Michigan Sportsman Forum banner
1 - 20 of 42 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This is Dr. Kroll and I just now figured out how to answer on this forum. I don't normally participate in fora, but I choose to do so this time. First of all, it is good it took me a while, because I knew all this stuff questioning our antler research was really about antler restrictions, and followup proved me right! What bothers me about social media sites is that no one wants to use their name! You see mine, so those of you commenting I would appreciate knowing who you are as well.

So, let's start at the beginning. Our paper published in the Journal of Wildlife Management was peer-reviewed and accepted by my colleagues for publication. The comments from one of the folks on this forum was a general critique offered as a "peer-review." Again, I do not know who you are, but that was settled by the Journal long ago. Next, the Texas Parks & Wildlife work was deeply flawed and never really received a peer-review. I have attached a link to our followup article in the Journal answering some criticisms fostered by TPWD. In a nutshell, there are serious flaws in their experimental design, which either were done on purpose or by accident (I prefer to believe the latter). They spent millions on the project and seem to resist criticism.

At any rate, their study was flawed as follows:
1. they hand-selected their "spike" and "fork" lines to include 9 three year old bucks in the spike group and only one in the fork group.
2. there were more bucks to choose from, but the others turned out to be good bucks; and the one fork (Big Charlie) was actually a spike as a yearling himself.
3. it's kind of troublesome that they waited until the bucks were three before they selected them for their two lines. Accepted scientific procedure is to randomly select individuals as fawns as a blind study group.
4. two bucks in the spike line were replaced by double-back bred bucks from their worst buck.
5. the spike line were bred back to related does.
6. the fork line (one buck) was bred back to his offspring!
7. So, all they really proved was what deer breeders already knew, if you breed bucks back to their sisters and daughters, you can fix traits; in essence they showed how they could breed a "white rat."

Apparently, the original comment was done as a response to something I wrote in North American WHITETAIL as a two-part series on culling. If this person would have waited until the second part came out he would have seen that I have concluded:

"Is Culling a Legitimate Management Activity?


The very short answer to this question is NO! The more complete answer is that only in cases where you have complete or near complete control over the herd, such as with a high fence, is culling even an option. However, let’s return to the normal curve for a moment. Remember the two tales of the curve represent the best and worst animals, and these occur in low numbers. If a fellow hunting an 80-acre parcel shoots a three year old or older buck with less than 8 points and a small frame is doing the herd occupying the broader landscape a favor. On the other hand, the hunter who shoots one of the less than 1% bucks is doing the opposite. I know of a 100,000 acre ranch in Texas that is not high fenced that “shot out” it’s trophy bucks in only a few years by taking only the best 12 bucks from the herd annually. The best harvest scheme for the most good is a random harvest of bucks that are allowed to reach or approach maturity."

This always has been my position! In the vast majority of cases, it is not feasible to cull bucks to improve the herd. It IS, on the other hand, possible to degrade a herd by high-grading over years of hunting pressure.

The next point I want to make is, antler restrictions can work, but have to be coupled with proper herd harvesting, especially does to control the population. Michigan in most cases has neither! You have very low recruitment, and without at least 40% recruitment, it is mathematically impossible to have mature bucks! Hence, you can protect young bucks forever and not see a response.

We at Whitetail were the ones to support the original Georgia antler restriction study, which worked rather well. Georgia is one of the few states that harvests as many or more does than bucks. The real key to success in Georgia was that it was a grass roots program, NOT imposed by the state. In every case where folks request antler restrictions, the public support ends up being high! In efforts such as we saw in Wisconsin where they imposed "Earn-a-Buck," it was a dismal failure.

Why have antler restrictions anyway? I am a firm believer in managing natural deer herds; the ones God (yes I said God) intended. This can be defined as a herd that has natural sex and age structure. If you have a balanced sex ratio and mature deer, genetics will take care of itself.

What really troubles me, however, is when individuals come out against antler restrictions, when the real reason is they want to kill a buck, any buck, and don't like not being able to tell folks, "I got my buck." In a perfect world, hunters eventually will evolve to an attitude of not shooting yearling bucks (equivalent to a teenager) on their own. I already see that happening independently around the country. So, once again I am against forcing hunters into antler restrictions, until it is their idea. Even so, there always will be the individual who cannot let a buck walk. I understand this, since Michigan is one of those states that always has managed for "Traditional Deer Management," where emphasis is on antlered deer harvest.

It also troubles me when I hear folks say antler restrictions are a type of trophy management. Trophies are only the "hook" to get what we really want: a natural deer herd.

Lastly, it certainly troubles me when someone who does not even use his/her name presumes to know what I think and what my values are! Let me be perfectly clear:

1. I only support antler restrictions when it's the idea of hunters not agencies.
2. As we set up in Wisconsin, wildlife management should be democratized. But, then people should become fully informed about wildlife management. We owe to the resource we all love.
3. I see no need for culling in the vast majority of cases, especially on public lands.
4. You cannot look at a yearling buck and predict anything about what he will become!

Here are some links to our article and recent presentations by the Kleberg Institute at Texas A&M Kingsville. They seem to mostly support my position. This is my first and last posting, so you all have fun "chewing on it!"
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27760439.pdf
https://www.ckwri.tamuk.edu/research-programs/deer-research-program/deer-associates
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,068 Posts
Thank You Dr. Kroll for posting...interesting read.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jr28schalm

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
31,380 Posts
Thanks,
Tony Smith
 
  • Like
Reactions: jr28schalm

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,408 Posts
Dr. Kroll, I don't know if you'll reply, but I have a few questions on your last 4 points that seen to be a pretty common theme on here:

1. On numbers 1 and 2, do you think those should go hand in hand? Knowing that no State will ever have 100% agreement on management, but wanting the process to be a democracy, do you think if hunters wanted APRs, and a group brought that forward (like what happened here) that a democracy should choose that? Would you support that and if so, at what % to be enacted, 51%, 66%, ??

2. I believe you've worked with Texas and Wisconsin, and I'm sure there's more. What do you feel is the attitude in other States compared to Michigan? I guess I'm curious if the phrase "if it's brown, it's down" is used elsewhere, or is that just a Michigan thing? Since Michigan is the second highest pressured hunting State, how do you think that plays into our attitude/management?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,033 Posts
This is Dr. Kroll and I just now figured out how to answer on this forum. I don't normally participate in fora, but I choose to do so this time. First of all, it is good it took me a while, because I knew all this stuff questioning our antler research was really about antler restrictions, and followup proved me right! What bothers me about social media sites is that no one wants to use their name! You see mine, so those of you commenting I would appreciate knowing who you are as well.

So, let's start at the beginning. Our paper published in the Journal of Wildlife Management was peer-reviewed and accepted by my colleagues for publication. The comments from one of the folks on this forum was a general critique offered as a "peer-review." Again, I do not know who you are, but that was settled by the Journal long ago. Next, the Texas Parks & Wildlife work was deeply flawed and never really received a peer-review. I have attached a link to our followup article in the Journal answering some criticisms fostered by TPWD. In a nutshell, there are serious flaws in their experimental design, which either were done on purpose or by accident (I prefer to believe the latter). They spent millions on the project and seem to resist criticism.

At any rate, their study was flawed as follows:
1. they hand-selected their "spike" and "fork" lines to include 9 three year old bucks in the spike group and only one in the fork group.
2. there were more bucks to choose from, but the others turned out to be good bucks; and the one fork (Big Charlie) was actually a spike as a yearling himself.
3. it's kind of troublesome that they waited until the bucks were three before they selected them for their two lines. Accepted scientific procedure is to randomly select individuals as fawns as a blind study group.
4. two bucks in the spike line were replaced by double-back bred bucks from their worst buck.
5. the spike line were bred back to related does.
6. the fork line (one buck) was bred back to his offspring!
7. So, all they really proved was what deer breeders already knew, if you breed bucks back to their sisters and daughters, you can fix traits; in essence they showed how they could breed a "white rat."

Apparently, the original comment was done as a response to something I wrote in North American WHITETAIL as a two-part series on culling. If this person would have waited until the second part came out he would have seen that I have concluded:

"Is Culling a Legitimate Management Activity?


The very short answer to this question is NO! The more complete answer is that only in cases where you have complete or near complete control over the herd, such as with a high fence, is culling even an option. However, let’s return to the normal curve for a moment. Remember the two tales of the curve represent the best and worst animals, and these occur in low numbers. If a fellow hunting an 80-acre parcel shoots a three year old or older buck with less than 8 points and a small frame is doing the herd occupying the broader landscape a favor. On the other hand, the hunter who shoots one of the less than 1% bucks is doing the opposite. I know of a 100,000 acre ranch in Texas that is not high fenced that “shot out” it’s trophy bucks in only a few years by taking only the best 12 bucks from the herd annually. The best harvest scheme for the most good is a random harvest of bucks that are allowed to reach or approach maturity."

This always has been my position! In the vast majority of cases, it is not feasible to cull bucks to improve the herd. It IS, on the other hand, possible to degrade a herd by high-grading over years of hunting pressure.

The next point I want to make is, antler restrictions can work, but have to be coupled with proper herd harvesting, especially does to control the population. Michigan in most cases has neither! You have very low recruitment, and without at least 40% recruitment, it is mathematically impossible to have mature bucks! Hence, you can protect young bucks forever and not see a response.

We at Whitetail were the ones to support the original Georgia antler restriction study, which worked rather well. Georgia is one of the few states that harvests as many or more does than bucks. The real key to success in Georgia was that it was a grass roots program, NOT imposed by the state. In every case where folks request antler restrictions, the public support ends up being high! In efforts such as we saw in Wisconsin where they imposed "Earn-a-Buck," it was a dismal failure.

Why have antler restrictions anyway? I am a firm believer in managing natural deer herds; the ones God (yes I said God) intended. This can be defined as a herd that has natural sex and age structure. If you have a balanced sex ratio and mature deer, genetics will take care of itself.

What really troubles me, however, is when individuals come out against antler restrictions, when the real reason is they want to kill a buck, any buck, and don't like not being able to tell folks, "I got my buck." In a perfect world, hunters eventually will evolve to an attitude of not shooting yearling bucks (equivalent to a teenager) on their own. I already see that happening independently around the country. So, once again I am against forcing hunters into antler restrictions, until it is their idea. Even so, there always will be the individual who cannot let a buck walk. I understand this, since Michigan is one of those states that always has managed for "Traditional Deer Management," where emphasis is on antlered deer harvest.

It also troubles me when I hear folks say antler restrictions are a type of trophy management. Trophies are only the "hook" to get what we really want: a natural deer herd.

Lastly, it certainly troubles me when someone who does not even use his/her name presumes to know what I think and what my values are! Let me be perfectly clear:

1. I only support antler restrictions when it's the idea of hunters not agencies.
2. As we set up in Wisconsin, wildlife management should be democratized. But, then people should become fully informed about wildlife management. We owe to the resource we all love.
3. I see no need for culling in the vast majority of cases, especially on public lands.
4. You cannot look at a yearling buck and predict anything about what he will become!

Here are some links to our article and recent presentations by the Kleberg Institute at Texas A&M Kingsville. They seem to mostly support my position. This is my first and last posting, so you all have fun "chewing on it!"
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27760439.pdf
https://www.ckwri.tamuk.edu/research-programs/deer-research-program/deer-associates
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

There's really nothing to add or no reason for some of us to chime in, as long as you're popping in from time to time to set things straight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,636 Posts
Dr. Kroll, I don't know if you'll reply, but I have a few questions on your last 4 points that seen to be a pretty common theme on here:

1. On numbers 1 and 2, do you think those should go hand in hand? Knowing that no State will ever have 100% agreement on management, but wanting the process to be a democracy, do you think if hunters wanted APRs, and a group brought that forward (like what happened here) that a democracy should choose that? Would you support that and if so, at what % to be enacted, 51%, 66%, ??

2. I believe you've worked with Texas and Wisconsin, and I'm sure there's more. What do you feel is the attitude in other States compared to Michigan? I guess I'm curious if the phrase "if it's brown, it's down" is used elsewhere, or is that just a Michigan thing? Since Michigan is the second highest pressured hunting State, how do you think that plays into our attitude/management?
Interesting Hunter, I was beat down and called a troll for asking a honest question of the DR. Then the thread was closed, maybe it should have been, as a simple question caused some hurt. Or the possible answer had it been given may have. I could accept the answer even if it went against what I believe.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,408 Posts
It had nothing to do to what the possible answer was going to be. It had everything to do with the other answers which were basically trolling, antagonizing, and demeaning. That's why it got shut down.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,636 Posts
It had nothing to do to what the possible answer was going to be. It had everything to do with the other answers which were basically trolling, antagonizing, and demeaning. That's why it got shut down.
Understood, it was a valid question by me. Maybe I didn't help with the back and forth, but if one has a different point of view, attacks seem to happen anymore. Again understood.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,018 Posts
This is Dr. Kroll and I just now figured out how to answer on this forum. I don't normally participate in fora, but I choose to do so this time. First of all, it is good it took me a while, because I knew all this stuff questioning our antler research was really about antler restrictions, and followup proved me right! What bothers me about social media sites is that no one wants to use their name! You see mine, so those of you commenting I would appreciate knowing who you are as well.

So, let's start at the beginning. Our paper published in the Journal of Wildlife Management was peer-reviewed and accepted by my colleagues for publication. The comments from one of the folks on this forum was a general critique offered as a "peer-review." Again, I do not know who you are, but that was settled by the Journal long ago. Next, the Texas Parks & Wildlife work was deeply flawed and never really received a peer-review. I have attached a link to our followup article in the Journal answering some criticisms fostered by TPWD. In a nutshell, there are serious flaws in their experimental design, which either were done on purpose or by accident (I prefer to believe the latter). They spent millions on the project and seem to resist criticism.

At any rate, their study was flawed as follows:
1. they hand-selected their "spike" and "fork" lines to include 9 three year old bucks in the spike group and only one in the fork group.
2. there were more bucks to choose from, but the others turned out to be good bucks; and the one fork (Big Charlie) was actually a spike as a yearling himself.
3. it's kind of troublesome that they waited until the bucks were three before they selected them for their two lines. Accepted scientific procedure is to randomly select individuals as fawns as a blind study group.
4. two bucks in the spike line were replaced by double-back bred bucks from their worst buck.
5. the spike line were bred back to related does.
6. the fork line (one buck) was bred back to his offspring!
7. So, all they really proved was what deer breeders already knew, if you breed bucks back to their sisters and daughters, you can fix traits; in essence they showed how they could breed a "white rat."

Apparently, the original comment was done as a response to something I wrote in North American WHITETAIL as a two-part series on culling. If this person would have waited until the second part came out he would have seen that I have concluded:

"Is Culling a Legitimate Management Activity?


The very short answer to this question is NO! The more complete answer is that only in cases where you have complete or near complete control over the herd, such as with a high fence, is culling even an option. However, let’s return to the normal curve for a moment. Remember the two tales of the curve represent the best and worst animals, and these occur in low numbers. If a fellow hunting an 80-acre parcel shoots a three year old or older buck with less than 8 points and a small frame is doing the herd occupying the broader landscape a favor. On the other hand, the hunter who shoots one of the less than 1% bucks is doing the opposite. I know of a 100,000 acre ranch in Texas that is not high fenced that “shot out” it’s trophy bucks in only a few years by taking only the best 12 bucks from the herd annually. The best harvest scheme for the most good is a random harvest of bucks that are allowed to reach or approach maturity."

This always has been my position! In the vast majority of cases, it is not feasible to cull bucks to improve the herd. It IS, on the other hand, possible to degrade a herd by high-grading over years of hunting pressure.

The next point I want to make is, antler restrictions can work, but have to be coupled with proper herd harvesting, especially does to control the population. Michigan in most cases has neither! You have very low recruitment, and without at least 40% recruitment, it is mathematically impossible to have mature bucks! Hence, you can protect young bucks forever and not see a response.

We at Whitetail were the ones to support the original Georgia antler restriction study, which worked rather well. Georgia is one of the few states that harvests as many or more does than bucks. The real key to success in Georgia was that it was a grass roots program, NOT imposed by the state. In every case where folks request antler restrictions, the public support ends up being high! In efforts such as we saw in Wisconsin where they imposed "Earn-a-Buck," it was a dismal failure.

Why have antler restrictions anyway? I am a firm believer in managing natural deer herds; the ones God (yes I said God) intended. This can be defined as a herd that has natural sex and age structure. If you have a balanced sex ratio and mature deer, genetics will take care of itself.

What really troubles me, however, is when individuals come out against antler restrictions, when the real reason is they want to kill a buck, any buck, and don't like not being able to tell folks, "I got my buck." In a perfect world, hunters eventually will evolve to an attitude of not shooting yearling bucks (equivalent to a teenager) on their own. I already see that happening independently around the country. So, once again I am against forcing hunters into antler restrictions, until it is their idea. Even so, there always will be the individual who cannot let a buck walk. I understand this, since Michigan is one of those states that always has managed for "Traditional Deer Management," where emphasis is on antlered deer harvest.

It also troubles me when I hear folks say antler restrictions are a type of trophy management. Trophies are only the "hook" to get what we really want: a natural deer herd.

Lastly, it certainly troubles me when someone who does not even use his/her name presumes to know what I think and what my values are! Let me be perfectly clear:

1. I only support antler restrictions when it's the idea of hunters not agencies.
2. As we set up in Wisconsin, wildlife management should be democratized. But, then people should become fully informed about wildlife management. We owe to the resource we all love.
3. I see no need for culling in the vast majority of cases, especially on public lands.
4. You cannot look at a yearling buck and predict anything about what he will become!

Here are some links to our article and recent presentations by the Kleberg Institute at Texas A&M Kingsville. They seem to mostly support my position. This is my first and last posting, so you all have fun "chewing on it!"
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27760439.pdf
https://www.ckwri.tamuk.edu/research-programs/deer-research-program/deer-associates
Thanks for taking the time to post.
If you wouldn't mind indulging me on a tangential comment....I do want to understand one point as it relates to APR's.

What is your position on APR's in a known disease zone, such as CWD?


I don't see a reason that it would bother you so much that people don't use their real/full names on a website, as long as the discussion remains respectful.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,408 Posts
I'm going to address the name thing before there are more posts and it gets out of hand. Due to the nature of how a forum works and for various reasons, anonymity is the choice of the user. It could be for numerous reasons, maybe some famous hunters from Michigan (Nugent or Rinella) have accounts here, and would rather participate anonymously than give out their name. Maybe there are people on here that call into work sick, but instead go hunting and post live hunts and they don't want work to know. Maybe someone is just afraid they'll be harassed for their beliefs if they post on other forums about religion, politics, etc. Whatever the reason may be, it's their reason and their choice. There are a lot of posters here that still go by a screen name, but it is widely known what there real names are. If Dr. Kroll would rather only respond to people who state their name, that's his choice. Perhaps he'll still respond to valid questions, even if they are from an anonymous user. If you still don't want to give your name, perhaps PM him with it and perhaps he'll still answer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,033 Posts
Maybe it would be wise to require the real names be used only on any thread started by a legitimate professional wildlife biologist, professional deer researcher or professional land manager/habitat consultant? That way, real professionals would feel much more comfortable weighing in here. I believe we lost BSK and Ed Spin for that reason, which was a tremendous loss to the site.

On other threads, not started by a professional, others could still hide behind their anonymous names. I know if I was a professional deer biologist, I'd be very hesitant to post on a forum such as this, knowing that at least a half dozen career skeptics are laying in wait.

Just a thought for consideration.
Bob Fisher
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,407 Posts
Maybe it would be wise to require the real names be used only on any thread started by a legitimate professional wildlife biologist, professional deer researcher or professional land manager/habitat consultant? That way, real professionals would feel much more comfortable weighing in here. I believe we lost BSK and Ed Spin for that reason, which was a tremendous loss to the site.

On other threads, not started by a professional, others could still hide behind their anonymous names. I know if I was a professional deer biologist, I'd be very hesitant to post on a forum such as this, knowing that at least a half dozen career skeptics are laying in wait.

