Post a picture you took in the last week.

[Nershi]

We had excellent grouse hunting on my dads land until cats moved in. They took out the rabbits too. Cats are very effective killers. After checking with the neighbors to make sure I didn’t kill their pet I went to war with them. I never could get one of them. He knew he was being hunted.

Cats don’t just eat songbirds. I’d kill em either way, just sayin.

I shoot all skunks and coons I see too.

I agree the bird kill total by cats is a joke. Kinda reminds me of usfws trying to claim we know how many ducks there are.

[Drunk_Dynasty]

You guys must have a lot of knowledge in wildlife modeling. Care to share how you know the numbers are bunk?

[Fish Felon]

You guys must have a lot of knowledge in wildlife modeling. Care to share how you know the numbers are bunk?

Care to show how you know the numbers are legit? How about this....since you know it's legit and apparently have read it....what were the sampling methods used to determine the rate at which birds are killed by cats? Or even better....what types birds? And where? I'd have to imagine different regions of the country have different rates, and on different types of birds?

J have yet to pull the study up and read it. If you want me to shred the fukc out of it I will. I guarantee it.

You know what is a hell of a lot more stupid than blindly criticizing some academic piece of bullshit?

Blindly supporting it.

I'm so effing sick of people blindly believing "the science."

There is no person on this planet more stupid than an academic with a PhD.

[Fish Felon]

We had excellent grouse hunting on my dads land until cats moved in. They took out the rabbits too. Cats are very effective killers. After checking with the neighbors to make sure I didn’t kill their pet I went to war with them. I never could get one of them. He knew he was being hunted.

Cats don’t just eat songbirds. I’d kill em either way, just sayin.

I shoot all skunks and coons I see too.

I agree the bird kill total by cats is a joke. Kinda reminds me of usfws trying to claim we know how many ducks there are.

Valid way of going about killing cats.

[Fish Felon]

When I was in college some asshat let their cats out and it jumped on my truck and scratched the hood all to hell. Kept happening so I set a leg hold trap in a box with some tuna. That was the end of that cat jumping on my truck. Ran off and got tangled in some alders and the neighboors found it. Asked us about it and played dumb.

Last year had a cat up against the chicken coop trying to get them. Three a hockey stick at that one. Would have thrown it if it was a dog as well. If your dumbass animal is on my property and causing hell your a shitty animal owner.


Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

Valid reason for killing a cat.

[Fish Felon]

Felon the fact that your cat lived wild for 6 months after running away should tell you exactly why cats need to be killed if roaming free.

He was like a big Mille Lacs walleye late summer of 2020.....underweight to where it didn't seem like he could be alive. Was dark brown from dirt, couldn't see any of his markings, and reaked....just effing reaked....had been living off garbage. His shit was something foul for two weeks. Took months before he got back to normal.

You ever see the old cartoons where cats are always getting in trash cans? Chewing on fish skeletons with nothing but a head and a tail?

That's reality.....from what I've seen.

Funny how you never hear stories about cats coming back after living in the wild all fat and happy from all these billions of birds they're eating left and right.



.....and no offense, but what land in this state that used to have great grouse hunting....still has great grouse hunting?


I'm not saying that cats didn't maybe eat a grouse or two....or some chicks....or that you didn't handle it the right way and have every right to kill cats coming onto your property......

.....but I kind of doubt the cats had much to do with the decline in grouse hunting, and I doubt the banner years returned after killing some cats, or did they?

[Drunk_Dynasty]

[quote="Drunk_Dynasty"]You guys must have a lot of knowledge in wildlife modeling. Care to share how you know the numbers are bunk?

Care to show how you know the numbers are legit? How about this....since you know it's legit and apparently have read it....what were the sampling methods used to determine the rate at which birds are killed by cats? Or even better....what types birds? And where? I'd have to imagine different regions of the country have different rates, and on different types of birds?

J have yet to pull the study up and read it. If you want me to shred the fukc out of it I will. I guarantee it.

You know what is a hell of a lot more stupid than blindly criticizing some academic piece of bullshit?

Blindly supporting it.

I'm so effing sick of people blindly believing "the science."

There is no person on this planet more stupid than an academic with a PhD.[/quote]

You better go tell all the all the colleges that their fisheries departments are doing it all wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Fish Felon]

You better go tell all the all the colleges that their fisheries departments are doing it all wrong.

Too late.....told that to plenty.

Have you ever actually read any of "the science?"

Like actually read any of these peer reviewed studies you're blindly supporting?

