Are YOU A HYPOCRITICAL ANIMAL LOVER

I never said nor implied that 1M deer were taken.

You will just spin anything to your thinking.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

cjhsa wrote:
Sure it would. It's called managing wildlife. Plus, about 90% of the humans would die because they couldn't provide for themselves.

There are 1.7 million deer in Michigan according to this website.
http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=9116

Michigan has 10 million residents. At 10% that would be 1 million people. Even if we only calculate one deer per person per year for protein the taking of 1 million deer a year would quickly reduce the deer population to an unsustainable level.

Of course, if deer was your only source of protein, you would need more than one deer per year so my statement about 10% of the population relying on hunting for its protein would not be sustainable remains true.

And then Cjhsa responded:

cjhsa wrote:

Michigan sells about 1M deer licenses/year. We seem to be doing a pretty good job of managing the cervids, at least lately. Did you miss the part about 90% of folks not being able to sustain themselves? I'm talking able bodied men and women, not the young, old, or disabled.

In the context of those two posts, the numbers matter very much. If it is true that cervid species are being well managed in Michigan, it can only be alleged on the basis of fewer than one half million being taken each year, not on the implication (which, despite your attempt to now deny it, you clearly intended) that one million are being taken each year. You throwing "stastics" around (which you actually make up on the spot) to bolster your silly contentions is beggared by the provision of the actual numbers from MDNR.

0 Replies

In case you intend to continue to be obtuse, you were claiming that 90% of the population would not survive, which clearly implies that 10% would survive, and survive by hunting. Parados was pointing out that you'd need to take one million deer per year, and that that would constitute the only meat that 10% would get all year. The MDNR figures show that fewer than a half million deer are taken in Michigan in each year, which means far, far less than 10% of the population could reasonably rely upon deer as a source of their annual meat protein resources.

Dance however you like, you've been shot down . . . as usual.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Dance however you like, you've been shot down . . . as usual.

I hope your pun is not lost on cjhsa Laughing

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

I don't see how I'm that far off. They sold almost 700K licenses according to that and they didn't count the extra antlerless tags they sold (and potentially didn't fill).

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/2007_draft_MICHIGANDEERHUNTINGPROSPECTS_209680_7.pdf

Quote:

It helps to have a feel for the stats you are trying to interpret.

Also, nature abhors a vacuum. The deer population will be right back at 1.7M or so next fall.

Nature requires that deer be BORN before they can replace ones taken by hunting.

Does are going to suddenly have 3 or more fawns if you kill off 2/3s of their numbers in one year? It helps to know something about nature before you make claims like deer populations will regenerate over one year just because "nature abhors a vacuum."

1.7 million deer. We kill 1 million that leaves .7 million. We can assume we killed more bucks than does. Lets assume one buck for every 6 does are left that means we would have 1 million fawns the next year at 1.7 fawns per doe, which puts us back at 1.7 million but that year we take 1 million deer. This is where we start to have problems. We had .6 million does capable of fawning that year. This year we have 1.1 million does but lose .6 million. That leaves us with .6 million does but half of them, assuming a random chance of killing, would be yearlings and not yet old enough fawn. That means the second year we only have .5 million fawns. which leaves us with only 1.2 million deer. Then we kill a million of those deer and we don't have enough deer left to take a million in the following year.

0 Replies

I always get a kick out of Setanta's attempts to use statistics to support his bullshit and spin my posts. Dude, go back to school. Try studying something worthwhile like math.

Michigan DOES actually kill or lose closer to 1M deer a year. 10's of thousands are poached. Perhaps 100K or more are hit by cars. There is also winterkill, in case you forgot. That last number can be huge.

I never said or implied that hunters take 1M deer a year.

Instead of just trying to discredit me, why not look to the MI DNR for more info?

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

I always get a kick out of Setanta's attempts to use statistics to support his bullshit and spin my posts. Dude, go back to school. Try studying something worthwhile like math.

Michigan DOES actually kill or lose closer to 1M deer a year. 10's of thousands are poached. Perhaps 100K or more are hit by cars. There is also winterkill, in case you forgot. That last number can be huge.

