Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="wct12" data-source="post: 439134" data-attributes="member: 8117">sorry for the late response, i was sitting at a pheasant clubs sportsmen’s banquet where we discussed increasing habitat, supplemental feeding and whatever can do better to increase birds numbers.. but yes, habitat habitat habitat.. the same thing I said the department you adore so much has tried to tirelessly fix but has come up basically empty in the last 15 years would make all the difference but has struck out more times then if they were facing Nolan Ryan.. (get it, he’s the MLB strike out leader)Sorry.. I forgot to mention nutrition levels are essential no matter the wildlife species from birds to kangaroos to North Dakota’s deer herd. Nutrition and maintaining it is an oversimplified perspective. A healthy herd is a good herd! I’m glad you take the same stance as the department though.. important driving factors like habitat are more important to ecological outcomes then supplemental feed.. it’s just to bad the department hasn’t made any head way on either yet despite all their best efforts. Oh yes, let’s not forget.. habitat habitat habitat! If I could get every other land owner to not burn sloughs, plant tree rows and leave grass buffer strips and old yards I would be the first one in line to help and provide money.. but instead statewide it isn’t going to happen so I do what I can with the land I can and run from there. You keep mentioning acidosis.. it’s almost like you think all these big game biologist that the state employ aren’t able to make a sound, data driven decision (if so welcome to our side!). If a big game biologist isn’t able to battle acidosis through a beneficial supplemental feeding program it’s almost like the letters behind their name are meaningless.. (don’t worry, I can help if you would like, I had a few nutrition and animal health classes in college)Also sorry I forgot.. your an activist for wildlife though the legislature, just like you curse me for being! Darn someone for trying to follow the state constitution and preserve it for the people and manage it through LAW and regulation for the public good (80% in favor of the bill your battling to kill) especially after the legislature twice granted me the right to do it. I like your studies you post with tracking collar info.. the 9 year old doe that’s like turning an 80 year old with worn down teeth lose in the woods and hoping for the best.. or the 3 year old buck that got killed by coyotes (not CWD killed if a predator takes care of em and the rear end is all bloody) which is essentially the same as dumping an 18 year old into the wolf pen at a zoo and then saying covid killed em because they tested positive after the pack killed em.. Awe yes.. 30% acidosis again.. seems like someone with a PhD in wildlife management would be able to come up with a nutrition plan to offset that, but maybe you need a lowly rancher/land owner to help out with that.. the department is the experts Brock, they can do no wrong, just listen, follow mandates and everything will be just fine. 2 weeks to stop the spread, or maybe 15 years if we don’t lose 200% of our deer herd again! (Makes me kind of chuckle also, maybe you will get a chuckle out the department costing sportsmen opportunities, because I sure don’t)Would a vaccine be awesome, sure.. but it’s not quite as feasible as hoping for resistant genes (you’ve said so yourself on a vaccine or redid that genes working) which were possibly present in that Williston herd the department slaughtered (culling works super well.. if I have 100 deer and 5 are positive (I can’t tell which ones are because it takes YEARS for it to show clinical signs) and I kill 50 with 1 being positive, I now have 8% positives instead of 5% positives, but the department killed 50+ (they couldn’t tell fawns from adult does) so they just kept blasting). “Experts” say culling in a wild herd can’t help determine genetics.. but departments like to think it can help prevalence rates.And awe yes, I’m glad you’ll listen to landowners/sportsmen in Sask, instead of the ones in your home state, that say they’ve lost buck quality/deer numbers.. (what have tag numbers done in those hunting units with high prevalence rates, and what do increased buck licenses and overall license numbers do to buck quality and deer herd numbers.. (if I give out double the buck tags and double overall tag numbers it’s almost like there will be less deer in general and more bucks taken (some of these might even be trophy quality.. take 3f2 and deer numbers and quality for example..))I’m also glad to know you would be in favor of banning feeding in units with CWD positives and relatively low prevalence rates.. you know, since that’s against what the state legislature has granted the people of North Dakota twice.. it’s almost like bureaucratic over reach is back country hunters and anglers forte with the whole Land Tawney/sportsmen for Obama second amendment infringements.</blockquote>

Verification: What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA