Oh come on, you aren’t really that dumb are you? Or, perhaps I should just call you a LIAR since that is the way you deal with everything that doesn’t suit your biased horse puckey opinions and posts?

Since unit 2G is 4114.04 square miles, in size, it certainly should have a higher buck harvest then unit 2A which much less then half the half that size with only 1810.78 square miles. I would have thought anyone with a lick of intelligence and commonsense would have figured that out all by themselves though. That is why I post everything in harvests per square mile, to make then as equal, unbiased and comparable as possible.

Also your home unit of 2A was forth highest in in the state in buck harvests. That hardly seems like a unit that has been suffering from excessive deer harvests. So I have to say you are full of both nonsense and horse puckey.

Now to prove how far off base you really are and allow the readers that have enough common sense to learn from facts, I will post the buck harvests, by unit, in descending order (that is highest to lowest) based on the buck harvests per square mile of land mass for each unit.

Rank…………Unit……………..Buck harvest/sq. mile
1.……………..5C…………………….4.01
2.……………..2E…………………….3.96
3.……………..2D……………………3.82
4.……………..2A……………………3.70
5.……………..1B……………………3.54
6.……………..2B……………………2.94
7.……………..1A……………………2.92
8.……………..3C……………………2.92
9.……………..2F……………………2.90
10.……………4C……………………2.76
11.……………3A……………………2.72
12.……………4E…………………….2.48
13.……………5B…………………….2.46
14.……………4B…………………….2.46
15.……………3B…………………….2.44
16.……………2C…………………….2.42
17.……………4A…………………….2.42
18.……………4D…………………….2.40
19.……………3D…………………….1.79
20.……………2G…………………….1.63
21.……………5A…………………….1.61
22.……………5D…………………….1.56

There,now everyone can see that you simply don’t have a clue what you are talking about. In fact you pretty much never seem to have a clue, but that sure doesn’t seem to stop you from ranting on.

R.S. Bodenhorn