LAST EDITED ON Dec-03-11 AT 10:30AM (MST)[p]AspenAdventures,
I can't find where I said "killing does has no effect on population..."
Maybe you think I implied that with the Idaho & Wyoming examples in post #33?
I am not implying that at all. I am saying is that if a Game and Fish agency is allowing doe hunts, in many cases (not all, they make mistakes, too) it is likely biologically sound to do so.
I understand that some Utah hunters completely disagree with the Wasatch having a doe harvest and if that is based on good science, then post it up, but if it is just opinion, that's OK, too, just say it's opinion.
However, it seemed in this post that a few were blasting Chsnmuleys because he wanted to harvest a doe and I wanted to point out some examples where doe harvest did not result in more deer due to hard winters greatly offsetting any increase in deer numbers because hunters didn't harvest does.
In fact, there's science from most states that says a lopsided buck:doe ratio (due to no doe harvest when biologically feasible) leads to other problems like late born fawns, poor habitat, etc.
If I did say what you say I said, please refer to the post # as I can't find it.
My point, (and opinion), if Chsnmuleys wants a doe AND it's legal, he's not less of a hunter than anyone AND he's probably not harming anyone?s chances in the future.
I don't hunt the Wasatch, so I can't offer an opinion on whether your F&G is managing it right.
The Christian