Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2012 10:31:19 GMT -5
Of course its not that low. Else there would not be a deer reduction ongoing. Btw the author fixed the number to 950,000 and explains the public land figure.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Aug 6, 2012 10:32:12 GMT -5
Not to start an argument, because neither of us know, but I can't see it being quite that low. That would mean that between legal harvests, poaching, vehicle accidents, predation, and natural causes, well over half the state's deer herd would take a dirt nap every year. I don't think that could possibly be. Could be that your number would be close to what's left after hunting seasons end. Yes, it is rather difficult to determine the exact population of a Deer Herd in any state. However, if habitat is shrinking, thus allowing Deer to become more visible, due to lack of areas to hide, then one would get the impression of an increase in Population. For example: When my family & I moved to Northern Vanderburgh County in 1971, there were two 85+ acre woods around us. We saw very few Deer at that time. THEN in the early 1980's those wooded & wild areas became Subdivisions for highend Homes. I remember the woods across East Hillsdale Road, had a lot of huge white oaks which were all logged out to make "Whiskey Barrels" & other wood items, leaving very few smaller oaks left. Then when the other lot of the once wooded area were cleared more, for several homes, that reduced the places for Deer to hide & live. Same thing happen to the other 80 acre woods next door to us. We started getting several sightings of Deer, on our property, as we left habitat for them but it was only 15 acres. I really don't think the Deer population increased in this area but rather the Deer were forced to crowd into what little habitat was left. Many Deer were hit on the road due to increased traffic too. <SAD> I have a feeling this is happening to many areas of Indiana especially where farms are being bought-up and turned into factory sites & Subdivisions for homes. So yes I do [think] the Deer population is around the figures I gave. I base this on legal harvest reports too.
|
|
|
Post by windingwinds on Aug 7, 2012 22:12:59 GMT -5
www.realtree.com/hunting/articles-and-how-to/whitetail/antler-nation/kentuckyRealtree "did" Kentucky too, gee they got a "A" too. O, and to be sure this "isn't about big bucks" even though each state's record bucks measurements is on the main page and each state page, larger than any other information on the pages. Size of bucks is mentioned specifically in each article also, Michigan's report is rather entertaining. Heck every state is amusing. I gotta stay off that site, I'm sure I can find something better to read.
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Aug 8, 2012 8:18:34 GMT -5
Looks like people have been calling him on the carpet. Keep up the good work guys.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2012 8:26:22 GMT -5
He admits that he made up the 950000 number on his own. Claims his.other numbers are correct.
|
|
|
Post by windingwinds on Aug 23, 2012 12:59:31 GMT -5
Look what was on my facebook wall today: www.realtree.com/hunting/realtree-hunting-blogs/brow-tines-and-back-strap/the-perils-of-deer-population-estimatesLooks like he's feeling some pain ? I do appreciate finding out about his background though, from Michigan and feels they deserve a C..........guess he couldn't find a trophy buck at home. Which is what he was hinting at with Indiana hunters who didn't agree with him, ah the irony. And the score he gave Louisiana? A "D". A great deer to hunter ratio, but no OBR or high record book numbers which he seems to base his entire grade on (subjective data my rear). Well that and supposed population numbers he makes up when he can't find any. I'm still waiting on the Illinois grade.
|
|
|
Post by Sasquatch on Aug 23, 2012 14:15:58 GMT -5
There are NO very rural areas in Ky. Some are rural. None very rural. The closest Wal-Mart is how far away? No need to even comment on the stupid remark about the HNF and China. Good grief! Is this how we talk to each other any more? "Very Rural" is an entirely subjective comment, and if you think of very rural as the Yukon, then no, nothing is very rural. However, if you are comparing it to most of the country there are certainly areas in KY that fit that description. BTW--there is a Wal-Mart on Kodiak Island, so that's not a good indicator of what is rural--not to mention locating in rural areas was a key feature of their business plan for the first 40 years. The "stupid" comment was obviously a sarcastic reference to Indiana selling a road to foreign interests--which we did. As to the topic---- If indiana went to Earn-a-buck, point restrictions, and a minimum spread limit, Realtree would give Indiana an A++. So who cares what they think?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2012 17:40:08 GMT -5
Taylor County, Ky. is not rural. Not even close.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2012 18:22:14 GMT -5
I think we are confusing "rural" with "wilderness". The vast majority of Kentucky and Indiana are rural. Very little if any of either are wilderness. m.dictionary.com/d/?q=rural&o=0&l=dirThe population density of Taylor County, KY is 91 people per square mile. In order to be classified as rural, an area needs to have a population density of under 500 per square mile. Taylor County certainly qualifies with lots of room to spare (quite literally). By contrast, Marion County, IN, where I live, has a population density of around 2,300 people per square mile.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2012 19:58:41 GMT -5
Have you ever been to Taylor Co.? It's not rural. May have a low density in some areas, but it's hardly rural and far from wilderness. Taylor Co. has a major travel destination and many small towns and gical points. You'll see more $300,000 houses than you will small rural single family homes. It's not rural regardless of the difinition. Take a day trip to Green River State Park sometime, you'll see for yourself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2012 20:07:21 GMT -5
Your definition of rural is different from mine, and every dictionary, and the U. S. Census bureau.
