So I guess my answer is with everything else being equal no, they are not necessary. But they can be necessary in certain unique situations.
True in a smaller scope but as an overall state wide approach, tag availability is set based on population and management minded goals (or are supposed to be). Not everyone wants to learn to use firearms, or know instinctively. I've seen guys post of this forum that archery hunt exclusively because they don't like to use firearms. A management program is poorly construed if it immediately excludes these people so archery season provides a means of population control through utilization of some hunters that would not otherwise use firearms. So in that sense, archery season is important for population management in a broader scope.
When asked why I hunt I will not say it is of needed population control. It is more honest and effective to explain that hunting is my only opportunity to harvest organic free ranging red meat.
I've learned that discussing anything with you is pretty much pointless. You'll spin anything anyone says, just like a certain member that's no longer with us. Sorry, but I have better things to do with my day than get into it with you.
You know there's a difference between a conversation actually being pointless and a conversation not coming to the same personal conclusions one side or the other believes to be true. As far as the comment about spinning what's said, like a certain member that's no longer with us. I'm not sure how to take that. Is the member dead or banned? Was this a threat to stop disagreeing with you or I'll be banned? Is it accusing me of being a member that was banned so I snuck in as a different user name? I'm not sure what you perceived as spinning what was said...I'm also unclear when this changed from a discussion to something personal between a mod and myself? Are you still a mod or were you ever...I can't recall. Maybe you could enlighten me.
While they may not be as high as gun kills I still think bow, crossbow, and urban archery season kills provide a good spike in total harvest and should still be counted as having an impact on population control. For example, here in VA in many areas it wouldn't be realistic to have gun season run from September-March(or close to that) and many areas aren't suitable for gun hunting but still need deer harvested. I'd agree that maybe that talking point is used too much in hunting conversations but it can certainly be argued that there is enough of an impact to support it's inclusion.
Archery seasons were instituted in many states to prevent too much population control and increase the overall hunting experience for everyone....sc for example....rifle from aug 15 through jan 1st......they are purely concerned with population reduction. But anyone who has hunted public land there can attest that the deer hunting is tough at best, especially if you want to hold out for something bigger than a forkhorn. Go the opposite direction to iowa...gun season is very short.....way after the rut (dec).....and every whitetail hunter knows what their results have been. I feel that gun season is more responsible for population control, and the states with longer gun seasons know this. Look at some of the harvest numbers for opening day of gun season in a state like Pennsylvania......sometimes it's as much as all of bow season Sent from my C5170 using Tapatalk
Lol, no threat. He was banned. You're not combative like he was, but still love to twist things to continue a debate. I was pro-staff, but I resigned because I don't care to film hunts anymore. Its not personal. I used to spend a lot of time on here discussing hunting and debating topics. I don't care to waste my time with endless debates anymore. So, therefore, I don't care to engage in a debate with you over a simple question, because I really have no interest in doing so.
Thanks for the clarification. No, I don't intend to be combative, I just assume when someone posts a topic that is a question that they intend it as a basis for thorough discussion and I do my best to relay my personal opinion and point of view. If that POV is challenged then I'll try my best to defend/explain it in relation to other interpretations. If I feel someone is wrong then I try my best to show why I feel it is wrong If that's perceived as twisting what is said then I guess it is what it is.
In one way or another people have a role in conservation. They can choose to let deer go to increase the population or they can choose to kill as many as they want to decrease it. If we didn't believe in conservation we would have an extremely low deer population like in the early 1900s. Hunting doesn't have to one or the other. It's a combination of conserving and sport which makes it so great. People can enjoy hunting while helping the animals and habitat. A bow is just another effective weapon. It helps bring in more profits and attracts new hunters.
Absolutely not, the only population on earth that requires control and is not receiving appropriate levels of control are human populations. Populations including deer numbers, will take care of themselves as they have for millennia before human intervention. I expect the future will also ultimately take care of human populations but that remains tone seen. Populations follow cyclical trends based on a number of variables including climate, weather, nutritional availability, and predation. Classic examples of this can be illustrated through coyote or owl populations and rabbit numbers. When rabbit numbers rise, shortly thereafter a predator population will echo this rise until carrying capacity is reached causing collapses in both populations. True, hunting is a factor in populations especially in heavily pressured areas but to use hunting as a tool for the necessary control of population is ridiculous. Unfortunately, "population control" and "quality deer management" terms are frequently used as reasons for hunting which exacerbates the "dumb, uneducated hunter stereotype" discussed in another threat as a result of horrific grammar and laziness. T
So you're opinion is that conservation/management is a waste of time? QDM is all about herd health, I would argue that the natural cyclical ebb and flow of natural population control is not the best route to take to achieve a consistently healthy herd. Spikes and collapses are not healthy for any species and especially so when management is a plausible alternative. We as a species create secondary bubbles that promote game population bubbles that are artificial...why should we not ensue practices that offset that? (ie population control) I couldn't disagree more with the last assertion. What specifically exacerbates the stereotype are slob hunters who are only in it for the sport of it, who break game laws with no consideration for property or the conservation aspect of hunting. They just want to kill stuff to make themselves feel empowered with no consequence or considerations, much less responsibility. Often times these types of guys are dumb as dirt, multiple learning disabilities and egomaniacal.
I like to hunt and kill. I am not going to rub that in anyones face, but if questioned I will speak the truth. Bowhunting to me is about fun without every hunter in the world being in the woods. Even if there were no defined hunting seasons and guns were allowed from Day 1, I would still bowhunt.
I think bowhunting is a form of conservation and a lifestyle. I think population control is mostly determined by the permit amounts given. I do not hunt to kill. I hunt for the food.
