THE ACCURATERELOADING.COM EUROPEAN HUNTING FORUMS

Page 1 2 

Moderators: Pete E
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Sunning vs sheltering?
 Login/Join
 
One of Us
Picture of Ghubert
posted Hide Post
Definitely tetchy.
 
Posts: 11731 | Location: London, UK | Registered: 02 September 2007Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
Again, at the cost of repeating myself. Nope! coffee

Weighed and measured, Goober weighed and measured. lol

If not Jewish jokes how about Palestinian jokes?
 
Posts: 618 | Location: UK | Registered: 17 March 2012Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of DJM
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jools:

There is no difference between deer species in regards to tollerance to biting insects Be they red, sika, fallow, roe, muntjac or CWD. Tick burden is subject to level of exposure due to habitat occuppied nothing else.

Basic beginners understanding of Cervidae really.


Your statement could not be further from the truth Jools.

There is a huge difference in external parasite burden between the species on the same site with some species having no parasites and others carrying a huge burden.


The above is not rocket science Its week one day one of Deer Stalking anyone with a Basic beginners understanding of Cervidae would be able to tell you. fishing
 
Posts: 585 | Location: Lincolnshire, England | Registered: 12 June 2002Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by DJM:
quote:
Originally posted by Jools:

There is no difference between deer species in regards to tollerance to biting insects Be they red, sika, fallow, roe, muntjac or CWD. Tick burden is subject to level of exposure due to habitat occuppied nothing else.

Basic beginners understanding of Cervidae really.


Your statement could not be further from the truth Jools.

There is a huge difference in external parasite burden between the species on the same site with some species having no parasites and others carrying a huge burden.


The above is not rocket science Its week one day one of Deer Stalking anyone with a Basic beginners understanding of Cervidae would be able to tell you. fishing


Dave As you would have seen had you bothered to read my post. What I actually posted was the following.

There is no difference between deer species in regards to tollerance to biting insects

External paristic burden is subject to level of exposure due to habitat occuppied nothing else.

I don't rcall ever encountering any free range deer that had the advantage of organophosphorus compounds, synthetic pyrethroids, or DEET.

Basic beginners understanding of Cervidae really. beer
 
Posts: 618 | Location: UK | Registered: 17 March 2012Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jools:
quote:
Originally posted by DJM:
quote:
Originally posted by Jools:

There is no difference between deer species in regards to tollerance to biting insects Be they red, sika, fallow, roe, muntjac or CWD. Tick burden is subject to level of exposure due to habitat occuppied nothing else.

Basic beginners understanding of Cervidae really.


Your statement could not be further from the truth Jools.

There is a huge difference in external parasite burden between the species on the same site with some species having no parasites and others carrying a huge burden.


The above is not rocket science Its week one day one of Deer Stalking anyone with a Basic beginners understanding of Cervidae would be able to tell you. fishing


Dave

As you would have seen had you bothered to read my post. What I actually posted was the following.

There is no difference between deer species in regards to tollerance to biting insects

External paristic burden is subject to level of exposure due to habitat occuppied nothing else.

I don't rcall ever encountering any free range deer that had the advantage of organophosphorus compounds, synthetic pyrethroids, or DEET.

Basic beginners understanding of Cervidae really. beer
 
Posts: 618 | Location: UK | Registered: 17 March 2012Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of DJM
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jools:
quote:
Originally posted by Jools:
quote:
Originally posted by DJM:
quote:
Originally posted by Jools:

There is no difference between deer species in regards to tollerance to biting insects Be they red, sika, fallow, roe, muntjac or CWD. Tick burden is subject to level of exposure due to habitat occuppied nothing else.

Basic beginners understanding of Cervidae really.


Your statement could not be further from the truth Jools.

There is a huge difference in external parasite burden between the species on the same site with some species having no parasites and others carrying a huge burden.


The above is not rocket science Its week one day one of Deer Stalking anyone with a Basic beginners understanding of Cervidae would be able to tell you. fishing


Dave

As you would have seen had you bothered to read my post. What I actually posted was the following.

There is no difference between deer species in regards to tollerance to biting insects

External paristic burden is subject to level of exposure due to habitat occuppied nothing else.

I don't rcall ever encountering any free range deer that had the advantage of organophosphorus compounds, synthetic pyrethroids, or DEET.

Basic beginners understanding of Cervidae really. beer


Jools

As you have not bothered to either read or understand the above I will try again

quote:
Originally posted by Jools:

There is no difference between deer species in regards to tollerance to biting insects

External paristic burden is subject to level of exposure due to habitat occuppied nothing else.


Your statement could not be further from the truth Jools.

There is a huge difference in external parasite burden between the species on the same site with some species having no parasites and others carrying a huge burden.


The above is not rocket science Its week one day one of Deer Stalking anyone with a Basic beginners understanding of Cervidae would be able to tell you.

 
Posts: 585 | Location: Lincolnshire, England | Registered: 12 June 2002Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by DJM:
quote:
Originally posted by Jools:
quote:
Originally posted by Jools:
quote:
Originally posted by DJM:
quote:
Originally posted by Jools:

There is no difference between deer species in regards to tollerance to biting insects Be they red, sika, fallow, roe, muntjac or CWD. Tick burden is subject to level of exposure due to habitat occuppied nothing else.

Basic beginners understanding of Cervidae really.


Your statement could not be further from the truth Jools.

There is a huge difference in external parasite burden between the species on the same site with some species having no parasites and others carrying a huge burden.


The above is not rocket science Its week one day one of Deer Stalking anyone with a Basic beginners understanding of Cervidae would be able to tell you. fishing


Dave

As you would have seen had you bothered to read my post. What I actually posted was the following.

There is no difference between deer species in regards to tollerance to biting insects

External paristic burden is subject to level of exposure due to habitat occuppied nothing else.

I don't rcall ever encountering any free range deer that had the advantage of organophosphorus compounds, synthetic pyrethroids, or DEET.

Basic beginners understanding of Cervidae really. beer


Jools

As you have not bothered to either read or understand the above I will try again

quote:
Originally posted by Jools:

There is no difference between deer species in regards to tollerance to biting insects

External paristic burden is subject to level of exposure due to habitat occuppied nothing else.


Your statement could not be further from the truth Jools.

There is a huge difference in external parasite burden between the species on the same site with some species having no parasites and others carrying a huge burden.


The above is not rocket science Its week one day one of Deer Stalking anyone with a Basic beginners understanding of Cervidae would be able to tell you.



Like your claim that collecting shed antlers broke the Deer Act. animal

You say eether and I say eyether,
You say neether and I say nyther,
Eether, eyether, neether, nyther,
Let's call the whole thing off!
You like potato and I like potahto,
You like tomato and I like tomahto,
Potato, potahto, tomato, tomahto!
Let's call the whole thing off!

I guess we'll just have to disagree.

What does it say in your version of Cervidae 101

Nice bend in that rod. I hope you haven't snagged the bottom again. fishing
 
Posts: 618 | Location: UK | Registered: 17 March 2012Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
The research into most of these issues is in its infancy at best. If you ran some of these statements past the scientists that work in these fields they would wince.

Accurate Realoading:
Come for the Banter, stay for the Bollocks!


Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened. Sir Winston Churchill
 
Posts: 574 | Location: UK | Registered: 13 October 2008Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Trapper Dave:
Accurate Realoading:
Come for the Banter, stay for the Bollocks!


lol

You can say that again.
 
Posts: 618 | Location: UK | Registered: 17 March 2012Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of DJM
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jools:


Like your claim that collecting shed antlers broke the Deer Act. animal



You mean like I proved collecting shed antlers without permission was contrary to UK statute law (Deer Act 1991) BOOM
 
Posts: 585 | Location: Lincolnshire, England | Registered: 12 June 2002Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Ghubert
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Trapper Dave:
The research into most of these issues is in its infancy at best. If you ran some of these statements past the scientists that work in these fields they would wince.