Again, I think if you chose a different word, I might be inclined to agree with the point you are trying to make, but you are losing me with "rural". It isn't "back country" or "wilderness", but by definition Taylor County is rural. There are well under 30,000 residents in the entire county.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2012 20:11:21 GMT -5
Ok it's rural. You drive for hours and not see another house.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Aug 24, 2012 4:06:26 GMT -5
Taylor County, Ky. is not rural. Not even close. It's far more rural than where you live, Tom. I live in the Northern part of Taylor, while the vast majority of folks live in Campbellsville & in the Southern part of Taylor Co. My nearest neighbor is 1/4 mile from my home.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Aug 24, 2012 4:16:48 GMT -5
I think we are confusing "rural" with "wilderness". The vast majority of Kentucky and Indiana are rural. Very little if any of either are wilderness. m.dictionary.com/d/?q=rural&o=0&l=dirThe population density of Taylor County, KY is 91 people per square mile. In order to be classified as rural, an area needs to have a population density of under 500 per square mile. Taylor County certainly qualifies with lots of room to spare (quite literally). By contrast, Marion County, IN, where I live, has a population density of around 2,300 people per square mile. As I told Tom (Timex), the majority of folks live in town and in the Southern part of Taylor. Actually we lost population in the past ten years. I use to live in Evansville, in Northern Vanderburgh Co. and there were more folks living within ten sq. miles of me than the WHOLE population of Taylor Co. Ky. There is a lot of cattle ranches here and I think there are more cattle than people here or it seems that way. I never have to stand in line at Wal-Mart when checking out, as not too many folks there at any given time.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Aug 24, 2012 4:32:27 GMT -5
timex Posted: Have you ever been to Taylor Co.? It's not rural. May have a low density in some areas, but it's hardly rural and far from wilderness.
Where I live it is very rural, lots of woods, fields, and very few homes.
Taylor Co. has a major travel destination and many small towns and gical points. You'll see more $300,000 houses than you will small rural single family homes. It's not rural regardless of the difinition. Take a day trip to Green River State Park sometime, you'll see for yourself.
The only $300,000 + home is mine, the area where I live. Closer in town there are some nice homes. [Most are for sale]. Campbellsville lost most of it's major industry like "Fruit-Of-The-Loom" and several local stores are empty now. The ONLY thing here currently is Amazon.com's warehouse, which I was told is on shaky ground and could close. Green River Wildlife area + the Lake is about the only thing going for Taylor County. So Yes I can state that where I live is very rural, more so than where you live, Tom.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2012 5:39:51 GMT -5
Ok it's rural. You drive for hours and not see another house. By your definition of rural, one would have to go great distances from here to find it. What you are describing does not exist East of the Mississippi River. You are describing the term wilderness, not rural.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Aug 24, 2012 5:54:26 GMT -5
I just love (not really) Semantics arguments as there is no winners and they can go on forever. Who cares what is and isnt "rural" guys and what does it have to do with Realtree giving Indiana a "rating"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2012 6:49:42 GMT -5
I'm a teacher. Just trying to educate about geography terms. Always teaching.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2012 7:39:54 GMT -5
Suburban, fits more than rural. 1/4 mile.to the nearest house is typical nowdays in a lot of areas. On my Indiana lease there is one house in 6 sq. miles. And it's 5 miles from town. And it's not rural in my mind. Looks a lot like N. Taylor Co. and much of Central Ky.
Anyway, Indiana deserves an A rating but most of this blog has wrong numbers. Lots of suburban areas to hnt and some good urban areas too.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Aug 24, 2012 10:26:53 GMT -5
Suburban, fits more than rural. 1/4 mile.to the nearest house is typical nowdays in a lot of areas. On my Indiana lease there is one house in 6 sq. miles. And it's 5 miles from town. And it's not rural in my mind. Looks a lot like N. Taylor Co. and much of Central Ky. My home is some 20 miles from town [one way]. Your defination of a "Rural Area" is completely different than mine or anyone else here. Again we'll have to agree to disagree.
|
|