Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Hobbies & Interests
Hunting & Fishing
Just how good is the xbow
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Buzzgun" data-source="post: 1310571" data-attributes="member: 4715"><p>You have no "proof" that you are right either, all you have is what Starry said about why equipment restrictions were imposed. And, you agree "that Starry is an admitted trad fan and that's part of why MAC is trad only". As "an admitted trad fan", what would you expect Starry to say?? Duh! </p><p></p><p>You do realize that the study you referenced is based on records from MCAAP and was done in 1996, 7 years <u>after</u> the equipment restrictions were imposed? There is no way this study had any influence on the decision to impose equipment restrictions.</p><p></p><p>You made the claim early on in this thread that:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The study you referenced shows that hunter success rates dropped about 7% after equipment restrictions were imposed and you infer in the above statement that the continued use of compounds would have forced a reduction in hunter numbers due to over harvest. However, there was never any evidence offered that the pre equipment restriction harvest rate was unsustainable. The study also showed that during the study period, hunter numbers stayed about the same, so no additional hunting opportunities were gained through the restrictions. </p><p></p><p>Deer harvest figures for Oklahoma show that, for the last several years, hunters have killed about 20% of the estimated deer population, this doesn't count the deer killed by vehicles, poached or that die of natural causes, yet our deer population continues to grow. I think it is reasonable to believe that the percentage of deer killed by vehicles or poaching on MCAAP is much lower than the statewide average? Point being that the deer herd at MCAAP should be able to support a harvest higher than the current 10% average. </p><p></p><p>I believe it is also obvious that the buck harvest on MCAAP could have easily been reduced to desired levels by requiring hunters to kill a doe BEFORE taking a buck or by making some of the hunts doe only. </p><p></p><p>When i look at the facts:</p><p></p><p>1) During the study period, hunting opportunities at MCAAP stayed roughly the same pre and post equipment restriction.</p><p></p><p>2) success rate on MCAAP is roughly half of the statewide average and the state deer population is expanding, indicating to me that the herd should also be expanding at MCAAP.</p><p></p><p>3) the buck harvest could have easily been reduced through other methods that would have also increased doe harvest</p><p></p><p>4) you say Starry is a traditionalist</p><p></p><p>I simply can't buy the story that equipment restrictions were <strong>only</strong> imposed to reduce buck harvest and increase or sustain the number of hunters allowed to hunt the facility. </p><p></p><p>Bottom line, you say that part of the reason for the equipment restrictions is because Starry is an "admitted traditional fan" but that the biggest reason for the equipment restrictions is to reduce buck harvest. </p><p></p><p>I say the biggest reason for the equipment restrictions is because Starry, or someone higher up at MCAAP, is a traditionalist and wanted the restrictions, and that the reduction in buck harvest is simply a result of an overall reduction in hunter success. </p><p></p><p>As I stated before, I don't really care how they run the place, I don't apply for that hunt and couldn't use a compound even if they allowed it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Buzzgun, post: 1310571, member: 4715"] You have no "proof" that you are right either, all you have is what Starry said about why equipment restrictions were imposed. And, you agree "that Starry is an admitted trad fan and that's part of why MAC is trad only". As "an admitted trad fan", what would you expect Starry to say?? Duh! You do realize that the study you referenced is based on records from MCAAP and was done in 1996, 7 years [U]after[/U] the equipment restrictions were imposed? There is no way this study had any influence on the decision to impose equipment restrictions. You made the claim early on in this thread that: The study you referenced shows that hunter success rates dropped about 7% after equipment restrictions were imposed and you infer in the above statement that the continued use of compounds would have forced a reduction in hunter numbers due to over harvest. However, there was never any evidence offered that the pre equipment restriction harvest rate was unsustainable. The study also showed that during the study period, hunter numbers stayed about the same, so no additional hunting opportunities were gained through the restrictions. Deer harvest figures for Oklahoma show that, for the last several years, hunters have killed about 20% of the estimated deer population, this doesn't count the deer killed by vehicles, poached or that die of natural causes, yet our deer population continues to grow. I think it is reasonable to believe that the percentage of deer killed by vehicles or poaching on MCAAP is much lower than the statewide average? Point being that the deer herd at MCAAP should be able to support a harvest higher than the current 10% average. I believe it is also obvious that the buck harvest on MCAAP could have easily been reduced to desired levels by requiring hunters to kill a doe BEFORE taking a buck or by making some of the hunts doe only. When i look at the facts: 1) During the study period, hunting opportunities at MCAAP stayed roughly the same pre and post equipment restriction. 2) success rate on MCAAP is roughly half of the statewide average and the state deer population is expanding, indicating to me that the herd should also be expanding at MCAAP. 3) the buck harvest could have easily been reduced through other methods that would have also increased doe harvest 4) you say Starry is a traditionalist I simply can't buy the story that equipment restrictions were [B]only[/B] imposed to reduce buck harvest and increase or sustain the number of hunters allowed to hunt the facility. Bottom line, you say that part of the reason for the equipment restrictions is because Starry is an "admitted traditional fan" but that the biggest reason for the equipment restrictions is to reduce buck harvest. I say the biggest reason for the equipment restrictions is because Starry, or someone higher up at MCAAP, is a traditionalist and wanted the restrictions, and that the reduction in buck harvest is simply a result of an overall reduction in hunter success. As I stated before, I don't really care how they run the place, I don't apply for that hunt and couldn't use a compound even if they allowed it. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
Hobbies & Interests
Hunting & Fishing
Just how good is the xbow
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom