ORIGINAL: Cornelius08
"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"
He he he. No my friend. Its not "metropolitan" by any stretch. Just because you compare it to the "wilderness" of the big woods to suit your needs STILL does not make it "metropolitan" and that isTHEE DUMBEST self serving comment Ive ever heard you make and thats saying a bunch!!!
"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."
Ive lived, worked and hunted here for 40 years. Youlive halfway across the state and made rediculous claims! (LOL) BTW, ALLEGHENY COUNTY which IS a "metro" area is in 2B NOT 2A. ALsothe only fragment of Washington county is the most rural area of the county.South of theslightly urban area. Greene, the entire county is in 2A and the biggest "city" LOL is Waynesburg Pa.....Better check out the population of that major "metropolis" LOL!!! Half of Fayette, which isnt exactly full of "city slickers"! (LOL)(LOL).....and as stated, Pgc has said HUMAN CONFLICT: LOW![8D][8D][8D]
Get a grip RSB. You are reaching far and wide now! PGC doesnt consider it an urban area, and has stated such. In fact, NOONE does or should. But you like to think far FAR outside the box! (LOL)[8D]
"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."
You can comparethe huge majority of the wmus to 2G and theywill have higher populus than one of the very leastpopulated in the state! (LOL) Big deal!!Whatdoes that prove other than you wanna decieveanyone and everyone into thinking anywhere but "the big woods" is urban, and thatthere is somereason for the madness when there clearly isnt!
BTW, the habitat in 2A can, and should support more deer than any of the big woods areas.
The harvests are also reducing the herd in 2a. Have been, and continue to.
"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."
Quite simple. Much smaller herd, takes muchsmaller harvest to reduce it.
"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 tag level has increased by over 15,000 since 45,000 tags reduced it previously, which is why it didnt initially decline. The harvest has NOT continued to increase either, but has decreased. PGC's own data shows that the herd decreased from 69 dpfsm-owin greene county, and 74 in Wash, down to21-30 ow, or an average of 25owdpfsm in wmu2A. Dont shoot the messenger.
"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? "
he hehe. Like yours? And 2A being "metropolitan"? LOLOLOL! Or our herd not having been reduced when even Pgc says so? When EVERYONE even those satisfied with the plan admit to seeing 3 to 5 times less deer? When even the people for less deer on the cac said they believe the herd to be "decreasing"?
RSB, I think Ive lost just about the last shred of respect Ive had for your "opinions". No way you can be taken seriously after your last compilation of unsubstantiated completeramblings.
UNBELIEVABLE! (LOL)
Maybe you live in unit 2A but you obviously have a biased opinion about the unit that can't be suported with facts.
Here are the facts about unit 2A along with the other units.
Unit 2A is made up of the following percentage of each of the listed counties. I will also post the human population per square mile for each of those counties. I am going to post them in descending order to make it easier for everyone to follow.
County……………% of unit 2A………………..average # of people/square mile in that county
Washington………….38%…………………… …………...........688.1
Greene……………….32%…………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦............70.6
Fayette……………….17%………………… ……………...........188.2
Beaver…………………7%………………… ……………..........417.0
Westmoreland…………4%…………………… …………..........361.7
Allegheny……………..2 %……………………………….........1755 .7
No matter how you want to look at it the unit has a lot of people per square mile. Though Greene Country is the least populated area of the unit it is still mostly a significantly populated and highly developed area of the state.
To further help put it all in perspective I am also going to post each unit in their ranking as far as developed area along with the percent of the unit that is farm land and then public land. The units are arranged in descending order based on the most highly developed to the least. Then go over and look at the percent of the unit that is farm land since that too is really developed land and used for an intended purpose of growing crops instead of large deer populations. Then finally look at the amount of public land which is what actually expresses the amount of area that should support good deer numbers, without conflict, if the habitat were suitable.
