|
Post by drs on Feb 23, 2011 9:58:27 GMT -5
DRS, please but down the biology book and pick up the reading comprehension book instead. Please explain where in this proposal this will help the herd INCREASE in size. Don't need to. You need BOTH Sexes to produce offspring. I know what you are trying to talk about. Kentucky has Zones 1-4 inwhich is based on the Deer population. In zone #3, Hunters can harvest ONE Buck & ONE Anterless Deer, during firearm season. If they want to take two bonus Deer they must do so using Archery Equipment. In Zone #4 ONLY Bucks can be harvested with a Firearm. They may take an Anterless Deer (ONE) with archery equipment or they can take an Anterless Deer a certain amount of days (usually three) with a Muzzle Loader during the December M/L season.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2011 10:03:22 GMT -5
Again, I'm just going by their statement" the proposed change would not adversely change the doe numbers and fawn reproduction." isn't that what it says? If you kill the same amount of does you always have and increase the buck harvest by a couple hundred, where in that equation do you see a increse in herd size? What you fail to understand is that no matter how many more bucks are killed, ALL the does will still be bred and give birth. With that taking place, the pre-hunt population the following year will be larger than the previous. Basic stuff that everyone knows, guess that should be nearly everyone.
|
|
|
Post by deerman on Feb 23, 2011 10:07:47 GMT -5
Timex said that the goal of this proposal is to raise the population in certain areas not me. My point was that the release doesn't say that and numerically I don't see how it would increase herd size anyway.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Feb 23, 2011 10:15:28 GMT -5
Timex said that the goal of this proposal is to raise the population in certain areas not me. My point was that the release doesn't say that and numerically I don't see how it would increase herd size anyway. Tom (timex) is correct! Go back and re-read his posts & also mine.
|
|
|
Post by deerman on Feb 23, 2011 10:24:34 GMT -5
As you said Timex, it doesn't matter how many bucks are taken, the does will all be bred at one time or another. If you want to change the overall population you have to change the amount of antlerless deer taken. If your goal is to increase you have to limit the amount of doe taken. If you want to decrease the herd you have increase doe taken. I've learned this from the recent reduction talk here in Indiana.
This only speaks to my point that this is more about money and less about increasing the herd as you suggested .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2011 10:56:44 GMT -5
Wrong again, it's about additional oppurtunity. Period. It simply gives the guys in that county a few more days to hunt buck deer instead of staying home. The only does killed will be mistakes, which is highlighted in the press release. There is no mention of making more money off of this change. And to be accurate, I never said it was designed to increase the population. What was said was that Zone 3 and 4 are designe to grow the herd, 3's rather slowly and 4 a lot quicker. You do not have a good understanding of deer management in Ky. or anywhere for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Feb 23, 2011 10:56:57 GMT -5
Deerman posted:As you said it doesn't matter how many bucks are taken, the does will all be bred at one time or another.
True, one Buck can service several Doe.
If you want to change the overall population you have to change the amount of antlerless deer taken. If your goal is to increase you have to limit the amount of doe taken. If you want to decrease the herd you have increase doe taken. I've learned this from the recent reduction talk here in Indiana.
Correct!
This only speaks to my point that this is more about money and less about increasing the herd as you suggested.
This is where you are not correct. Money has nothing to do with Deer (numbers)production in the sense you assume it to be. The expense come in with habitat improvement inorder the herd can grow to a desired size.
|
|
|
Post by gobblerstopper on Feb 23, 2011 11:24:00 GMT -5
Again, I'm just going by their statement" the proposed change would not adversely change the doe numbers and fawn reproduction." isn't that what it says? If you kill the same amount of does you always have and increase the buck harvest by a couple hundred, where in that equation do you see a increse in herd size? It says that the proposal will not have a negative effect on the doe numbers. Say you start with 6 does that all got bred. Kill two of them and let the remaining 4 have a fawn. How many deer do you go into next season with? 4 remaining does +4 yearlings (Two of which will probably be does.) = 8 deer. Kill 2 of the 6 does again, do the math and you come up with 8 deer the following year. Now add the additional fawns that are born when the remaining does have twins and multiply the whole equation by 10,000 and you should be able to see how killing the same number of does each year could easily result in an increased herd.
|
|
|
Post by deerman on Feb 23, 2011 12:05:40 GMT -5
I will agree with everyones assessment of my lack of knowledge towards statewide deer management. That's very true and will you never hear me say I know more than anyone else on this subject.
I will quietly leave these tread now not because you have changed my mind but because it's obvious that we will never be in agreement.
|
|