new report from Nevada on recommended quotas

[packer58]

I may be missing somthing in my research.......is there a list of hunts out there that the proposed tag increase's apply or will the proposed tag increase be state wide including all hunts/ all species.

I have mixed feelings on increase tag quotas, increased tags do make for more opportunity and better draw odds but the down side to that is additional hunting presure and "company in the field".

For those that are apposed to tag increases in fear of desimating the heard..........keep in mind that "for example" a 10% increase in tags does not equall a 10% increase in dead deer.

 

[hardstalk]

Thank him for me for responding. I love when very well educated professionals take time to explain to the community in laymens terms what's the truth and share some knowledge on the subject with proof to back it up. Very cool!

 

[Drhorsepower]

Packer, when you click on the link, at the bottom of ndow page, there is another link that opens up the break down.

As far as the 10% increase does not increase 10% in more deer killed, everyone says that however my math(not my strong subject tells me otherwise) that is why I ask, how do you figure?

Here is my math.
1,000 tags given out, 50% successful =500 deer killed

1100 tags given out, 50% successful= 550 deer killed.

That is the same 10% increase right?

 

[Drhorsepower]

Thank him for me for responding. I love when very well educated professionals take time to explain to the community in laymens terms what's the truth and share some knowledge on the subject with proof to back it up. Very cool!

Oh I did along with permission to pass on.

 

[Ikeepitcold]

Dr do a Poll! Let's see how it turns out on this.

 

[Drhorsepower]

Dr do a Poll! Let's see how it turns out on this.

Go for it man, I have never done one and being on tapatalk, I'm not sure how.

 

[MSUcat61]

As far as the 10% increase does not increase 10% in more deer killed, everyone says that however my math(not my strong subject tells me otherwise) that is why I ask, how do you figure?

Here is my math.
1,000 tags given out, 50% successful =500 deer killed

1100 tags given out, 50% successful= 550 deer killed.

That is the same 10% increase right?

So in your example, 50 more deer were killed, which is 5% of original 1000. The point is that if you increase the quota by 100 tags (10%), not 100 more deer will die. Yes it is still proportionate, but not every increased tag equals another dead deer.

 

[Shooter]

If a piece of ground is at its max carrying capacity why kill more bucks to try and grow the herd? If a piece of ground can support 100 deer and no more than than 100 deer what good does it do to have 10 of them bucks or 40 of them bucks? Do we want a big herd of does to hunt each fall or a big herd of bucks to hunt each fall?

 

[MSUcat61]

If a piece of ground is at its max carrying capacity why kill more bucks to try and grow the herd? If a piece of ground can support 100 deer and no more than than 100 deer what good does it do to have 10 of them bucks or 40 of them bucks? Do we want a big herd of does to hunt each fall or a big herd of bucks to hunt each fall?

If a population is allowed to reach its carrying capacity, K, the reproduction rate, r, will actually be reduced in a proportionate fashion so that less fawns are born every spring. By hunting a population every year, we can artificially elevate the population above the K every year by hunting the population below the K in the fall and thus increasing the r in the spring every year.

More does equals more fawns. More fawns equals more bucks in every age class. So if you have 60 does and say half successfully recruit a fawn, you'll get about 30 fawns, about 15 will be bucks in that age class. If you had 90 does, you'd get 45 fawns of which half would be bucks (around 22 or 23). So you've actually increased the number bucks in each age class by 50%, actually increasing hunter opportunity without affecting the actual K if you harvest an equally proportionate number of bucks every year. By doing so, you keep the herd below the K and therefore an already increased amount of females will be able to reproduce at a higher r, contributing to population growth from two angles (more females who are reproducing at a higher rate) which will actually produce more bucks to hunt every fall.

This is what I understand from the ecology classes I took a few moons ago. If I'm wrong about some aspect, feel free to correct me.

 

[BigSurArcher]

If a population is allowed to reach its carrying capacity, K, the reproduction rate, r, will actually be reduced in a proportionate fashion so that less fawns are born every spring. By hunting a population every year, we can artificially elevate the population above the K every year by hunting the population below the K in the fall and thus increasing the r in the spring every year.

This is what I understand from the ecology classes I took a few moons ago. If I'm wrong about some aspect, feel free to correct me.

You pretty much got it! A population at carrying capacity is static. I made a quick graph to back you up.