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.

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.

Harry wrote:
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.

Do you think your remark sounds smart. I think you are just an angry
frustrated old man.

--

I get so upset by these spoofers, that I think I am going to make more
crossposts between rec.boats and numerous unrelated newsgroups, because
at least that is not detrimental to rec.boats. This group needs some
new blood, and that is always a good way to get some new posters who
enjoy boating as much as i do.

Harry wrote:
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.

This NOT me. This is another one of those moronic assholes who are
jealous of me.

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:05:03 -0800, Jack wrote:

On Dec 31, 10:11Â*am, thunder wrote:
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? Â*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. Â*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. Â*Here in NJ, food supplies are already strained. Â*In
most places, the land is already at carrying capacity. Â*The herd is
estimated to be 200,000, of which 60,000 are taken yearly. Â*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.

Guy, if a hunter gets all his permits, fall bow, winter bow,
muzzleloader, shotgun, etc., he has 116 days of hunting allowed. With
multiple kills allowed per permit, I don't see how it could get more
"liberal". For the past ten years, or so, New Jersey has been trying to
reduce it's deer population through hunting. It isn't working.

Look, game are managed to provide a stable recreational resource, and at
that they do well. However, in this state, we have an explosion. Deer
are like vermin. Every wooded area has a distinct browse line, forget
about landscaping. Dead deer are a common site along the roadway.
Hunting just isn't enough to control this population.

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

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

On Dec 31, 1:03*pm, thunder wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:05:03 -0800, 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.

Guy, if a hunter gets all his permits, fall bow, winter bow,
muzzleloader, shotgun, etc., he has 116 days of hunting allowed. *With
multiple kills allowed per permit, I don't see how it could get more
"liberal". *For the past ten years, or so, New Jersey has been trying to
reduce it's deer population through hunting. *It isn't working. *

The kill yield through bow and primitive weapon is a good bit lower
than with rifle and shotgun. Much of your season is limited in what
weapon you can use. Add in all the restrictions on *where* you can
hunt and *what* you can kill, and the season isn't nearly as
productive as it could be.

In any case, your are correct, it is managed with a purpose, through
hunting. The hunters want plenty of good deer, with protected times
for their chosen weapon. The farmers want the herds thinned down to
decrease crop loss. Insurance companies want the same to reduce car
damage claims. The anti-gun and anti-hunting PETA droolers want it
completely outlawed. The lace-underwear cappuccino drinkers don't
want to see or hear about it, and certainly not in their backyard as
they are grilling steaks. Meanwhile, none of your taxpayers (or
legislators) are really willing to see the hunting income go away.
Your state wildlife department is probably doing the best they can
while being pulled in ten directions at once.