"Oh and 2A having sustained either highest the second highest deer harvests of the state year after year (only to be surpassed by special regulations unit 2B) for the past five years isn’t sufficient evidence that the high harvests aren’t harming the deer populations?"

Its among the very best areas of the state, and also why they are a 4pt areawhat would you want them to be??? Theyve also steadily DROPPED and this year werent in the top. What does that have to do with anything anyway?? Ithought the numbers didnt matter and it was all about thehabitat?? The habitat never rated poor even with the previous extreme high deer numbers and the reduction was rediculous and severe according to pgcs own ow deer densitynumbers on the annual report going from 69 to an average of 25. Wasnt based on human conflict in the wmu, not the habitat, not a thing. Whos to say we couldnt have had 20% 30% etc. reduction? Noone. Its just kill the deer then when your done kill some more. 2A started out well ahead of the game numberswise, but its clear where the wmu is headed. If speaking of simply less deer than can be and should be had, itsWAAAAY past that stage. Looks like they wont be happy till they hit the previous old goal of 13 dpsm ow. They knew it was a rediculous goal noone would accept. SO they say they arent using numbers anymore, but still keep track and use other excuses till the deed is done...


"Explain to us how it is that all of the areas of the state that have had unlimited antler less harvests for the past twenty years still have increasing deer harvests and increasing deer numbers."

WHERE? Im not talking sras, and limited access...Im talking 2A. The herd is definately declining which is inevitably when your harvest goals and allocation are both higher than what previously reduced the herd!

The harvest has also declined, even though the tags have been at all time highs for the previous 4 years ofso.