ORIGINAL: bluebird2
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.
That is a flat out lie. the antlerless allocations in 2G reduced the herd to half of the OWDD goal of 15 DPSM and that is the only reason 2G has the lowest harvest rate in the state even tough it is 90% forested and has more public land than any other WMU.
I would think that you would know better by now then to challenge the data facts I post.
You are simply full of bologna about the antler less allocations and the harvests being increased that being what reduced the 2G deer population. An increased allocation and harvest simply didn’t happen.
I already posted the harvest history and showed how the antler less harvests continuous declined in the counties that make up unit 2G. Now I will also post the historic antler less allocations, per square mile, for the counties that make unit 2G to show everyone that you are wrong.
Unit 2G county and unit historic antler less allocations per square mile of land mass. Just to help show the change I have also posted the percentage of change for each period.
83-87.…………88-92………….93-97.……………98-02.………….03-07.………….2008
12.60.…………16.21.………….13.08.……⠀¦â€¦â€¦12.30.…………..8.65.……………6. 32
N/A…………(+ 28.7%)………(- 19.3 %)………(- 6.0 %)……….(- 29.7 %)………( - 26.9 %)
Ok now see if you can twist that into increased allocations that would reduce the deer populations. Like I said the allocations and harvests have been in a continuous state of decline the past fifteen years or longer and the allocation and harvest history fact prove that.
I know you don’t like those facts but that doesn’t change the truth of those facts. It is time for you to face up to the fact that you are wrong and realize that harvesting fewer deer simply doesn’t result in having more deer for the long term unless you first get the habitat recovered to the point it can support a deer population increase. Reducing the allocations and deer harvests doesn’t work and the deer in 2G have proven that point, even if you don’t want to accept that fact.
I guess since you and Cornelius like to call others a liar, when they post facts that disprove your nonsense, we can now see just who the liars really are.
R.S. Bodenhorn