On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 05:30:58 -0800, Jack wrote:

On Dec 31, 6:31Â*am, thunder wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 22:22:17 -0500, gfretwell wrote:
The last time I was in Chuck county Md a farmer could get a permit to
shoot any deer they saw on their property, night or day. Just turn on
the flood light and blast away. They are 180 pound rats up there,
evidently.

Same here in New Jersey. Â*Deer are like vermin. Â*I would argue hunting
is not an effective way to limit populations. Â*Each year, here in NJ,
hunters take @ 60,000 deer. Â*Yet, the population has remained stable.
Bad winters, or limited mast crop seem to have more effect on the size
of the herd than hunting.

Not an effective means, huh? Ask yourself what the population would be
like without the hunters taking 60k of them out every year?

To help you out, the herd would be... larger. And more destructive.
Because food supplies would be strained, they'd be weak and sickly. More
auto accidents and encroachment on farm and residential lands.

That's my point. Here in NJ, food supplies are already strained. In
most places, the land is already at carrying capacity. The herd is
estimated to be 200,000, of which 60,000 are taken yearly. If it weren't
for hunting, I will agree the herd would become weak, sickly, and prone
to collapse, but as for controlling numbers, it ain't working.

Thinning the herd manages its size and keeps it healthier while helping
to limit its effects on man. That's why its called "game management".

And exactly what is it being managed for? It's estimated that hunters
put @ $100 million into the economy each year. I would say that is what
the herd is managed for, not to control numbers. Look, I don't have a
problem with hunting. It's a great outdoor, recreational activity, but
as numbers control, I think it's myth. As you kill deer, birth rates and
survival rates increase. It's the carrying capacity of the land, the
food sources, the mast crop, the winter weather, that control the
numbers, not hunting, IMO.

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:36:58 -0800 (PST), Jack
wrote:

On Dec 30, 12:36*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 07:00:16 -0500, Tom Francis

wrote:

Well, on this we can agree. *It's an atrocity.

If I was a PETA person I would point out, nobody cares if you round up
a dozen cows in that pen and kill them.
If you do eat meat you have to say "so what"?
At least they died fairly quickly in archery hunting terms and none
crawled off and died a slow death without being recovered.
What would the PETA folks say if it was a pack of wolves that had the
elk trapped in there?

You know, canned hunts are wrong, but I'm kind of with you on this
one. After all: "The hunting season was created to keep elk out of
the residential and farm areas in eastern Skagit County." Well, they
were most definitely in a farm area, the state wildlife commission
felt they needed a hunt to bring the population down, and it
accomplished exactly what they wanted. Unfortunately it was visible
to some cappuccino drinkers passing by, who want their steak medium-
rare on their plate but don't want to think about how it got there.

As long as the elk were dressed and eaten, in the end it wasn't ideal
but it was effective. If there are herds of elk that will stand
around and let themselves be surrounded and fired upon by men out in a
field, they definitely have an elk problem. They need to open the
season back up.

The last time I was in Chuck county Md a farmer could get a permit to
shoot any deer they saw on their property, night or day.
Just turn on the flood light and blast away.
They are 180 pound rats up there, evidently.

Technically, you can shoot a deer in your backyard from your elevated
deck if you are using a bow in Montgomery County, MD. Just make sure you
have the proper hunting license.

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 05:30:58 -0800, Jack wrote:

On Dec 31, 6:31*am, thunder wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 22:22:17 -0500, gfretwell wrote:
The last time I was in Chuck county Md a farmer could get a permit to
shoot any deer they saw on their property, night or day. Just turn on
the flood light and blast away. They are 180 pound rats up there,
evidently.

Same here in New Jersey. *Deer are like vermin. *I would argue hunting
is not an effective way to limit populations. *Each year, here in NJ,
hunters take @ 60,000 deer. *Yet, the population has remained stable.
Bad winters, or limited mast crop seem to have more effect on the size
of the herd than hunting.

Not an effective means, huh? Ask yourself what the population would be
like without the hunters taking 60k of them out every year?

To help you out, the herd would be... larger. And more destructive.
Because food supplies would be strained, they'd be weak and sickly. More
auto accidents and encroachment on farm and residential lands.

That's my point. Here in NJ, food supplies are already strained. In
most places, the land is already at carrying capacity. The herd is
estimated to be 200,000, of which 60,000 are taken yearly. If it weren't
for hunting, I will agree the herd would become weak, sickly, and prone
to collapse, but as for controlling numbers, it ain't working.

