ago were do in part to a larger deer population and that was when they were trying to kill more doe off to get the ratio where it naturally is. I cant speak for the whole state, but where I live the deer damage farmers experience is much less now than it was 5-10 years prior, the hunters also complain of less deer. I am not a cheerleader for the game commission, but I do believe in giving credit where credit is due and I believe they are doing a better job in this particular area than they have in the past.
boney fingers
hunter
 
Posts: 748
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:30 pm

Re: Why are hunters bashing

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Nov 11, 2013 5:54 pm

boney fingers wrote:Wouldn't the question be whether one buck eats as much as a doe and 2 fawns as most crop damage occurs from the time the fawns are born until hunting season.
So an even better argument for not letting those buck get another year on them because they clearly will eat more for the same number of deer harvested in the fall.

boney fingers wrote:The large harvest numbers that Pa had a few years ago were do in part to a larger deer population and that was when they were trying to kill more doe off to get the ratio where it naturally is.
I'm not talking about the peak where they killed off a bunch of doe to make room for the buck. I'm talking about the old sustainable harvest rate and the new sustainable harvest rate after they transition was over. They had a good report about this and it was clear they were predicting a reduction of about 100,000 per year after a couple years of very high harvests of doe to clear space for the bucks they would not kill.

boney fingers wrote:I cant speak for the whole state, but where I live the deer damage farmers experience is much less now than it was 5-10 years prior, the hunters also complain of less deer.
That is total population and not because there are a larger fraction of 2.5 year old deer and the same population size.

boney fingers wrote:I am not a cheerleader for the game commission, but I do believe in giving credit where credit is due and I believe they are doing a better job in this particular area than they have in the past.

Me too and they ruined the deer hunting where I am from.

The harvest was not uniform. In places where there is a lot of heavy pressure from the public, the populations were depressed far greater than average. My Uncle has a cabin and a pretty good chunk of land near some large tracts of public land. They used to kill several deer every year and now they hardly see any deer. My Uncle is a retired biology professor. He even admits that they bought up a bunch of extra doe tags and were having a grand old time during the years they were thinning out the doe as were all the people on public land and the numbers still haven't rebounded.

The math really is that simple. Everything else being equal, less does means lower total harvest until you get to really low buck/doe ratios.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15202
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Why are hunters bashing "Duck Dynasty hunters"

Postby whaknstak » Mon Nov 11, 2013 7:10 pm

Image
"Do you care about freedom? Dreams may have inspired it, and wishes prompted it, but only war and weapons have made it yours."

Col Jeff Cooper
User avatar
whaknstak
hunter
 
Posts: 978
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 9:24 pm
Location: N Florida

Re: Why are hunters bashing

Postby boney fingers » Mon Nov 11, 2013 7:26 pm

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/se ... 882&mode=2

Hear are the actual estimates, the numbers look pretty good to me but everyone will interpret them differently. I will say this, back when we were able to harvest the 4-500 thousand deer a year, we had way too many.

My next question is, since 1/4 of the antlerless deer are bucks, then doesn't that mean 25% of the deer weve killed to make room for the young bucks are bucks anyway?
boney fingers
hunter
 
Posts: 748
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:30 pm

Re: Why are hunters bashing

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Nov 11, 2013 7:51 pm

boney fingers wrote:http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=625882&mode=2

Hear are the actual estimates, the numbers look pretty good to me but everyone will interpret them differently. I will say this, back when we were able to harvest the 4-500 thousand deer a year, we had way too many.

My next question is, since 1/4 of the antlerless deer are bucks, then doesn't that mean 25% of the deer weve killed to make room for the young bucks are bucks anyway?

Too many deer is a totally separate question from the ratio of buck to doe. These are two separate question. The first is the # of deer per acre. The second is the ratio of buck to doe. As you pointed out, they are not 100% separable because big buck will eat more, so they will reduce the sustainable herd size a bit as there are more of them, but probably not enough to worry about, but I could be wrong on that since a mature buck can easily be twice the size of the average doe and if it must eat twice as much, that will reduce the carrying capacity by two antlerless deer for every extra mature buck. And clampdaddy is correct too that mature buck are a little more effective at breeding, but I've seen nothing that suggests it's a large factor in whitetail over the range we are talking about.

If you have too many deer, you don't have a sustainable population (or negative impact other populations of animals, etc.) and need to reduce it. And I know in some areas of PA this was definitely true. You solve that not by antler restrictions, but by a temporary increase in doe tags to reduce the population of baby makers while trying to maintain the buck/doe ratio as near as possible to the maximum fawn production so that the hunters can harvest the maximum number of deer at that new healthier lower population level and then maintain the population there.

I am talking purely about a higher buck/doe ratio that comes with antler restriction. It reduces the number of fawns produced at a given population level and therefore the number of deer that can be harvested. There is a reason that in a cow pasture or on a range, there are very few bulls for every cow. My grandfather operated his dairy farm with zero bulls for many years, but you can't just order from the vet when it comes to wild deer.

And yes, to make room for buck you have to increase your harvest of button bucks because there is no effective way to distinguish them. The transition does not happen over night.

For WHATEVER population is sustainable, there is a maximum number of deer that can be harvested annually. It's a simple fact.

I put this together per TK's request.

If there are no bucks, then there will be no fawns. If there are no doe, there are no fawns. However, one buck will take care of a bunch of doe. So the maximum fawn production will occur where the buck are a relatively small fraction of the population. And yes, older bucks are more efficient, but how much? That is what the basic shape will look like. The peak will be skewed to well below 50/50 which is what mother nature gives us at birth. And as you point out, roughly 1 out of 4 antlerless deer are button bucks, so the ratio would be 25% buck each fall if we killed 100% of the antlered buck each year. Even that is probably above the optimum level, but without selectively killing button bucks like a farmer does when managing his herd, that's the best we can do. Now if for mule deer, the gap between young buck and mature buck is huge, then that could change things.

FawnProductionShape.jpg
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15202
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Why are hunters bashing

Postby clampdaddy » Mon Nov 11, 2013 11:15 pm

whaknstak wrote:Image

This is our thread now. Welcome to Thunderdome!
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3359
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests