ORIGINAL: germain
quote,I guess you somehow missed the fact that the deer harvests in Allegheny County, city streets, housing developmentsand all have been three to four times as high per square mile as what the harvests have been in the big woods and open to hunting public access areas of Elk, Cameron and Clinton Counties.
Once again take notice of the fact the data proves they have been killing a lot more deer per square mile in Allegheny County instead of protecting them with refuges as you suggested. quote
You're losing me RSB.Of coarse the deer are protected in developements,streets,private woodlots and such where as the deer on big public lands in the past were hunted hard by more public land hunters as a result reduced.Deer in Allegheny have places of refuge which results in plenty being saved.Now the habitat is in good condition there so the does are healthy enough to give birth to multiple fawns in most cases.And on top of that bears and coyotes are few and far between compared to the NC.So I think it's alot more to the high harvests in areas like this then just good habitat.There's other factors and I still think they come back to the first one being lack of access or places of refuge.Then the fewer predators,better winters,and good habitat play off that.
I agree alot of places in the NC have bad habitat and alot more predators but still the herds were reduced drastically by HR.And that brings us back to the original discussion of whether or not SGL's in the southern counties can be overharvested and from what I've seen on different occassions this can be the case.
How can you believe the deer are being protected in the special regulations counties when the hunters are harvesting more and more of them every year? How can you think the deer are being protected, by the limited access, when hunters were in fact nearly doubling the deer harvests in those areas every five years?
The deer obviously weren’t being protected to increase the population if the hunters were killing more of them every year then had the year before. Your argument of the population increasing due to limited access could only be valid if the population were increasing while the harvests were declining. But the harvests have not been declining in the special regulations areas and instead the harvests have been increasing. Therefore, even though access is limited someone is still getting enough access to kill the deer in greater numbers each and every year. That is not protection from limited access or anything else other then the plain and simple inability of hunters to over harvest a population living in suitable habitat capable of supporting the existing deer herd.
Meanwhile in areas with diminished habitat whether it be in the north central regions of the state or inside this fence on the federal grounds the deer numbers are going to decline to meet the decline in the habitat over a period of time dependant on the environmental conditions they are faced with. The deer in diminished habitat are going to decline to meet that habitat decline even if hunters don’t harvest any of them. In fact the fewer the hunters harvest the faster the natural decline in deer number will become.
R.S. Bodenhorn