ORIGINAL: Cornelius08
"What is obvious to any one that has the capacity of logical thought process and willing to look at all of the facts is that the deer herd in unit 2G is low even though the hunters have harvested fewer and fewer and fewer deer in that unit for about the past fifteen years."
It takes a smaller and smaller harvest to keep a herd stable or to reduce it as the size of the herd declines. Even the most illogical should be able to realize it take a much smaller harvest to reduce a herd of say for example10,000 than it would 30,000!!
"That was an excuse for the extreme reduction.If the deer herd is reducing its own numbers of it nature is reducing the herd through natural causes it obviously because the area can’t support more deer under the present natural conditions. "
Why shouldwe believe that when the herd health rating for the wmu is not poor, and the rest of the state also was reduced further than needed by far, and that wasnt the couldnt be the excuse and in some instances none at all exists. Makes it kind of hard to blindly accept unproven theories thrown about casually by eco-extreme minded individuals.
"Now perhaps since you figure you are smarter then nature"
What exactly designates nature as "intelligent" or not?Sounds like a radical "eco-extremist" viewpoint imho. Not sure if you have any "ties" to any of the more obtuse thinking eco-groups like Audubon etc., and wouldnt expect you to admit it if you did, but,many of your statements and extremist views point towards that possible deduction.
"Then explain why hunters can harvest three and four times as many does in the unit that makes up and surrounds the city of Pittsburgh for over fifteen years and the deer populations there can continue to increase if that isn’t a result of habitat that can sustain more deer."
The herd therehasnt continued to increase. And there are and have been 3-4 times as many deer there which means 3 to 4 times as much recruitment, which means ittakes that much more harvest to stabilize or reduce the herd.
The reason of course is that the numbers of tags in the past havent been as efficient in the urban areas do to all the access issues that allow the off limits lands to be "deer factories" whereas the areas of the huge public land tracts of the north, never had that luxury.
"Explain why hunters can harvest two to four times as many does in the metropolitan units of 2A, 2B and 2D then they can in the big woods forested areas year after year for more then a decade if it isn’t habitat related and it isn't habitat that influences and controls the fawn birth and survival rates? "
2A ISNT a "METROPOLITAN UNIT" by any stretch of the imagination! Its rural, and not one large city, or even city suburbsin it. (LOL)[8D] Its farm country and reverting farm country. Its about as far from urban as you can get in Western Pa! (LOL) Just shows your knowledge leveloutside of your little area. Also 2Ahas hadcomparatively short period of very high harvests. Its not a sra and the result arent like them either. The harvests have also led to an over 50% ow herd decline. Far more than needed and absolutely rediculous. The harvests of the reduction years are absolutely unsustainable. An all time high allocation last yearonly led toa several years low harvest shows beyond doubt. And the allocation and harvest goal of 18,000 which was supposed to hold the herd "stable" the lastfew years straight, yet only 16500 reduced the herd previously, shows the complete and total deceit on Pgcs part. I guess when we get reduced abit further and not only most here, as currently, but when noone finds the continued reductions acceptable, I guess habitat will also be our limiting factor as the excuse! (LOL)
Even though we are some of the best habitat type in the state, and never rated as poor herd or habitat health even though we had over twice as many ow deer, and human conflict rated as "low"by pgc themselves.
Its a sham rsb. Plain and simple.Loyalty is an admirable trait in an employee, but blind loyalty isnt gonna do anyone any good with our sport or deer herd.[:'(]
You might also be a bit more careful where, or at what exactly you point the finger towards when attempting to make a point. Such lack of forethought only serves to make one look extremely foolish, and all the "twisting" in the world aint gonna help with that one.(LOL).
Your argument concerning having more deer in the units where they harvest more deer is exactly the point.
Where hunters have been harvesting the most deer they are protecting the food supply so the area can continue to have more deer and still allow hunters to continue harvesting more deer. The areas where hunters have harvested fewer deer can no longer support more deer because they don’t have enough food for more deer. It is that simple.
Since you want to talk about 2A in comparison to 2G here are a few facts for all to look at.
You claim that 2A is not a metropolitan unit but I say horse puckey. From my perspective as compared to unit 2G it is a very metropolitan unit even though there are some small remote spots surrounded by all the people, their houses and infrastructure. And, buy the way I am pretty familiar with unit 2A. I have worked in Washington and Greene Counties and I have hunted in Allegheny and Washington Counties. I have been in all of the counties that make up unit 2A and have seen how metropolitian it is as compared to unit 2G.
Toexposethose factors Ilooked up the counties for each unitalong withthe populatoin for each area. I then calcualted the number of people per square mile for each of those counties. Here is the average number of people per square mile of land mass compared between units 2A and 2G.
Unit 2A……………………………..Unit 2G
505.0 people/sq. mile………….54.7 people/sq. mile
You also claimed that unit 2A hasn’t been harvesting many does for very long. Once again I am here to point out that you are bull of it and will post the historic antler less deer harvest results for the counties that make up both units 2A and 2G. The harvest data is based on the harvests per square mile within the counties that make up the two units and then calculated to harvests per square mile of land mass so they can be fairly compared. These are just the antler less deer harvests per square mile.
Unit…………………….88-92.…………..93-97.…………98-02.…………..03-07
2A………………………5.09.……………6 .62.…………..8.03.…………….9.49
2G………………………5.48.……………4 .36.…………..4.66.…………….2.35
Now go ahead and explain to everyone how it is that the deer herd can’t increase in 2G because we have been harvesting too many does. Then go ahead and tell us again how they have reduced the deer population by 50% in 2a yet the hunters are still harvesting so many more deer.
The facts simply don’t bear out your opinions. But like a lot of others I guess you think opinions should carry more weight then facts?
R.S.Bodenhorn