Cornelius08

1. overwinter density is the one most often spoken of by pgc and therefore us as well. Thats because its the one managed for. For hunters its the most important as well, since only thing added thereafter is fawns anyway. All you are trying to do is confuse the facts as usual Gino. Its also not a tragedy its a crime. SImilar areas to this in other states hold anywhere from 30-50 dpsm. At times more. Im not saying how many we should have, but i am saying less than 25 and continuing to decline despite claims of stabilization for the last 4 years that isnt happening is a JOKE.

2. Weve settled that on more boards than one, yet you choose to repeat. Trying to confuse people as to what the facts actually are. There is FAR more deer habitat that the 60% FORESTED. Thats because some of the best ISNT. Its farmland, broken farmland, greenbriar blackberry thickets, fencerows, crop and hay fields and much more.. Place where deer FEED, deer BED and hunters HUNT. And there is a helluva lot of it in sras such as this one. Yet you wish to subtract that land from the discussion? lmao typical say anything to support your postion pgc supporter nonsense.. That statement is a joke and you know it. Only way it would be worth a plug nickel would be if the entire wmu made up of two things. Large blocks of completely forested land and areas with nearly no deer habitat (such as within cities etc.). In a wmu such as 2A? lmao. Sorry bout yer luck but, no dice.

3.You harvest per square mile was questioned and you still didnt provide proof. You were asked for proof of square miles per wmu. Its not listed ANYWHERE and you didnt figure it out yourself since it would be impossible with all the fractions of counties involved. And whatever the harvest per square mile ends up being, its too many. Thats proven by years of REDUCTION when pgc has claimed 4 years ago and ever since STABILIZATION. Proof can be seen on the annual reports. Pgc has the decreases shown for 3 of the last 4 years. (not including all the extensive "planned for" reduction prior)

4. Far less than 25 dpsm and declining being stretched to 60 or 100 is absurd. There isnt one wmu listed in this state on the latest pgc annual reports that has even close to the 60 dpsm you spoke of, and that because that place doesnt exist. Perhaps youd next like to give another meaningless unused measure for shock and awe purposes?? Maybe we can say 2000 deer per square hectare of unforested land in July per hunting lease? lmao. It is what it is, and you cant paint a pretty picture with mud. Our deer densities from top to bottom are as low as any state in the nation that im aware of. I know no state that doesnt have best units with 25 dpsm or more (usually many more), and those who have rock bottom 5-10 dpsm in some areas of Maine (who still have other areas with HIGHER density than our best wmus!!)etc are trying to increase those herds. Not decrease them further.

5. IF i were interested in hunting being like fishing in a hatchery. I sure as hell wouldnt have quit shooting doe years ago, Id shoot the first legal buck i saw, and id do it with a rifle, not my bow. Fact is, whats rights right what wrong is wrong. And enviromentalists like you dictating our management and rock bottom deer density is 100% wrong....

I also didnt whine about anything. I stated a fact, a fact which stands. Less than 25 dpsm is not "high deer density" by any stretch of the imagination. Do i really have to post links to the states again with "HIGH" deer densites?