[/size][/color]
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 county BY FAR are in unit 2B. The most rural section is in 2A. The difference in density is FAR FAR lower 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 in when only the LOWER density areas are 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.
[/size][/color]
You obviously didn’t understand what the data was, unless you are just trying to discredit the data because it doesn’t fit what you want to believe.
The posted percentage of each of those listed counties is the percentage of the county that is located within WMU 2A. That is a fact based on the data available for every unit in this state and comes from the percentage of antler less license each county in the unit receives for issuance. It is therefore rounded to nearest whole percent but otherwise accurately represents the percent of each unit is represented by the posted county.
As for the population per square mile, for each of those counties, that is based on the most recent population of the county being divided by the number of square miles within that county. Those are set numbers with nothing being an estimate. Nor is there a percentage of anything involved in that data what so ever.
Just because you don’t like the facts doesn’t change the fact that those are the facts for the unit.
No one ever said that unit 2B didn’t have more people and more development the unit 2A. But, you brought on that argument, after I simply pointed out that units 2A, 2B and 2D which are much more metropolitan than unit 2G, also has sustainable deer harvests that two to four times higher then the harvests of 2G.
I could really give a rat’s butt how many or how few people unit 2A has. The fact is they are sustaining one of the highest deer harvests in this state year after year. They are doing that because they are, and have been, harvesting enough deer to pretty well protect their habitat. By having those high harvests they also have sustainable high fawn recruitment. Hopefully they always will have as long as you unknowledgeable people can be prevented from causing the same harm unknowledgeable people already caused in the northern tier units like 2G.
I posted the data because I thought people would be smart enough to understand it when it showed the percentage of each units that was developed, farm land and public hunting land.
Yet you figured I posted it because I thought people would be to stupid to understand it? Now doesn’t that speak volumes about where you show up in that picture?
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.
[/size][/color]
Absolutely human conflict is evaluated on the whole picture of complaints and conflicts with each unit. But, I would bet the only reason the human conflict issues are low in the unit is because of the fact it has had one of the top two to three harvest rates in the entire state for about the past fifteen to twenty years. Start harvesting fewer deer there and I suspect you will find a lot more human conflict issues from the area.
The fact that the unit is 35.2% farmland and only 1.7% public land tells a very clear story that the deer populations are tentative and dependant upon the desires of the private land owners.
"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 data and 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.
Actually you were not only rude but wrong.
Unit 2A is the 10th highest developed unit in the state, the 6th highest in farmland and the 5th from the lowest in the amount of public land.
All of those facts come directly from the compilation of data available for each and every unit. I posted those facts in the prior post. Just because you don’t like it certainly doesn’t mean the data was the result of any incorrect formulas. In fact I didn’t use any formulas at all. All did was post the data for each unit.
Human conflict rated as low shows that not to be the case. I live here, and have 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 stabilization not 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.
First of all lets make no mistake about the fact that I don’t think you know nearly as much about your own unit as you think you know. I am darn sure you don’t have even a clue about what the best management of your unit is.
Next I want to make sure that you know that no one is managing to reduce the deer herd in unit 2A at the present time. That is why they actually lowered the allocation this year. Here are the comments from the News Release that explain that fact. See, once again you are going off half cocked without any idea what really is going on in your unit.
From this year's license allocation news release:
WMU 2A allocation will be 55,000 to continue to stabilize the population trend, which is a decrease from last year's allocation of 60,000. The Deer Management Section noted that the deer harvest declined in 2007-08. This is a return to the allocation level from 2004-2007 until the agency can better assess population trend changes in 2008.
The habitat in 2G isn’t fine like you say it is though. The most recent evaluations showed the habitat in 2A as only FAIR and the herd health as only FAIR as well. So even though you think everything is fine the deer and their habitat are saying “maybe not so fine after all.”
The herd density was reduced from 69 dpfsm to 25 (21-30) according to PGCS annual reports. I suggest you read them and not try to circumvent the facts 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 it debatable 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 Greene with no problems at all. Im not asking for 69 owdpsm mind you, Im just showing how rediculous it is for you to expect anyone to believe we should support 25 owdpsm and continuing efforts at reduction FOR ABSOLUTELY NO REASON AT ALL.
It seems that they only thing that is a bunch of BS is you.
Those DPFSM numbers you posted aren’t used any more and haven’t been for quite some time. Next is the fact that are so confused you trying to compare Deer Per Forested Square Mile (DPFSM) with just Deer Per Square Mile (DPSM) even though the two are totally separate numbers. I suspect you have been listening to bluebird’s ramblings too much.
Deer are not managed as DPFSM or DPSM either one any more and for good reason. Now deer are managed based on the information the deer and they habitat provide. So, contrary to Bluebird’s nonsense we are listening to the deer. Some people are just upset because we don’t listen to them demanding that we do the wrong thing for the future. We listened to them to long, that is want got us in this mess.
[color=#000000][size=2]R.S. Bodenhorn