"Maybe you live in unit 2A but you obviously have a biased opinion about the unit that can't be suported with facts. "
My opinions and the facts support one another. Yours do not.
"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 "
WAY WAY WAY WAY off my friend. I shouldnt have to tell such an "expert"[:'(]data analyzer (LOL) how far off that cute lil' depiction is, but I guess I do.
You are taking percentages from the average. We arent talking the "average". You are averaging in the highest populations of the state!! Washington for example...Same could be said for the others as well.. The highest population centers of the countyBY FAR are in unit 2B. The most rural section is in 2A. The difference in density is FAR FARlower than the averages you depict by averaging it out also adding the HIGHEST, which are incredibly EXTREME and skyrocket the average when averaged in!! Why average them inwhen only the LOWER density areasare actually in the wmu??? 1. Because that is the only data you had, and dont know that you were not properly applying it. or 2. You knew it but hoped everyone else was too stupid to realize it.
Im guessing number 1.
"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. "
That is absolutely rediculous. Human conflict is rated by Pgc, not on public land only but on a wmu-wide basis.
2A is rated as LOW and always has been. Please consult the annual reports.
"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. "
Actually its not, nor is it even close. YOU USED INCORRECT FORMULAS to come to that absolutely REDICULOUS conclusion, and are simply trying to save face for looking so extremely silly, and hope not may viewing actually know anything about the wmu in question. Your attempts to decieve are completely out of line and anyone who knows the wmu, or even doesnt but can analyze the pertinent dataand still repects your opinion after reading what You've posted is an idiot. I dont mean to be rude, but thats the only way it can be said.
"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."
Human conflict rated aslow shows that not to be the case. I live here, andhave friends family members who are land owners and know many others MANY others, and most arent "antideer" and dont support the slaughter any more than I because most of them hunt too. There are FAR FAR more who want more deer,and some who want stabilizationnot less and less....VERY few want that, but it doesnt matter one bit. Pgc doesnt want to know what people want or dont want. They do what THEY want, and their friends/family members interests. I know what people in 2A want. I live here and talk to many people every single day, and think I have just a tad bit better idea than you my friend. I also know of a very few who wanted less deer. They have red-tag, and few deer... There are other tools available that pgc has given them as well. If they refuse to use them, I have no sorrow for them.[:'(] At any rate, its no excuse to lower the herd when the habitat is fine, the herd is healthy and the human conflict low... No excuses rsb. None exist. Thats but one reason why this program is an unbased sham and a failure here, and across most of the state, according to Pgcs own data.
"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."
Theherd density was reduced from 69dpfsm to 25 (21-30)according to PGCS annual reports. I suggest you read them and not try to circumvent thefacts by posting data that has nothing to do with anything. Even so, of the data you posted, the buck harvest during the 98-2002 period tells the tale. ALso, the rediculous harvests in the middle of your lil' chart (nice grouping of certain years too btw) are the reason the herd continues to decline and the harvests of 06 and 07 show that clearly. The kill didnt fall immediately because the allocation was raised 2 or 3 times to prevent that from occurring. OUr goal has supposedly been "stabilization". Your chart clearly shows that isnt the case, but a bunch of bs.
"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."
Its not my opinion its fact.If the goal were stabilization only as pgc said it was for the last 3 years, then there was definately overharvest. Not even debatable. Nor is itdebatable that our habitat, herd health, and level of human conflict (even according to pgc) can sustain much higher deer densities than current level of 25 owdpfsm when we had 69 in Greenewith no problems at all. Im not asking for 69 owdpsm mind you, Im just showing how rediculous it is foryou toexpect anyone to believe we should support 25owdpsmand continuing efforts at reduction FOR ABSOLUTELY NO REASON AT ALL.