Year…………….Deer harvests/sq. mile(counties in 2G)…………..2G deer harvests/sq. mile
1984.………………………..7.96
1985.………………………..8.36
1986.………………………..8.65
1987.………………………..9.14
1988.……………………….10.84
1989.……………………….10.23
1990.……………………….10.78
1991.………………………..9.12
1992.………………………..7.91
1993.………………………..8.85
1994.………………………..8.18
1995.………………………..9.14
1996.………………………..6.82
1997.………………………..8.12
1998.………………………..7.27
1999.………………………..7.52
2000.………………………..9.59
2001.………………………..9.03
2002.……………………….10.40
2003.………………………..8.11.………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦................7.41
2004.………………………..6.36.………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦................4.18
2005.………………………..N/A………………………………............. 2.72
2006.………………………..N/A………………………………............. 2.87
2007.………………………..N/A………………………………............. 2.84
2008.………………………..N/A………………………………............. 3.84
As anyone can see the deer harvests in unit 2G have not been abnormally high during any recent times, including the years just prior to the major crash in deer populations or deer harvests.
What anyone can see is it is impossible for you to analyze dat objectively because of your extreme bias . In order to analyze the effects of the harvest data you presented one would also have to know the size of the over wintering herd that produced those harvests. The high harvests from 2000 to 2002 came from a herd that had already been reduced to less than 15 DPSM and it is irrational to expect less than 15 DPSM to produce a sustainable harvest of over 9 DPSM.
What the data clearly shows is that the high harvest of 1999-2002 reduced the OWDD from 14 DPSM to less than 10 DPSM and as a result the sustainable harvest was cut by over 50%