I never said or implied that hunters take 1M deer a year.

Instead of just trying to discredit me, why not look to the MI DNR for more info?

Number of auto accidents with deer in Michigan is about 65,000
http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,1607,7-123-1593_3504_22760-95455--,00.html

The "hard winter" in 1985/86 only killed 125,000 deer. 95/96 may have killed 150,000 deer.

The MI DNR has nothing to support your 1 million deer a year killed claim.
Here are projected deer mortalities in the UP
http://mich.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10363_38954-150249--,00.html

Your claims are nothing but BS cjhsa. Attempting to mask your BS by attacking Set doesn't change the BS you are shoveling.

As for this statement cj..

Quote:

Try studying something worthwhile like math.

Michigan DOES actually kill or lose closer to 1M deer a year. 10's of thousands are poached. Perhaps 100K or more are hit by cars. There is also winterkill, in case you forgot. That last number can be huge.

It's simple arithmatic and you can't seem to add very well.

456,000
+ 100,000 (Your claim for hit by cars)
+ 80,000 (poached assuming your unsubstantiated claim)
+150,000 (Largest claim I can find for winter kill)
___________
(Total goes here)
Feel free to use a calculator cj.

The actual numbers
456,000
+ 65,000 (assuming all the deer hit die)
+10,000 (a reasonable estimate for poaching. field dressed deer out of season in the numbers you claimed would be easily spotted.)
+100,000 (A winter that is worse than normal)
____________

0 Replies

Do you round down when you calculate your tax return?

About half the herd each year is killed or eaten. At the (considered low) estimate of 1.7M that would be 850,000.

There are also wolves and coyotes that pick them off (though the DNR says we have no wolves).

What is your ******* obsession with a rounding issue? Oh yeah, I forgot, your're a jackass.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Setanta wrote:

Dance however you like, you've been shot down . . . as usual.

I hope your pun is not lost on cjhsa

I suspect it was. His response was to introduce matters to which he had not previously referred (predation, for example), and which are not pertinent to the question of what percentage of the population of Michigan could be reasonably expected to meet their animal protein requirements from hunting.

Alas, there is so much he just doesn't get . . .

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Do you round down when you calculate your tax return?

Do you round up to $100 for every $65 you make when you do you tax return? I certainly didn't round down in my numbers since I took them from the MI DNR.

Quote:

About half the herd each year is killed or eaten. At the (considered low) estimate of 1.7M that would be 850,000.

There are also wolves and coyotes that pick them off (though the DNR says we have no wolves).

What is your **** obsession with a rounding issue? Oh yeah, I forgot, your're a jackass.

LOL.. really? Did you NOT go to my links? The MI DNR lists wolf predation in their numbers. Yet you claim they say you have no wolves? Rolling Eyes

I don't think I am the jackass. I bothered to READ the DNR website before claiming they said something. You just pulled stuff out of your ass, Jack.

About half of the deer herd is killed every year? Based on what DNR stats? There are none. During a HARD winter kill MAYBE half the herd might die except southern MI never has as hard a winter as the UP where the DNR states in the worst winters 1/3 of the herd might be killed. The DNR lists a moderate winter in the UP as about 40% of the herd would die from all causes.

But all of this is meaningless since if humans killed 1 million deer and the weather then killed 700,000 deer there would be none left after one year. No matter how you slice it and try to massage the numbers your statement was BS when you claimed wild life could be sustained if 10% of the MI population got all their protein from wild life.

IN an average year half the herd is NOT killed. It is only in the severest of winters that half the herd could be killed and THEN the hunters complain the next year that the hunting sucks. For someone that claims to be this great "sportsman" you don't seem to know a damn thing about the animals you hunt.

0 Replies

How much do you want to bet?

The DNR says there are no wolves in the LP and no cougar either.

I haven't pulled anything out - my numbers are good. You will just continue to waste your time trying to discredit someone with real experience with your bullshit.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

How much do you want to bet?

The DNR says there are no wolves in the LP and no cougar either.

That is hysterical cjhsa.. So now you have gone from "the DNR says we have no wolves" to they say "there are no wolves in the LP."
But the DNR says this..

Quote:

In October 2004, a wolf that had been captured and radio-collared in the eastern UP was captured and killed by a coyote trapper in Presque Isle County of the LP. This event represented the first verification of a wild wolf in the LP in at least 69 years. Tracks of two other wolves were found in the same vicinity of Presque Isle County in December 2004.

OMG, the DNR says they do have evidence of wolves in the LP. It seems the DNR doesn't say that there are "no wolves in the LP."
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10370_12145_12205-32569--,00.html

Quote:

I haven't pulled anything out - my numbers are good. You will just continue to waste your time trying to discredit someone with real experience with your bullshit.

I notice you have NOT provided one link to the MI DNR yet you keep claiming they are your source. Your numbers are BS. You have provided no source for your 100,000 killed by vehicles. I provided a source from the MI State police which was linked FROM the DNR website which states there are only about 65,000 vehicle deer accidents a year. Even you can't believe that every car that hits a deer kills that deer. Yet for the sake of my numbers I considered as if that did happen.

You claimed half of the deer herd is killed every year but provided NO source. I provided a DNR site that shows that in the UP it is only in a severe winter that half of the deer population are killed.

"Real experience?" You make me laugh cjhsa. You have this overinflated sense of what you have done compared to others. Somehow you think because you have a garden and go out and shoot some wildlife you know more about nature than anyone else. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Clearly more than you.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Clearly more than you.

Glad to see you are finally supporting your statements about the MI DNR. Laughing

Anyone that has been involved with animals at all would know you can't kill them off faster than they reproduce and still have the herd remain the same size. Anyone that has spent any time around deer early in the year and not just at hunting time would know that it is rare to see a doe with more than 2 fawns. Anyone that has spent a reasonable amount of time with hunters would know that when the numbers in a population being hunted are down, it is more difficult to bag that particular creature be it deer, pheasant, water fowl or whatever.

0 Replies

I spend the entire year in the woods whenever possible. You're still arguing over a rounding issue. Eat me.

First off - the DNR's numbers are never right. It's constantly an argument between them and hunters. They spend way too much time managing hunters instead of the wildlife they are supposed to be managing. The reason for this is people who think like you - bureauboob anti-hunters, mainly women who've never been off a nature trail.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Eat me.

wouldn't he hafta shoot ya and cook ya first? :wink:

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

I spend the entire year in the woods whenever possible. You're still arguing over a rounding issue. Eat me.

Being off by 30-50% or more is only a rounding issue when you do it?

Quote:

First off - the DNR's numbers are never right.

It seems you are arguing over a rounding issue when it comes to the DNR.

But why did you say this, "Instead of just trying to discredit me, why not look to the MI DNR for more info?" if your intention was to try to discredit everything the MI DNR provides for info?

Quote:

It's constantly an argument between them and hunters.

About a rounding issue?

Quote:

They spend way too much time managing hunters instead of the wildlife they are supposed to be managing. The reason for this is people who think like you - bureauboob anti-hunters,

I don't recall ever saying I was anti-hunter. I said that the wild life couldn't provide all the protein for 10% of humans. That hardly makes me anti-hunter because I realize that over hunting means eventually no one will be able to hunt. Most hunters, that aren't complete idiots, have the same understanding I do. Why do you think groups like "Pheasants Forever" exist? Because they are anti-hunter?

Quote:

mainly women

No wonder you have problems, if you sex deer the same way you sex humans.

Quote:

who've never been off a nature trail.

Somehow I keep getting the impression I saw more of nature by the age of 6 than you have in your entire life.

0 Replies

I urge all hunters to follow the rules and properly license themselves for what they are hunting, or fishing for. At the same time, I also stress you should fill your tags and not passover every animal you see in search of the one you really want. Save a car and put some high quality protein in your freezer. Also, hunters, remember not to canibalize one another by claiming superiority of method. If it's legal and lethal, use it to the best of your ability, or not, but don't tell others not to simply because you can't figure it out or disapprove.

The anti-hunters try every single day to splinter hunters using "holier than thou" tactics. Don't fall for them.

0 Replies

Are YOU A HYPOCRITICAL ANIMAL LOVER

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know