|
|
Post by Sandbur on Feb 3, 2019 17:29:37 GMT -6
As I was cleaning out accumulated papers,   It kind of makes me wonder which area is next on the CWD front. Throw in decreasing deer numbers for moose benefits, stocking elk, and we are about done in this state. |
|
|
|
Post by sd51555 on Feb 3, 2019 17:52:18 GMT -6
As I was cleaning out accumulated papers, It kind of makes me wonder which area is next on the CWD front. Throw in decreasing deer numbers for moose benefits, stocking elk, and we are about done in this state. Whichever area they need it. It would be very inefficient if they waited for it to get somewhere on its own. |
|
|
|
Post by Freeborn on Feb 3, 2019 19:02:38 GMT -6
Interesting, that would tell me the deer numbers in my area are down. That's assuming they New how to count back then.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sandbur on Feb 3, 2019 19:19:53 GMT -6
Interesting, that would tell me the deer numbers in my area are down. That's assuming they New how to count back then. At one point they changed their acreage calculations by taking out large bodies of water. That changed the deer per square mile calculations. I don’t think some of the newer managers knew or discussed this. SD, I think zone 172 was expanded back to it’s old size. Another change in acreage/ square mile calculations. |
|