Just a thought for consideration.
Bob Fisher
Good idea ...Jim sweney..lol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,033 Posts
MSF has rules that you can't mention the names of very popular holes on big rivers. It would seem reasonable to have a rule on specific threads when professionals offer free advice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,050 Posts
MSF has rules that you can't mention the names of very popular holes on big rivers. It would seem reasonable to have a rule on specific threads when professionals offer free advice.
It's well established on web forums that the bulk of users have limited interest in expertise, UNLESS the layman is in agreement with the expert. In that case the expert is revered. But if there is not agreement then the expert's perspective is dismissed as just another opinion.

Many like to imagine all opinions as being of equal validity. As an example, it's why on this forum there have been people who don't understand the difference between genes and jeans who have been confident "debating" Bio on the topic of genetics. It's why those who don't have even a rudimentary understanding of survey sampling feel they're on solid ground to debate the validity of harvest surveys with those who do understand the science.

The cool thing about a web forum is everyone can voice their perspective. The worst thing about a web forum is everyone can voice their perspective, regardless of how ill informed their perspective is.

It's a fascinating dynamic that sometimes those who have the lowest understanding of a topic possess the highest amount of confidence in how strong their understanding is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
329 Posts
I agree that state-wide in MI it is likely not feasible to cull to benefit herd. I'm used to Germany/Austria where they try to do so though, and it may be possible for really sophisticated large land owner or groups in the US.

Dr. Kroll, I expect you will NEVER make your data public, and that means nobody else gets to analyze it. You don't even mention it your post. Why not share? Isn't that what is best for society?

Pre-publication review is useful, but these days, in science, that is not considered to be perfect. Post publication review is good too, and it should be possible, with access to data. I have to cough up data allot these days (often giant sets of microarray data on human tumors), and your papers actually get cited more cause people use your data! So even when I don't have to I do it. It's the right thing to do for reviewers, readers, progress in science, and (in my case) the patients! Scruples are good. Also, in my experience reviewers often suck, especially about statistical issues. Why should I trust these matters to a reviewer, if I can see better for myself on the question that interests me?

On to anonymity - it doesn't matter who I am very much, unless there's reason to think I'm hiding some ax I have to grind. My being a pedantic douche-bag - besides just playing to my strengths - is mostly just from my European experiences, as well as some research by others on other species like trees and fish. Anonymity can assist in people criticizing what was said, rather than who said it (it was the trick in Ben Franklin's day - he did it very often). Also, folks with 3 grams of google-foo can figure out who I am cause I have a rare name, and what I've done and even earned for the last 20 years since I work at a public institution. Try "google scholar rork". I think you'll see I am harmless, except at experimental design and analysis. I have never earned a penny from my views about deer.
-Rork Kuick
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,178 Posts
I agree that state-wide in MI it is likely not feasible to cull to benefit herd. I'm used to Germany/Austria where they try to do so though, and it may be possible for really sophisticated large land owner or groups in the US.

Dr. Kroll, I expect you will NEVER make your data public, and that means nobody else gets to analyze it. You don't even mention it your post. Why not share? Isn't that what is best for society?

Pre-publication review is useful, but these days, in science, that is not considered to be perfect. Post publication review is good too, and it should be possible, with access to data. I have to cough up data allot these days (often giant sets of microarray data on human tumors), and your papers actually get cited more cause people use your data! So even when I don't have to I do it. It's the right thing to do for reviewers, readers, progress in science, and (in my case) the patients! Scruples are good. Also, in my experience reviewers often suck, especially about statistical issues. Why should I trust these matters to a reviewer, if I can see better for myself on the question that interests me?

On to anonymity - it doesn't matter who I am very much, unless there's reason to think I'm hiding some ax I have to grind. My being a pedantic douche-bag - besides just playing to my strengths - is mostly just from my European experiences, as well as some research by others on other species like trees and fish. Anonymity can assist in people criticizing what was said, rather than who said it (it was the trick in Ben Franklin's day - he did it very often). Also, folks with 3 grams of google-foo can figure out who I am cause I have a rare name, and what I've done and even earned for the last 20 years since I work at a public institution. Try "google scholar rork". I think you'll see I am harmless, except at experimental design and analysis. I have never earned a penny from my views about deer.
-Rork Kuick
Your way beyond the comprehension of this deer hunter and I'm glad....I'm an x's an o's guy and like to keep it simple with some common sense sprinkled in...Street smarts with trees, grass and a game worthy animal to hunt...
 
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
Top