Joined
·
29,369 Posts
why, because the predator became too out of control? who knew!15 year was the unsustainable peak.
why, because the predator became too out of control? who knew!15 year was the unsustainable peak.
wouldn't want to compare the opening day numbers to what they once were15 year was the unsustainable peak.
because you don't liberalize when things are bad, like population numbers! what you suggest is very liberal minded!Why not?
No biologist will agree with that.why, because the predator became too out of control? who knew!
No, I wouldnt because those were not sustainable or realistic. You probably expect your wife to make the best dinner she ever cooked every night....wouldn't want to compare the opening day numbers to what they once were
You can when regs dont matter. Its not liberal minded, its science based.because you don't liberalize when things are bad, like population numbers! what you suggest is very liberal minded!
well then, all that book smart and not the sense God gave a dairy cow!No biologist will agree with that.
your analogies are getting worse, if that was even possibleNo, I wouldnt because those were not sustainable or realistic. You probably expect your wife to make the best dinner she ever cooked every night....![]()
![]()
No, they just know more than 20 does. Why? Because they have went to an area, removed half the raccoons. Took another area and removed none of the raccoons. Then compared the results over a period of years and found that 20 is wrong.well then, all that book smart and not the sense God gave a dairy cow!
well, to accurate they should invent a time machine and go back when the raccoon numbers were in check (good ufr prices) and then compare it to the last 10 years....but since time travel isn't possible (although maybe the biologist know morer about time travel) perhaps they could utilize better reasoning and deductions skills....or, since the fur market isn't likely coming back anytime soon, they can pretend there is no correlation between predator and far reduced turkey populations and kill numbers.....therefore back to the weather excuseNo, they just know more than 20 does. Why? Because they have went to an area, removed half the raccoons. Took another area and removed none of the raccoons. Then compared the results over a period of years and found that 20 is wrong.
Its actually very apt.your analogies are getting worse, if that was even possible!
That wouldnt be possible because nest predator numbers were never in check.well, to accurate they should invent a time machine and go back when the raccoon numbers were in check (good ufr prices) and then compare it to the last 10 years....but since time travel isn't possible (although maybe the biologist know morer about time travel) perhaps they could utilize better reasoning and deductions skills....or, since the fur market isn't likely coming back anytime soon, they can pretend there is no correlation between predator and far reduced turkey populations and kill numbers.....therefore back to the weather excuse![]()
Im not the one that took it off track...Awesome. This thread turned out exactly as I thought (was designed to by OP).
You know what you did. Own it, don't deny it. Carry on.Im not the one that took it off track...
see , read and try to comprehend rcg post #37, especially the very first sentence.Just wondering 20, what would you consider an "average" turkey kill per year for MO? What would satisfy you?
It wasnt sustainable. No one ever expected it to stay that high. As populations expand they become less productive.Hawk - Why do you keep saying that something that was sustained for 15 years or so (PHR of 3:1 +/-) and the resulting population number isn't sustainable? It most certainly was/is.
We are nowhere near the carrying capacity of the land. Obviously somewhere that used to be 1000 acres of hardwoods that is now fescue wasteland won't have any birds. But 1000s of acres are unchanged and the bird numbers are so far below what the habitat could hold it is ridiculous.
Fur bearers were in check in the late 80s and early 90s which directly led to more turkey numbers.
Weather has always been fickle and I agree it does have a huge impact on the turkey numbers. However, anyway you look at, the predators compound the weather issue or the weather issues compound the predator issue. I remember having a few BRUTAL springs in the late 1980s but the hatch was great. Why, because the nest predators weren't out of control like they are now. As recently as 3-5 years ago we had some perfect spring weather during the nesting period and the hatch still sucked (No, I'm not nor ever will call a PHR of 1.1:1 a good hatch). Why, because there are too many damn predators plain and simple.