Thinning the herd manages its size and keeps it healthier while helping
to limit its effects on man. That's why its called "game management".

And exactly what is it being managed for? It's estimated that hunters
put @ $100 million into the economy each year. I would say that is what
the herd is managed for, not to control numbers. Look, I don't have a
problem with hunting. It's a great outdoor, recreational activity, but
as numbers control, I think it's myth. As you kill deer, birth rates and
survival rates increase. It's the carrying capacity of the land, the
food sources, the mast crop, the winter weather, that control the
numbers, not hunting, IMO.

I think both are involved. At the least with hunting, the herd that is
left is more healthy and now sprawling into downtown areas looking for
food and shelter... I think in the long run, the herd is much better
off.

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:36:58 -0800 (PST), Jack
wrote:

On Dec 30, 12:36*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 07:00:16 -0500, Tom Francis

wrote:

Well, on this we can agree. *It's an atrocity.

If I was a PETA person I would point out, nobody cares if you round up
a dozen cows in that pen and kill them.
If you do eat meat you have to say "so what"?
At least they died fairly quickly in archery hunting terms and none
crawled off and died a slow death without being recovered.
What would the PETA folks say if it was a pack of wolves that had the
elk trapped in there?

You know, canned hunts are wrong, but I'm kind of with you on this
one. After all: "The hunting season was created to keep elk out of
the residential and farm areas in eastern Skagit County." Well, they
were most definitely in a farm area, the state wildlife commission
felt they needed a hunt to bring the population down, and it
accomplished exactly what they wanted. Unfortunately it was visible
to some cappuccino drinkers passing by, who want their steak medium-
rare on their plate but don't want to think about how it got there.

As long as the elk were dressed and eaten, in the end it wasn't ideal
but it was effective. If there are herds of elk that will stand
around and let themselves be surrounded and fired upon by men out in a
field, they definitely have an elk problem. They need to open the
season back up.

The last time I was in Chuck county Md a farmer could get a permit to
shoot any deer they saw on their property, night or day.
Just turn on the flood light and blast away.
They are 180 pound rats up there, evidently.

Technically, you can shoot a deer in your backyard from your elevated
deck if you are using a bow in Montgomery County, MD. Just make sure you
have the proper hunting license.

Or share the meat with any neighbor within eyeshot of your back yard

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 05:30:58 -0800, Jack wrote:

On Dec 31, 6:31*am, thunder wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 22:22:17 -0500, gfretwell wrote:
The last time I was in Chuck county Md a farmer could get a permit to
shoot any deer they saw on their property, night or day. Just turn on
the flood light and blast away. They are 180 pound rats up there,
evidently.

Same here in New Jersey. *Deer are like vermin. *I would argue hunting
is not an effective way to limit populations. *Each year, here in NJ,
hunters take @ 60,000 deer. *Yet, the population has remained stable.
Bad winters, or limited mast crop seem to have more effect on the size
of the herd than hunting.

Not an effective means, huh? Ask yourself what the population would be
like without the hunters taking 60k of them out every year?

To help you out, the herd would be... larger. And more destructive.
Because food supplies would be strained, they'd be weak and sickly. More
auto accidents and encroachment on farm and residential lands.

That's my point. Here in NJ, food supplies are already strained. In
most places, the land is already at carrying capacity. The herd is
estimated to be 200,000, of which 60,000 are taken yearly. If it weren't
for hunting, I will agree the herd would become weak, sickly, and prone
to collapse, but as for controlling numbers, it ain't working.

Thinning the herd manages its size and keeps it healthier while helping
to limit its effects on man. That's why its called "game management".

And exactly what is it being managed for? It's estimated that hunters
put @ $100 million into the economy each year. I would say that is what
the herd is managed for, not to control numbers. Look, I don't have a
problem with hunting. It's a great outdoor, recreational activity, but
as numbers control, I think it's myth. As you kill deer, birth rates and
survival rates increase. It's the carrying capacity of the land, the
food sources, the mast crop, the winter weather, that control the
numbers, not hunting, IMO.

I think both are involved. At the least with hunting, the herd that is
left is more healthy and now sprawling into downtown areas looking for
food and shelter... I think in the long run, the herd is much better
off.

I should note that I don't hunt, at least since I was in my twenties or
so.. I was not very good at it anyway, so I am probably better off as
are the trees and innocent tin cans that most times would end up my
target by the end of the day

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 05:30:58 -0800, Jack wrote:

On Dec 31, 6:31*am, thunder wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 22:22:17 -0500, gfretwell wrote:
The last time I was in Chuck county Md a farmer could get a permit to
shoot any deer they saw on their property, night or day. Just turn on
the flood light and blast away. They are 180 pound rats up there,
evidently.

