|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
143 members (Okatuppa, rrice0725, MCW, USeeMSpurs, catdoctor, RockFarmer, buzzard, CeeHawk37, Bruno, Vector, Meatn3, KnightRyder, quailman, BigEd, jmj120, Irishguy, dawgdr, HBWALKER14, Jwoods32, mayberry51, crockag, cullbuck, Mountain Boho, 3Gs, Skillet, bates2rw, TwoRs, AU7MM08, Atoler, oldbowhunter, RayDog, outdoorguy88, blade, Fullthrottle, Parker243, GKM, WEMOhunter, GeauxRed, TheVern, Exhoosier, Cuz-Pat, Simpleman, Sixpointholler, QuackSmacker14, sj22, Double Creek2, hunter84, TurkeyJoe, Backwards cowboy, Joe4majors, Holcomb, Narrow Gap, BobK, Brian_C, Jay512, Turkeyneck78, Nowlide, DHW, BD, hayman, NoHuntin, Team_Stuckem, Catbird, C3SEAST, WDE, Wool, HawkPilot, XVIII, geeb1, cmontgomery, dsmc, BamaGuitarDude, BrandonClark, leroycnbucks, fillmore, Beer Belly, HURRICANE, Kelly_123, Tracker, James, AHolcomb, gregnbc, walt4dun, CouchNapper, jhardy, Fishbones, xbolt308, Ron A., Slewfoot, billrv, SC53, cch, Dr595, low wall, Dspann1, akbejeepin, AUtgr, Raspy, wk2hnt, CKyleC, jprice, Bushmaster, !shiloh!, AU67Skeeter, twaldrop4, Bigwhitey, ultratec00, Bustinbeards, AJones, dagwood, gog1015, Mbrock, Gut Pile 32, Jstewart, Rebelhunter_21, jdstephen44, Sgiles, coldtrail, Trent115, Quack Quack Bang, ts1979flh, MarkAlan, JA, Swamp Monkey, AC870, inatree, aucountry, StateLine, Engine5, Tall Dog, JohnG, 700ltr308, 11 invisible),
841
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
|
Matt Brock
Unregistered
|
|
Matt Brock
Unregistered
|
Centralala, read this and then call it BS. My own observations FULLY back this data too. Feeding is the devil What are they considering "low deer condition" ? N2turkeys, all the study says is that deer in areas with feed were in better physical condition than those in non feed areas.
Last edited by Matt Brock; 01/20/15 05:02 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
