After I do that I will point out the significance of what that data means as it relates to the carrying capacity of the habitat and how it affects the fawn recruitment in the various units based on that habitat.

Year……lowest harvest……second lowest harvest…….average statewide harvest………highest harvest
2003.………4.95(2G)……………5.18(5D)…†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦7.12.……………………….. 9.40(2D)
2004.………2.58(2G)……………4.49(3D)…†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦6.29.……………………….1 1.74(2B)
2005.………1.51(2G)……………3.06(4D)…†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦5.16.……………………….1 0.82(2A)
2006.………1.12(2G)……………3.32(2F)…†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.4.99.………………………. 12.11(2B)
2007.………1.60(2G)……………2.83(4B)…†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.4.72.………………………. 11.23(2B)
5 yr. aver….2.35(2G)……………4.03(4D)………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.5.66.……………………….10.70( 2B)

The reason this data has significance in dealing with the management and population question is by going back to what Bluebird said was actually correct when he pointed out that when we harvest more then we recruit the population declines. So the question has to be how do the units that are harvesting as many as ten times the annual antler less deer numbers per square mile (city streets and all included) as unit 2G have recruitment high enough to sustain those high harvests. Even the five year average from highest to lowest harvests indicates a 4.55:1 difference in the sustainable harvests. Why can’t the population in 2G stay stable with such comparatively low antler less harvests since it is relative to fawn recruitment? That answer should be very obvious for anyone that is willing to look at all of the factors with an objective view. Obviously the fawn recruitment is the limiting factor and that is what is really is what is controlling the deer numbers. Obviously even if we were to stop harvesting any does in units like 2G the deer populations couldn’t increase to normal levels unless you believe each of those does harvested was going to not only produce four fawns each but then keep them alive.