Same here in New Jersey. *Deer are like vermin. *I would argue hunting
is not an effective way to limit populations. *Each year, here in NJ,
hunters take @ 60,000 deer. *Yet, the population has remained stable.
Bad winters, or limited mast crop seem to have more effect on the size
of the herd than hunting.

Not an effective means, huh? Ask yourself what the population would be
like without the hunters taking 60k of them out every year?

To help you out, the herd would be... larger. And more destructive.
Because food supplies would be strained, they'd be weak and sickly. More
auto accidents and encroachment on farm and residential lands.

That's my point. Here in NJ, food supplies are already strained. In
most places, the land is already at carrying capacity. The herd is
estimated to be 200,000, of which 60,000 are taken yearly. If it weren't
for hunting, I will agree the herd would become weak, sickly, and prone
to collapse, but as for controlling numbers, it ain't working.

Thinning the herd manages its size and keeps it healthier while helping
to limit its effects on man. That's why its called "game management".

And exactly what is it being managed for? It's estimated that hunters
put @ $100 million into the economy each year. I would say that is what
the herd is managed for, not to control numbers. Look, I don't have a
problem with hunting. It's a great outdoor, recreational activity, but
as numbers control, I think it's myth. As you kill deer, birth rates and
survival rates increase. It's the carrying capacity of the land, the
food sources, the mast crop, the winter weather, that control the
numbers, not hunting, IMO.

http://txtwriter.com/Onscience/Articles/deerpops.html

http://mdc.mo.gov/nathis/mammals/deer/populat.htm

On Dec 31, 10:11*am, thunder wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 05:30:58 -0800, Jack wrote:
On Dec 31, 6:31*am, thunder wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 22:22:17 -0500, gfretwell wrote:
The last time I was in Chuck county Md a farmer could get a permit to
shoot any deer they saw on their property, night or day. Just turn on
the flood light and blast away. They are 180 pound rats up there,
evidently.

Same here in New Jersey. *Deer are like vermin. *I would argue hunting
is not an effective way to limit populations. *Each year, here in NJ,
hunters take @ 60,000 deer. *Yet, the population has remained stable..
Bad winters, or limited mast crop seem to have more effect on the size
of the herd than hunting.

Not an effective means, huh? *Ask yourself what the population would be
like without the hunters taking 60k of them out every year?

To help you out, the herd would be... larger. *And more destructive.
Because food supplies would be strained, they'd be weak and sickly. More
auto accidents and encroachment on farm and residential lands.

That's my point. *Here in NJ, food supplies are already strained. *In
most places, the land is already at carrying capacity. *The herd is
estimated to be 200,000, of which 60,000 are taken yearly. *If it weren't
for hunting, I will agree the herd would become weak, sickly, and prone
to collapse, but as for controlling numbers, it ain't working.

Well, let's recap... You agree that if they weren't hunted, the herd
size would increase, leading to a weak sickly herd becuase of lack of
food, etc. Sounds like you agree that the hunt is *indeed*
controlling herd size. Now if you want the hunt to *decrease* the
herd size below present levels, that would take a longer, more open
season to allow more deer to be taken, but there opponents to that as
well, even from within the hunters themselves.


Thinning the herd manages its size and keeps it healthier while helping
to limit its effects on man. *That's why its called "game management"..

And exactly what is it being managed for? *It's estimated that hunters
put @ $100 million into the economy each year. *I would say that is what
the herd is managed for, not to control numbers. *Look, I don't have a
problem with hunting. *It's a great outdoor, recreational activity, but
as numbers control, I think it's myth. *As you kill deer, birth rates and
survival rates increase. *It's the carrying capacity of the land, the
food sources, the mast crop, the winter weather, that control the
numbers, not hunting, IMO.

OK, so the deer are a natural resource that is being managed and is
bringing 100M in to the state budget a year. What's the downside?
You could stop the hunting to allow them to overrun residential and
farm lands, allowing them to die from starvation and disease as their
numbers increase, while costing 10's of millions in crop and property
damage. Hunting is certainly more ethical, humane, and fiscally
responsible than that.

Look, hunting *does* control herd size. It's just being done with a
different focus in mind than you think it should be, or than you
beleive is being presented as its purpose. But in the end, hunting
controls numbers. The exact amount is managed by the hunting season
length and rules.

