BSK said:
I saw that on Radar yesterday. Of course, it evaporated just before getting to my place.
It has been amazing over the years how many times I've pulled up the radar for Tennessee statewide, and the only place there was any rain was over Stewart County.
Being this "land between the lakes" is frequently causing some "lake effect" rainfall. IMO, this augmented rainfall may be causing Stewart to have some larger antlered bucks (relative to their age class) than some surrounding counties with better soils AND more agriculture.
A few years ago I overheard some comments at the LBL check station from some green suits, and in retrospect, it's possible one of them may have been Alan Peterson, as this would have been before I knew him. The comment went something like this:
"I can't believe all these good bucks coming in, and this is some of the sorriest soil in the region!"
Think about it.
How good are the "good" soils of Texas without adequate rainfall?
Or, how could it be that the neighboring Henry County, with better soils and much soybean & corn agriculture ---- and a better buck:doe ratio ---- and having recorded perhaps over ten times as many buck harvests during the past 30 years ---- yet Henry has produced few TN registry bucks compared to Stewart County. Why?
My contention is Stewart County, despite some less desirable soils and a relative lack of agriculture, consistently gets a little more rainfall than Henry County.