"None of those groups is anti-deer as you claim."
I understand you are desparate to counter that in the name of damage control. But They are. And anyone who knows anything about them, andnot trying to hide an agenda knows and will admit to it.
"They do all support sound management principles that benefit all wildlife species, including deer, though instead of just demanding nothing but deer and all else be dammed."
Nope. Again, you are STRETCHING a basic concept FAR beyond its limits. They are concerned with the habitat + having exactly "X" amount of trillium....EXACTLY "x" number of thrush,....Andon and on.... And DEER be damned...
"The reason they support the sound management principles and practices isn’t because they are don’t like deer or that they are anti-hunting or anti-hunter. They support those sound management practices because they have enough knowledge to know that those sound management practices and principles are also what will provide the most deer for the long term future, even though it might mean having fewer then the maximum number of SHORT TERM deer numbers."
LMFAO!!! Yeah. Those, many of whom dont even deer hunt...or hunt at all in the case of some of the "conservation" groups... Really care about having as many deer as we can NOW or in the FUTURE! (LMAO) Who the hell are you trying to kid?? IF it meant having two more trillium per square acre, or the grouse society could have two more thunder chickens per 10 square miles, they wouldnt give a damn if the deer density was 5 dpsm across the entire state!
"Just like in you home area of unit 2A the deer numbers were reduced because the deer and their food supply were both showing signs of over population for their habitat."
No actually they werent....But thats another argument altogether, and as you know, its not mine, yet you cannot counter me, so you argue against something that isnt even my position. You know I do not support or ask for deer numbers over the habitats capacity to support. I can agree that the numbers couldve used trimmed, but not because they were unhealthy, because they were not. But because the potential was there with those numbers in place....
However....The numbers were cut ALREADY to address that. The goals sincewere supposedly stabilization. The numbers show the herd has NOT been stabilized but is declining STILL. IF allocations arent dropped now, it will be 1000% proof of irresponsible management and fraud on their part. PERIOD.
"I can tell you with 100% certainty that you would have even fewer deer in your future then you end up with the slight reduction that occurs from harvesting a few more to get them back in balance with their habitat. "
Youre a liar who has zero clue about the wmu.. The reduction overwinter was 50+%. NOT SLIGHT from its all time high in late 90's. And as I said, we did need SOME. Problem is, we are now getting reduction.... AGAIN...And not because of "bringing them into balance with habitat. What it was is too many tags, and error on their part in trying to get the herd stabilized. Common sense should dictate they be adjusted that being the case. You need to pull your head out of your backside and understand that!! THE goal was and isstabilization. The goal was and isstabilization. The goal was and isstabilization. Get it now??
Hey RSB....Didnt forget did you? OUR GOAL IS AND WAS STABILIZATION......and we are not.
"You also have to remember that 2A is an area where the human population is growing and continuously taking a bigger bite out of the habitat."
Most of southwestern pa has a DECLINING population. Its mainly because of the industries having left and its basically a "depressed" areas. You have absolutely rediculous excuses for every single damn thing your crooked agency does, and this is no exception. The human population is NOT exploding across most of the wmu our population compared to years ago iS DOWN quite a bit.....Yet in the last 2 years, harvest dropped like a rock, thanks to FURTHER reduction of our herd that was not supposed to have occurred.. PGc said ehd had little effect and in fact said guys not hunting the area the year before due to ehd SAVED DEER! (LMao) Now that is some frigging CROOKS for you!! Now the buck harvest was the same even though pgc had bragged up the area, and ALOT of guys were out and about + Fine weather....Same harvest...
Wether they blame it on their rediculous allocations, ehd or both, it need addressed NOW. Because the herd WILL be lower next year in 2A thanks to many tags tearing into a smaller herd from ehd the year before etc... How the hell far are we expected to let it drop!!????
TIME FOR ADJUSTMENTS NO ANDS IFS OR BUTS
You think I dislike pgc treehugging policyand their rediculous antideer nonsense NOW? Wait and see what Im like if that rediculous allocation in this wmu isnt lowered as it should have been already...