Originally posted by ZeroJunk:
Killing fewer small bucks can do nothing but produce more larger bucks unless there is a food shortage. There is no logical way to get around that. Some curious reasoning in this thread.
Even knowledgeable hunters disagree on what to cull or not. There is no way to be sure what a buck will be next year, maybe an educated guess. And, I doubt you will find many who don't think they are educated. If you leave it to the individual to decide what to cull you will be right back killing everything because somebody will decide it needs to be culled if he has the itch to shoot something
Exactly, and that itch to shoot something is why they don't feel they have time to properly identify their target. OMG
it might get away!
Originally posted by Brian Pfleuger:
There's got to be some sort of publicly available evidence. I don't mean to be a jerk but you're making the claim, you need to provide the evidence for it. I'm not going to go looking for evidence to prove your claim.
You claim that ARs are reducing hunter numbers. According to this survey by PGC, out of 3,572 responses, only 4 people said that ARs are responsible for their reduced interest in hunting. Not 4%, 4 people. 45% blame things like time and places to hunt, cost of hunting or lack of partners.
Now, 43% blamed quality or number of antlered and antlerless deer but how does that number compare to BEFORE the APR was in place? I can't find a link to the 1995 survey that they mention. I can tell you that we don't have APRs anywhere near where I hunt and I don't know any hunters who hunt in APR areas but ALL everyone gripes about (and always have as long as I can remember) is that there aren't enough deer and there aren't enough bucks (but they still brag about shooting everything they see). In other words, there's no proof (or even evidence) that the APR is reposnsible for those opinions and the HUNTERS THEMSELVES don't blame the APRs.
Old pictures are little evidence of what deer and their populations were in the past. I have 5 little baskets in a barrel for every picture of a big buck I've taken. Kinda how magazine pics are. I have a picture of 20 deer hangin' on grandpa's meat pole back in the 40s when the gun kill was only a tenth of what it is now. The fact you don't see that today doesn't trump the record amount of kill over the past ten years. If one only sees that picture, it appears hunting was better back then, but the facts still prove it wasn't even close. Anecdotal stories and good ol' boy gossip may be fun to tell, but they to are not always factual or objective. Facts and figures prove and validate an argument, and in today's age of electronic information are easy to find. All F&Gs/DNRs estimate deer kill to a certain extent, but they use reliable sources and past history, not just what comes out of their backside.