doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com OT, but of interest.

Chief - the best I can offer is that bad science is bad science and it sounds like bad science to me dedicated career or not.
And since it still doesn't seem as tho I made it clear enough the don't GAF part is about what you get off on killing.

have a day

Oh, but you do GAF or you wouldn't persist in this. Or put another way "STOP LIKING WHAT I DON"T LIKE" syndrome. You have a day, too Wonko. You win, I'm done.

A layman, describing the decades of grouse research at the Cloquet Forest Service Project, by Gordon Gullion, as "bad science".

Truly precious. Have you read any of Mr. Gullion's work, Dr. Sane, or, are you simply guessing?

Best,
Ted

Ignorance of factual science is understandable in this case. Skepticism, mistrust of facts appears plausible in that it makes sense to the unknowing that killing these birds by hunting, on the surface would appear to be a plausible link to population demise. However, science has shown �killing them don�t hurt them none�. As Ted pointed out, the birds have a very high mortality rate, with or without hunting. Science has shown, hunting plays only a minor role, if any, in terms of the mortality of population with these birds. As an example Wonko, Indiana closed the hunting season on Ruffed Grouse a few years back because our bird numbers got very low. Not hunting the birds has made NO difference in terms of the bird population....we still don�t have any birds to speak of. It�s more about proper habitat, or lack there of for Indiana, as well as other factors. HTH Wonko.

Buzz (and others)

Bad science is discounting a likely potential source of population pressure for no reason without actually testing to determine it's validity. If that investigation then discounts the source well and good. Animal populations everywhere are under a multitude of pressures. Of course birds are no different and if your population is not recovering then obviously the current critical pressure has not been identified. But there is no way for anyone to see into the past and discount any prior source of pressure unless a proper evaluation was done at that time.

Bad science is bad science and after the fact suppositions do not absolve it.

have another day

Wonko; We can explain it to you but we can�t understand it for you. Oh well, still HTH.

Hunting pressure on game, which suffers 90% yearly mortality, is not enough mportabt. If it did by year five they would cease to exist. High birth rates are nature�s way to compensate but high birth rates can not exceed the ability of local environment to support a increase in population. If this was not so states with no hunting seasons on birds like dove would be over run with birds in just st a few years. Or as a friend use to say, a hunter chasing a bird for a few hours each year is nothing compared predator working 365 days a year.

Very well said by your friend.

SRH

Best reply of 2018, so far. Congrats, Buzz.

Best,
Ted

Not in the least surprising since you apparently are incapable of even understanding it yourselves