Unit………………% developed…………………………% farm land……………….% public land
5D…………………..43.2 %……………………………….18.3 %………………………0.0 %
2B…………………..20.1 %……………………………….20.0 %………………………0.2 %
5C……………………9.9 %……………………………….43.9 %………………………0.5 %
5B……………………6.7 %……………………………….63.1 %………………………1.4 %
1A……………………4.3 %……………………………….41.2 %………………………2.8 %
5A……………………3.8 %……………………………….62.4 %………………………11.4 %
3B……………………3.3 %……………………………….19.8 %………………………20.9 %
1B……………………3.1 %……………………………….34.5 %……………………….3.6 %
4C……………………2.8 %……………………………….22.8 %………………………13.0 %
2A……………………2.7 %……………………………….35.2 %………………………..1.7 %
3D……………………2.4 %………………………………..9.2 %………………………..15.5 %
2C……………………2.3 %………………………………..21.7 %……………………….9.3 %
4E……………………2.2 %………………………………..43.0 %……………………….3.6 %
4D……………………2.0 %……………………………….26.0 %……………………….28.1 %
2D……………………1.9 %……………………………….27.2 %………………………. 2.1 %
2E……………………1.7 %……………………………….19.3 %………………………..4.8 %
3C……………………1.3 %……………………………….26.7 %………………………..3.0 %
4B……………………1.2 %……………………………….33.4 %………………………..15.1 %
4A……………………0.9 %……………………………….29.3 %………………………..14.1 %
2F……………………0.8 %………………………………...7.0 %…………………………55.6 %
2G……………………0.6 %………………………………..7.6 %…………………………49.2 %
3A……………………0.4 %……………………………….23.5 %………………………….9.6 %
Now you should be able to see that unit 2A is the 10th highest developed unit in the state as far as buildings and highways. It is also the 6th highest developed in farm land of the state while being one of the lowest public land units in the state at the 5th lowest amount of public land.
Based on those facts is should be obvious that unit 2A presently has the habitat, do to the farm land, private gardens, shrubs, etc. to support more deer and much higher deer harvests then the real undeveloped areas of the state. But, based on the fact that there is so little public land the deer management plan for the area has to be tailored to fit not only the habitat of the unit but also the tolerance and desires of the landowners.
That is why the deer harvests were increased in the areas that make up unit 2A back almost two decades ago. Those increased deer harvest in that unit is what has allowed that habitat to stay healthy enough to support the present deer numbers. Reduce that deer harvest and you will see your habitat declining from deer damage. If that happens you will also see your deer numbers decline even as you harvest fewer deer. In fact your deer harvests will have to decline because you will have fewer deer for hunters to find and harvest. That is exactly what happened in much of the northern tier and it can happen to your area as well if you start over protecting your deer instead of their habitat.
You have also claim that the deer herd in unit 2A has been reduced by 50% but there is absolutely nothing to support that opinion as I will point out with the twenty year harvest history for Greene County as compared to past fewer years of deer harvests for unit 2A. All of the years from 2003 on are the harvests for unit 2A while the prior years are harvests for Greene County.
Years………………Buck harvest/sq. mile……………….Antlerless harvest/sq.mile
83-87.………………….4.71.………………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.........6.23
88-92.………………….5.66.………………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.........8.35
93-97.………………….6.39.………………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦........10.19
98-02.………………….7.19.………………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦........10.86
2003.…………………..4.32.……………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..........9.13
2004.…………………..4.31.……………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦........10.22
2005.…………………..4.69.……………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦........10.82
2006.…………………..4.47.……………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..........9.39
2007.…………………..3.64.……………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..........7.90
From those harvest history facts I sure don’t see anything to support your opinion of the deer harvests in your area being over harvested during any time period. Last year’s harvest was slightly lower but based on the weather on the opening day combined with the fact your area had a significant amount of EHD mortality prior to last season people certainly should have expected a lower harvest last season. But, those factors were environmental induced deer and harvest reductions and had nothing to do with any over harvest of the deer populations.
Simply your opinions have virtually no supporting facts or evidence.
R.S. Bodenhorn