GMMAT

Explain that one to me. We'd have MANY MORE deer......and have the SAME carrying capacity. Explain to me how increasing the population over and above the carrying capacity of a habitat can = "better deer".

Unless, of course.....your definition of "better deer" only relates to bigger bucks. And in my opinion....THAT would be short-lived, too.....once the overpopulation caught up with the carrying capacity.

atlasman

What would happen if the had1 million licensed hunters there??

Germ

NO

I am saying FL would have more bigger deer for Florida

Most state like MI, NY, PA, NC and most southern states don't know what thier Top end potential is for whitetail bucks. Mainly because they kill them all, there deer are over populated and not getting proper nutrition either.

Kroll wrote a great article on herd size. All deer all have fat, even ones that are not getting as much food as others. The fat content is the same. But the deer with less food source have smaller bones and organs. His point was we can not judge deer health by the fat content. They will rob other systems to store fat. Like Greg said Kroll is the guy, Ozunga is not to shaby either

Iowa has GREAT I mean GREAT doe management. If NC followed Iowa's plan you would not be over run with deer You would have had to follow it since the 70's. States with smaller deer have more to do with deer mangement than location IMO.

NC would have more top end NC bucks if manage properly. Jeff it's not fault of you or NC hunters.
I would say 120'' buck in NC is same age as 160'' buck in Iowa on Average. I would put them in the same class. Top end bucks for their states.

I look at 120'' buck from NC no different than a 160'' buck from Iowa
I look at 130'' buck form NY no differnet than a 160'' buck from Iowa

The Hunter is the same class to me, they put the Top End bucks down in there location.

Your problem Jeff isyou don't know what that is, but if you keep up what you are doing, you will

GregH

Without having time to research your states harvest records (I'm at work), and going by your stated observation records, you need to remove a ton of does. By increasing doe permits and decreasing buck permits you'll bring the population back in check along with a better buck /doe ratio. Then you'll have better, larger,quality food supply which will result in healthier deer, including larger bucks.

GMMAT

You kill me, sometimes. What's the first thing we need to do as a country.....to help with immigration? STOP THE FLOW OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS INTO THIS COUNTRY.

What's the first thing you want to focus on when you have a population problem? KILL FREAKIN DEER!

OK....so tell all the good ol boys in NC that they can't rifle hunt until after the rut. Reduce the number of bucks they can take. But remember....as you're doing this.....your border's still WIDE OPEN! (you're still INCREASING your population)

And all women would be thin if supermodels if they ordered trimspa. Nice pipedream.

I've never thought of it that way.....but it makes sense.

We'll see. Thanks for the vote of confidence.

GMMAT

They just did this, here.

atlasman

I guess my question would be.........if it is that simple then why don't all the other states just follow along?


What I wonder is how many people truely know how to read a "study" and analyze the statistical data within. I have been part of the peer review process for numerous journals including NEJM so I have a bit of confidence in my ability to tell what is relevant and what is not.

I feel comfortable in my opinion that there are many confounding variables that are just not considered and that is the reason why these guys don't have universal acceptance and implementation of their policies.

GMMAT

Translation.....

What works for one DOES NOT work for all.

Germ

Well Dr Kroll disagree

happy, and even happier if I got one pratice QDM for ten years I was the first person EVER to hunt our farm with a bow in MI. Most hunters in MI went North in the 80's and 90's. I have seen first hand what over buck harvest can do to a prime area.

Well go MI board guys in NLP have seen a big differnce. Being it's mostly public land the herd has been controlled. Any guesses on what their seeing? On average Bigger deer. One guy was amazed. Now you know as well as I there are two sides of the story. There are some who hate it now. Not seeing as many deer.

Quanity VS Quality fight we have the same one in MI.

200,000 more hunters, 500,000 more deer and way more I mean way more habitat.

Could not agree more and better doe management

2000 PA shot 20% bucks where 2.5 or older
2005 PA sjoy 50% bucks where 2.5 older

AR and doe management are the two big things they changed. Iowa kills more % of their herd than Minn. Data does not lie, all you have stated is opinion.

You have stated it your self, in the world of science opinion means diddle

GregH

Atlas,
I don't know what you do for a living but I know that you know all states don't do the same thing because they want to be different or they have their own agenda.

I have no doubt that you can interpret studies, but, have you read any of the ones I've mentioned?

I've followed these guys for years and tend to believe what they are saying.