I've read a lot of them, and there's no worse science than wildlife science.

Example:

In "the science" behind some of Mille Lacs's management.....they sub in a component in their algorithm for population modeling/exploitable population rate of the lake's walleyes........

.....from marlin population modeling used down in the gulf.

All peer reviewed....academically accepted and approved.....

Because what you fail to realize is that when the academics are doing their circle jerk known as "peer reviewing" it's more about A + B = C, on a level as simplistic as 1 + 2 = 3.....

It's about format. Academic peer review is about how papers get formatted....proper empirical "thinking," and proper empirical citations.

It's the most insular form of fukced up thinking there is.....since it isn't about thinking....it's about formatting other people's shit into a slight twist of work that's already been done and making sure you structure it right. It's about writing shit in a computer lab while never observing the actual real world outdoor resource the bullshit paper is supposedly about.

You know how i got started down this rabbit hole?

About ten years ago, me and a buddy enjoyed trolling everyone who was bitching about the DNR on Facebook. All the pro-resort, pro-sport angler, pro-higher limits, anti-netting crowd.....were ridiculously easy to troll.

My/Our Trump Card?

We'd go back and forth and ultimately we had our Mic Drop of, "You know why I know I'm right? Because all the science is on my side of the argument! BOOM!"

And then one day....one dude eloquently told me to fukc off by explaining to me how I was a total hypocrite because I didn't have the faintest clue what the science was....had never even read a single piece of "the science" that like an idiot, I blindly used as my trump card.

And at least I was man enough to look in the mirror and go, "fukc me...he got me....he's 100% right."

So I started reading up on the science....which was hard as hell at first. I've got a BS in Sociology....have done population modeling, stats, algebra, algorithms....different animals but I knew enough to where...it wasn't the first peer reviewed studies I'd read.....

I went into learning "the science" when it came to fisheries management.......

....to defend it.

I wanted to know as much about it as I could so if ever called out again like I was.....I wouldn't be eating shit next time around.

A funny thing happened while I read and reviewed study after study after study.....


I realized how fukcing retarded it was.....just the most truly putrid science that's ever existed. Full of gaping, very obvious, critical flaws....flaws that in any other actual science that's required to produce results would be chewed up and discredited for the utter garbage it is in the blink of an eye.


So this is me calling you out and telling you to eat shit.

Let's start by you reading one fukcing peer reviewed MN fisheries study and get back to me.

[Drunk_Dynasty]

Sociology isn’t even real. It’s not, and has never been a science. It’s not even an applied science.

“Self-identifying poacher says wildlife science is most wrong of all sciences.”

Can’t wait to read that headline in next week’s print edition of Outdoor News.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Fish Felon]

You realize that walleyes for instance,....

All the science behind management of them in our state has walleyes in a vacuum, right?

The algorithms and modeling manages walleyes living in hypothetically perfect conditions....it's walleyes managed with one factor = mortality from sport angling.

Available forage? AKA....FOOD! No such factors exist.....whether there's zero prey fish in a lake or the lake is literally completely full of walleyes preferred forage?

Makes zero difference.

Not factored into "the science" anywhere.


Just go back and look at Mille Lacs. When the lake crashed in 2012....half as many fished showed up in the fall assessment as the modeling predicted. Then fisheries chief Don Pereira was baffled. Kept crunching the numbers...had everyone else in the department double check them....

Yup, there should've been twice the amount of walleyes...based off all the science.....the angling hours plugged into the algorithm, with hooking mortality, the catch rates, blah blah blah......all the numbers kept adding up to their being twice as many walleyes in the lake.

Because "the science" for walleye management in this state using two factors....
Walleyes living in a vacuum....and mortality from sportsfishing. If the harvest exceeds the population's exploitation rate? You simply reduce harvest, increase the spawning biomass (i won't go into how fukcing retarded the concept of spawning biomass is...would be writing a book), and thus increase the population......then increase the exploitable surplus until the population possibly decreases again....wash rinse repeat.

So how bad and completely garbage is the science behind MN walleye management?

It's so bad, and the inferiority in it's simplicity is to such a degree.......

That the science went to shit because it literally had no way to account for a lake crashing and half the walleyes disappearing.....


BECAUSE THEY FUKCING STARVED TO DEATH!


So there you go bud.....just one example of many for why the fisheries science you're touting is complete and utter dogshit.

Or do you want to argue their [DNR] population modeling worked great in that case? How are you going to defend the science when it so clearly failed, miserably?