|
|
Post by Sandbur on Aug 3, 2017 6:24:13 GMT -6
Sadly the comments are the same jibberish as usual. Empty words. They have no clue how many deer they had in the past or today. The comments for Stu's are did indicate how long (too long)it has been since a goal setting process. Lots of jibberish like you said, but it is on record for later discussion. I think we all need to thank Batman for the more conservative (than we expected) in some areas. |
|
|
|
Post by kl9 on Aug 3, 2017 6:30:56 GMT -6
I'm thrilled intensive is now 3. I'm surprised it wasn't met with more joy on here
|
|
|
|
Post by biglakebass on Aug 3, 2017 6:35:46 GMT -6
The 5 deer limit never meant much.
Tiny percenage of people register 3 deer or more.
Why buy more licenses to fill?
Just party hunt and shoot 8 if you want.
Now if party hunting was eliminated then its time to rejoice.
|
|
|
|
Post by smsmith on Aug 3, 2017 6:39:33 GMT -6
I'm thrilled intensive is now 3. I'm surprised it wasn't met with more joy on here I think they went to 3 because the data indicates a limit of 3 leads more hunters who would normally "only" shoot 2 to go ahead and shoot that 3rd so they can "limit out". 5 was just too unrealistic. |
|
|
|
Post by kl9 on Aug 3, 2017 6:40:51 GMT -6
Good point BLB
|
|
|
|
Post by leexrayshady on Aug 3, 2017 6:46:16 GMT -6
I sent an email to mr Murkowski yesterday pretty much asking why the maps which have almost every other detail on them don't include deer density.
His response was that it is still a work in progress and isn't perfect and they had tight deadlines.
I also asked how they know zone 214 is over goal and when we will have a new goal setting process, had to send it twice cause he didn't respond to those questions. Have yet to get a response
|
|
|
|
Post by smsmith on Aug 3, 2017 6:52:07 GMT -6
Sadly the comments are the same jibberish as usual. Empty words. They have no clue how many deer they had in the past or today. The comments for Stu's are did indicate how long (too long)it has been since a goal setting process. Lots of jibberish like you said, but it is on record for later discussion. I think we all need to thank Batman for the more conservative (than we expected) in some areas. Selfishly...I've had one year of HC (2015), and 4 years of Managed. This year Intensive. "Conservative" and 215 don't go together. |
|
|
|
Post by sd51555 on Aug 3, 2017 6:52:34 GMT -6
I'm thrilled intensive is now 3. I'm surprised it wasn't met with more joy on here I think they went to 3 because the data indicates a limit of 3 leads more hunters who would normally "only" shoot 2 to go ahead and shoot that 3rd so they can "limit out". 5 was just too unrealistic. You're probably spot on right there. |
|
|
|
Post by Satchmo on Aug 3, 2017 7:25:38 GMT -6
I guess I can take solace in the fact that 246 is only H.C. Everything around that is either managed or intensive harvest with the exception of 172 which is also H.C. I think Art is 172.
|
|
|
|
Post by sticknstring on Aug 3, 2017 7:28:08 GMT -6
HC in 219 again. I would've bet on managed. I'm actually quite shocked as liberal as adjacent zones have gotten. Deer numbers are actually pretty damn impressive from what I've been seeing in Wright Co. Been a long damn time since I've shot a doe... 8 years I think. With the quarantined domestic CWD deer herd in Wright county, that surprises me. I am not sure where it is located. That was Meeker county, I believe dpa 277 which is HC as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Satchmo on Aug 3, 2017 7:45:28 GMT -6
246 is in the CWD monitoring zone this year, but as long as we don't shoot anything in the first two days, we won't have to run all over hell to get a deer tested.
|
|
|
|
Post by sd51555 on Aug 3, 2017 8:27:31 GMT -6
I'm thrilled intensive is now 3. I'm surprised it wasn't met with more joy on here All depends on your area. In a spot where land values are high, and there is low public land, I wouldn't be so worried about loose bag limits. My zone is 2/3 public, and in turn that means all kinds come up for their 2-3 days each year and sling lead with no regard for the long term health of the herd. They can just go to zone 2 after they shoot the shit outta the public land. And that's what the zone 2 guys have been seeing. When those zones in 1 went bucks only, their participation dropped and zone 2 swelled. |
|
|
|
Post by smsmith on Aug 3, 2017 9:35:07 GMT -6
I'm thrilled intensive is now 3. I'm surprised it wasn't met with more joy on here All depends on your area. In a spot where land values are high, and there is low public land, I wouldn't be so worried about loose bag limits. My zone is 2/3 public, and in turn that means all kinds come up for their 2-3 days each year and sling lead with no regard for the long term health of the herd. They can just go to zone 2 after they shoot the shit outta the public land. And that's what the zone 2 guys have been seeing. When those zones in 1 went bucks only, their participation dropped and zone 2 swelled. Good points. Even here in 215 where very little land is public, the herd will take a big hit under Intensive. Largely because most land here isn't owned for deer hunting. It's mainly owned for some agricultural purpose with deer hunting being an offshoot. Since that's the case...people shoot the shit out of the herd. Farmers, ranchers, tree farmers, orchardists, etc. want the deer dead, dead, dead. They aren't concerned about reducing the herd because they know (accurately so) that deer can never be eliminated completely. If cousin Billy and brother Bob from the Cities can only come out to the farm and shoot one or two instead of 4-6...the farmers who own the land don't give a shit. |
|
|
|
Post by Sandbur on Aug 3, 2017 11:34:18 GMT -6
With the quarantined domestic CWD deer herd in Wright county, that surprises me. I am not sure where it is located. That was Meeker county, I believe dpa 277 which is HC as well. The Meeker county herd was depopulated. There is one in Wright county. |
|
