|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
144 members (PapaD, Paint Rock 00, Rainbowstew, 3006bullet, JHL, BearBranch, rutwad, Cynical, Exhoosier, Double Creek2, mdavis, 243ackley, Bustinbeards, Fishbones, AC870, Geeb, brett.smith, BOFF, demp17, hue, 000buck, leroyb, deerman24, jmj120, Butchman205, dirtwrk, BigAl, outdoorguy88, Ray_Coon, 3Gs, rrice0725, Irishguy, woodduck, Mdees, Chiller, Mountain Boho, YellaLineHunter, CeeHawk37, ALclearcut, cmontgomery, Ben2, Scott4Hunting, JB71, Jweeks, Liv2hunt, cartervj, geeb1, !shiloh!, dagwood, HDS64, Fishduck, seapro19, quailman, AHolcomb, Shane99, 7short, 10 POINT, JA, gatorbait154, Boathand, ALrifleman, Davyalabama, courseup, Weedpicker, TideWJO, Parker243, Bulls eye, mw2015, Dreadnought, Marengo hunter, leroycnbucks, Downwind, Bruno, Fullthrottle, AUtgr, BD, Gobble4me757, Backwards cowboy, DHW, sawdust, MarkCollin, abolt300, ultratec00, chuck216, AU7MM08, kpswihart, Tall Dog, Canterberry, CAM, dave260rem!, Young20, JCL, bambam32, CrappieMan, mashburn, GomerPyle, BrandonClark, AJones, mjs14, Skinner, gog1015, cch, Bad bronco, JLMiller, Dubie, Vernon Tull, slick_trick, kyles, DonH, mcninja, Cuz-Pat, lpman, rblaker, Narrow Gap, Four_Horse, sidehitter, XVIII, M48scout, Snuffy, AU_trout_bum, RocN151, mopar, filespinner, TEM, DuckDown11, sj22, Teacher One, CouchNapper, Garndawg, Gunpowder, SC53, ken1970, Fedex 1, Jwoods32, bayouturkey, 9 invisible),
719
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 10,388 Likes: 150
Glad He Doesn’t Have One
|
|
Glad He Doesn’t Have One
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 10,388 Likes: 150 |
I bet I'm low on that 1.2 fawn per doe rate I'm using......In a healthy population it's probably closer to 1.4 or better.......Correct? Real good is 1.4-1.7 Let’s refigger it then with 1.5 fawns per doe and a little less natural adult doe mortality…..I think 50% fawn mortality is probably a pretty good ball park figure to use around here So now if we start with 18,000 does and take out 4,000 through harvest and another 1,000 due to other causes…….that would leave us 13,000 does……..If those have 1.5 fawns each and half survive…..that’s 9,750 fawns surviving…….half of those are does…..add that back to 13,000 and we come to 17,875 does for next year….……..I like that a little mo better…….. The extra 40-50% we added onto doe harvest in a lot of counties around here mattered…..I think upping the doe harvest from 4,000 to 6000 in this scenario where you have 18,000 does would make a difference……This is what I was saying to Gobbler in an earlier post about Bullock Co…..The 50% increase in doe harvest definitely mattered so I would take that into consideration when coming to any conclusion about a total population level….. How do you know there was a 50% increase in doe harvest?
|
|
|
|
|