Jack wrote:
On Dec 31, 10:11 am, thunder wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 05:30:58 -0800, Jack wrote:
On Dec 31, 6:31 am, thunder wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 22:22:17 -0500, gfretwell wrote:
The last time I was in Chuck county Md a farmer could get a permit to
shoot any deer they saw on their property, night or day. Just turn on
the flood light and blast away. They are 180 pound rats up there,
evidently.
Same here in New Jersey. Deer are like vermin. I would argue hunting
is not an effective way to limit populations. Each year, here in NJ,
hunters take @ 60,000 deer. Yet, the population has remained stable.
Bad winters, or limited mast crop seem to have more effect on the size
of the herd than hunting.
Not an effective means, huh? Ask yourself what the population would be
like without the hunters taking 60k of them out every year?
To help you out, the herd would be... larger. And more destructive.
Because food supplies would be strained, they'd be weak and sickly. More
auto accidents and encroachment on farm and residential lands.
That's my point. Here in NJ, food supplies are already strained. In
most places, the land is already at carrying capacity. The herd is
estimated to be 200,000, of which 60,000 are taken yearly. If it weren't
for hunting, I will agree the herd would become weak, sickly, and prone
to collapse, but as for controlling numbers, it ain't working.

Well, let's recap... You agree that if they weren't hunted, the herd
size would increase, leading to a weak sickly herd becuase of lack of
food, etc. Sounds like you agree that the hunt is *indeed*
controlling herd size. Now if you want the hunt to *decrease* the
herd size below present levels, that would take a longer, more open
season to allow more deer to be taken, but there opponents to that as
well, even from within the hunters themselves.


Thinning the herd manages its size and keeps it healthier while helping
to limit its effects on man. That's why its called "game management".
And exactly what is it being managed for? It's estimated that hunters
put @ $100 million into the economy each year. I would say that is what
the herd is managed for, not to control numbers. Look, I don't have a
problem with hunting. It's a great outdoor, recreational activity, but
as numbers control, I think it's myth. As you kill deer, birth rates and
survival rates increase. It's the carrying capacity of the land, the
food sources, the mast crop, the winter weather, that control the
numbers, not hunting, IMO.

OK, so the deer are a natural resource that is being managed and is
bringing 100M in to the state budget a year. What's the downside?
You could stop the hunting to allow them to overrun residential and
farm lands, allowing them to die from starvation and disease as their
numbers increase, while costing 10's of millions in crop and property
damage. Hunting is certainly more ethical, humane, and fiscally
responsible than that.

Look, hunting *does* control herd size. It's just being done with a
different focus in mind than you think it should be, or than you
beleive is being presented as its purpose. But in the end, hunting
controls numbers. The exact amount is managed by the hunting season
length and rules.

Seems like they are managing population just right. 0 population growth.
It's just like a liberal to find problems with everything and then
try to fix it.

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:36:58 -0800 (PST), Jack
wrote:

On Dec 30, 12:36*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 07:00:16 -0500, Tom Francis

wrote:

Well, on this we can agree. *It's an atrocity.

If I was a PETA person I would point out, nobody cares if you round up
a dozen cows in that pen and kill them.
If you do eat meat you have to say "so what"?
At least they died fairly quickly in archery hunting terms and none
crawled off and died a slow death without being recovered.
What would the PETA folks say if it was a pack of wolves that had the
elk trapped in there?

You know, canned hunts are wrong, but I'm kind of with you on this
one. After all: "The hunting season was created to keep elk out of
the residential and farm areas in eastern Skagit County." Well, they
were most definitely in a farm area, the state wildlife commission
felt they needed a hunt to bring the population down, and it
accomplished exactly what they wanted. Unfortunately it was visible
to some cappuccino drinkers passing by, who want their steak medium-
rare on their plate but don't want to think about how it got there.

As long as the elk were dressed and eaten, in the end it wasn't ideal
but it was effective. If there are herds of elk that will stand
around and let themselves be surrounded and fired upon by men out in a
field, they definitely have an elk problem. They need to open the
season back up.

Amen.
--
John H

All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

Jim wrote:

Seems like they are managing population just right. 0 population growth.
It's just like a liberal to find problems with everything and then try
to fix it.


What's funny is that a piece of **** like you sounds smarter when you
try to spoof the IDs of other posters here. When you post as flajim, you
come across as the idiot you are. I suppose it tasks you greatly to try
to come across as smarter than you are, but even when you try, you don't
seem very bright.