ORIGINAL: bluebird2
Unit…………88-92(counties)…..98-02(counties)……….03-07(WMU)……………2008(WMU)
2G……………5.48.………………..4.66.… ………………..2.35.……………………. 2.21
3A……………6.52.………………..6.08.… ………………..6.07.……………………. 4.97
3C……………6.22.………………..6.11.… ………………..5.49.……………………. 3.38
4D……………5.25.………………..4.90.… ………………..4.03.……………………. 3.39
Now let’s compare the same data for the units that have had unlimited antler less harvests where hunters could get as many license as they wanted and harvest as many antler less deer as they wanted over the past twenty years.
Unit…………88-92(counties)…..98-02(counties)……….03-07(WMU)……………2008(WMU)
2B……………4.98.………………..8.39.… ………………..10.70.…………………..1 1.23
5C……………3.69.………………..5.84.… …………………7.94.…………………… 9.31
5D……………2.69.………………..5.30.… …………………5.27.…………………… 5.39
When looking at this data remember that the harvests are by square miles of land mass, including the city streets and buildings. The top units have very little developed area while the bottom three units include the cities of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.
Now after seeing the deer harvest facts, one group of four WMU where deer harvests have been reduced with lower allocations verse another group of three units (the second ones) where they have had unlimited harvests, which area obviously has the management style that results in increasing deer numbers?
Thank you once again for shoving every one what a disaster the current seer management plan really is. In you units where the plan was successful in reducing the herd as intended (2G-4D , buck harvests steadily decreased since bonus tags were implemented in 1988. But in 2B , 5C and 5D where the plan failed to reduce the herd buck harvests continued to increase and in the case of 5B and 5C more than doubled despite declining deer habitat due to development.
I couldn't have done a better job of blowing your theory to bits , than you did yourself . Nice work once again!!
I must be slipping since I almost forgot to add the icing on the cake that makes RSB's dessert even more delightful. When the PGC switched to WMUs they told us that the goal for 2B was 10DPSM, 5C was 6 DPSM and they didn't even set a goal for 5D since they said there was o suitable deer habitat in 5D. Could it be that the deer are telling the PGC biologists that really don't know squat about the CC of the habitat.
Actually you are correct that the plan has failed.
The plan in those special regulations areas was to implement unlimited antler less license and allow hunters to harvests as many deer as they could in order to reduce the deer herd and human conflicts around the major metropolitan areas.
That plan did fail the deer proved that where they had sufficient food supplies hunters couldn’t over harvest their ability to recruit even more deer then hunters could kill. Even when hunters were killing almost five times as many deer per square mile, city streets includes, as what hunters were killing in the big woods habitat damaged areas the hunters couldn’t reduce the deer populations.
You are also correct that the hunter/politician forced plan of lower license allocations to create more deer in those northern tier units has been a failure. Hunters were sure that if they could force the Game Commission to reduce the allocations they would have more deer for the future. The Game Commission listened to those hunters and did reduce the allocation and antler less harvests, but it sure didn’t result in having more deer. So you are correct that too was a failure since the intent was to give the hunters what they wanted. The problem is that giving hunters what they want isn’t really what they want since most of the hunters have no idea about the inter-relationship between the deer food and the deer numbers of the future.
If hunters had allowed the Game Commission professionals to keep issuing more antler less license in these northern units decades ago and up through current seasons I am confident we would have a lot more deer in those areas today then want we have. If hunters had the professionals to do the right thing hunters would not only have been harvesting more deer but they would still have a lot more deer.
Hunters should learn something from those two totally separate management directions and then allow the professionals to use the method that is proven to result in increasing deer numbers instead of demanding the method that is proven to result in lower deer numbers for the future.
At least you are helping to make it easier to illustrate and profile those two different management directions and how they have both failed to produce the result hunters expected.
R.S. Bodenhorn