Accurate Realoading:
Come for the Banter, stay for the Bollocks!


There have been some pearlers Dave. Wink

I particular like the attempts at half-understood scientific language. Big Grin
 
Posts: 11731 | Location: London, UK | Registered: 02 September 2007Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by DJM:
quote:
Originally posted by Jools:


Like your claim that collecting shed antlers broke the Deer Act. animal



You mean like I proved collecting shed antlers without permission was contrary to UK statute law (Deer Act 1991) BOOM

Proved ????? When was that??

You offered a unqualifed opinion on the matter. Hardly what anyone would deem "proved". I supose it depends upon which direction your bias runs as to whether you give that opinion any creadance. archer
 
Posts: 618 | Location: UK | Registered: 17 March 2012Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ghubert:
I particular like the attempts at half-understood scientific language. Big Grin


Dave

Accurate Realoading:
Come for the Banter, stay for the Bollocks!

We didn't have to wait long, did we. holycow
 
Posts: 618 | Location: UK | Registered: 17 March 2012Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ghubert:
quote:
Originally posted by Trapper Dave:
The research into most of these issues is in its infancy at best. If you ran some of these statements past the scientists that work in these fields they would wince.

Accurate Realoading:
Come for the Banter, stay for the Bollocks!


There have been some pearlers Dave. Wink

I particular like the attempts at half-understood scientific language. Big Grin


I'm afraid all protagonists here are entirely outclassed by the pros:

The role of seasonality in the dynamics of deer tick populations.
Awerbuch-Friedlander T, Levins R, Predescu M.
Source

Department of Population Science, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Abstract

In this paper, we formulate a nonlinear system of difference equations that models the three-stage life cycle of the deer tick over four seasons. We study the effect of seasonality on the stability and oscillatory behavior of the tick population by comparing analytically the seasonal model with a non-seasonal one. The analysis of the models reveals the existence of two equilibrium points. We discuss the necessary and sufficient conditions for local asymptotic stability of the equilibria and analyze the boundedness and oscillatory behavior of the solutions. A main result of the mathematical analysis is that seasonality in the life cycle of the deer tick can have a positive effect, in the sense that it increases the stability of the system. It is also shown that for some combination of parameters within the stability region, perturbations will result in a return to the equilibrium through transient oscillations. The models are used to explore the biological consequences of parameter variations reflecting expected environmental changes.


PS: Recommended reading for anyone who wants the Dog's Bollocks on UK Tick population dynamics: http://www.cbpv.org.br/artigos/CBPV_artigo_021.pdf


Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened. Sir Winston Churchill
 
Posts: 574 | Location: UK | Registered: 13 October 2008Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
Dave

Thanks. So in broad brush strokes its as I said. tu2
 
Posts: 618 | Location: UK | Registered: 17 March 2012Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jools:
Dave

Thanks. So in broad brush strokes its as I said. tu2


I think a brush that broad is called a Broom and inasmuch as you can't be wrong from that perspective, you can't be right either.
You can of course be last and sometimes first too.
But you knew that and do that!


Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened. Sir Winston Churchill
 
Posts: 574 | Location: UK | Registered: 13 October 2008Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
Dave

Aye,the devil is in the detail! Broom, brush, besom, vaccum cleaner. It matters not. I was right, thats all that matters. Smiler
 
Posts: 618 | Location: UK | Registered: 17 March 2012Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
Thats about as right as saying "We're all going to die".
Completely true but almost entirely useless information.


Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened. Sir Winston Churchill
 
Posts: 574 | Location: UK | Registered: 13 October 2008Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
Its not quite as bad.
I'd say it was a kin to "We're all going to die because...............(state how)".

Completely true and entirely usefull. Subject to ones views on receiving bad news of course.
 
Posts: 618 | Location: UK | Registered: 17 March 2012Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Ghubert
posted Hide Post
Big Grin
 
Posts: 11731 | Location: London, UK | Registered: 02 September 2007Reply With Quote
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2  
 


Copyright December 1997-2023 Accuratereloading.com


Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia