Woody, Michael & Sure Kills.
Question:
: Your posts are there for all to read, as Woody has pointed out time : and again…you are constantly altering what you said in order to fit : the current argument…I think he refers to it as a "bait and switch". : You did make the statement about does and bucks as well as concluding : that shooting fawn bucks was acceptable population control when : compared with shooting only does. My point was that killing a fawn buck does more to protect next year’s corn than leaving a tag unfilled. Your counterpoint that I should wait for an opportunity to kill multiple does at once was invalid because that’s illegal in Ohio. You complained that I never listen to the advice of newsgroup members, so I posted back a number of instances where I found the advice helpful, and a few where I had good reason to reject the advice (such as it being against the law to follow it). — Michael Courtney, Ph. D.
Response:
: IMHO, one is alot less likely to improve his shooting/kill ratio if he : has decided that some mediocre result is adequate. One is alot less : likely to be successful culling the does if one has decided shooting : fawn bucks is just as good a population control measure. Joe is lying. I never said that shooting fawn bucks was as good a population measure as shooting does. I said that shooting a doe keeps three deer out of next year’s corn, but shooting a buck at least keeps one deer out. Joe, learn to love the truth. Learn to stop lying. Then maybe you’ll be a respectable human being in addition to whatever hunting skills you have. — Michael Courtney, Ph. D.
Response:
>Joe is lying. I never said that shooting fawn bucks was >as good a population measure as shooting does. I said that shooting >a doe keeps three deer out of next year’s corn, but shooting a buck >at least keeps one deer out. >Joe, learn to love the truth. Learn to stop lying. Then maybe you’ll >be a respectable human being in addition to whatever hunting skills >you have. >– >Michael Courtney, Ph. D.
Your posts are there for all to read, as Woody has pointed out time and again…you are constantly altering what you said in order to fit the current argument…I think he refers to it as a "bait and switch". You did make the statement about does and bucks as well as concluding that shooting fawn bucks was acceptable population control when compared with shooting only does. As far as calling me a liar goes…you little worm…. Ohio may be a good ways from Georgia…but you keep that up and you may get a chance to see just how you’ll react to a bellicose intruder….only I’ll be armed only with my bare hands…I am sure that would be sufficient. joe (not smiling)
Response:
I guess I’m going to have to eat my words… I said I would not respond to any more of PhD Michael’s posts, since he asks advice then rejects it as incorrect, but….. The Woody vs Michael "sure kill" thread has smoked me out. In my humble, unsolicited opinion….Michael is destined to continue receiving disappointing results in controlling his deer population…as long as he thinks he has all the answers and is willing to quickly disregard the opinions of those who are obviously more experienced than he. People like Woody. IMHO, one is alot less likely to improve his shooting/kill ratio if he has decided that some mediocre result is adequate. One is alot less likely to be successful culling the does if one has decided shooting fawn bucks is just as good a population control measure. In deer hunting you are likely to become just as accomplished as you are willing to make yourself. The first step in this process is being dissatisfied with your present level of ability. I guess that means that as long as you are always defending your current way of doing things….you ain’t gonna get much better at it. As I read these posts…that’s what jumps out at me. joe
