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.