|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
137 members (Solothurn, AUjerbear, rrice0725, RocN151, Wareagle277, CNC, 25-20, WhoMe, AU7MM08, Ruger7mag, jdhunter2011, Calvin, quailman, TwoRs, Skullworks, Showout, Happysappy, Scout308, Powers, Jdkprp70, 300gr, Chiller, 7short, 7PTSPREAD, WDE, Bake, ALclearcut, Irishguy, RLP76, Coosa1, deerhunter_1, GomerPyle, donia, Fishduck, roll_tide_hunts, Raspy, zwick, Cahabariverrat, BD, jtillery, slim68, Skillet, ts1979flh, SwampHunter, furnfeather, Dublgrumpy, Downwind, TideWJO, cch, globe, ShaftOne, Garndawg, 2walnuts, jmj120, HBWALKER14, Sgiles, centralala, auman, cartervj, Dallas County, Overland, Corn Dog, CeeHawk37, Dubie, desertdog, Antelope08, Alb, NVM1031, 1hunter, BPI, capehorn24, Hoytdad10, WEMOhunter, Brian_C, PanolaProductions, Canterberry, stl32, Ridgehunter36, scott and deb, jchurch, cmontgomery, Dano, big mike, BrandonClark, USeeMSpurs, outdoorguy88, RebFormanUDA, fourfive45, Nightwatchman, low wall, roosterbob, bfoote, Stoney, russellb, Jwoods32, BamaGuitarDude, 000buck, somedude, Dixiepatriot, sj22, Yellahammer, slippinlipjr, canvasback, OldgoatTN68, mossyback, AWT6, skymech, tmhrmh, Bad06Z, Chaser357, Turkeyneck78, Gut Pile 32, Keysbowman, Macon176, CouchNapper, BigEd, top cat, treetop, Dead down wind, Beadlescomb, Tall Dog, CALL1UP, Honcho, deadeye48, 13 invisible),
730
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 29,073 Likes: 84
Dances With Weeds
|
|
Dances With Weeds
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 29,073 Likes: 84 |
That would be a much more effective management plan than the current one, but I can't imagine what it would cost to pull off and the red tape that it would generate. How so??......It would simply be someone forming a “cooperative” within the county just like Matt always promotes…..It would just be doing so with a little different idea in mind…… I mean it really wouldn’t have to be anything real sophisticated…..All your trying to do is get enough people on board with “not shooting” does to have a controlling impact……Someone knowledgeable could come up with a goal range for game check doe harvest levels and only have the cooperative shoot if harvest drops below said range with an accompanying observed population rise…etc…….If any adjustments needed to be made to address too many deer it would be made by the cooperative going from shooting none to “shooting a few” if needed…… I think you can look at what’s happened over the last 5 years and the corresponding numbers to form a good basis for where that range should be set for many counties…..For example I’d probably set Bullock Co initially with a goal range of 1900-2100 does for a starting point or something like that…..Things seemed ok when it was running in that range…..We know now that 2900 was probably way too many…….”Membership” to the don’t shoot any does club could be real informal….. 
Last edited by CNC; 02/12/25 03:26 PM.
Folks that know don't shoot old does........
|
|
|
|
|