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.

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".

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.

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".


It's too bad we've destroyed so much of the habitat wild critters used
to have...and now we use that as an excuse to hunt them. Well, the
upside, I suppose, is that a decent number of hunters end up shooting
each other.

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 11:04:02 -0500, gfretwell wrote:


The reality with deer, raccoons, rabbits and the other "prey" species is
they do better around people than they do in the wilderness. There are
fewer predators. Maybe we should introduce Panthers (mountain lions) and
Black Bears into suburban areas to hold down the deer population ... and
make it illegal to harm them. That is what they are doing in South
Florida.

I think it's being done without our help. There have been denials by the
Dept. of Fish & Game, but I'm convinced cougars are returning to New
Jersey. I know two reputable friends that have stated they have seen a
cougar. One siting was with cubs. Now, perhaps it was an escape, but
there are cougars here.

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 11:04:02 -0500, gfretwell wrote:


The reality with deer, raccoons, rabbits and the other "prey" species is
they do better around people than they do in the wilderness. There are
fewer predators. Maybe we should introduce Panthers (mountain lions) and
Black Bears into suburban areas to hold down the deer population ... and
make it illegal to harm them. That is what they are doing in South
Florida.

I think it's being done without our help. There have been denials by the
Dept. of Fish & Game, but I'm convinced cougars are returning to New
Jersey. I know two reputable friends that have stated they have seen a
cougar. One siting was with cubs. Now, perhaps it was an escape, but
there are cougars here.

Yeah, they tend to do that. We had Coyotes coming back here for over 20
years, but the DEP (fish and game) tried to tell us they were wild dogs
for over a decade... Fisher cats, and even reports of Bears lately, but
they are saying no to that so far too

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 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 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.