Originally Posted by
bluebird2
That is just plain nonsense and shows you don;t know anymore than BTB. The deer showed beyond a doubt that the habitat could support 1.6M PS deer , but the PGC reduced the herd to less than 1M PS deer and as a result herd health decreased instead of increasing
just like BTB you don't have a clue how the PGC determines the number of antlerless deer that need to be harvested in each WMU and neither does the PGC.
Forest health in 2g and 2F is still rated as poor ,so why didn't the PGC increase the allocations in both WMUs?
Yep back when that estimate was provided the habitat was supporting more deer, but only because we had been experiencing a run of good mast crop years being combined with mild winters. That allowed the deer herds to increase beyond what the habitat could sustain long term.
That was evidenced by the fact that the deer herd crashed two years after the increased harvests instead of with the beginning of the increased harvests.
As for units 2F and 2G apparently there is no need to increase the antler less allocations or harvests to get habitat improvement since the deer herd crashed from natural causes following those harsh winters.
From 2007 to 2008 the percent of plots in unit 2F with adequate regeneration increased by over 41% (24% in 2007 to 34% in 2008) and stayed stable at 42% of the plots with adequate regeneration in unit 2G. Therefore, there is not reason to believe the habitat will not continue to recover without increasing the allocations. It is also obvious, from last year’s harvests, that the hunters in those two units can harvest more deer as the deer population increases even while maintaining the current antler less allocations so there is currently no need to increase the allocations to keep up with the herd growth and continue improving the habitat at the same time.
R.S. Bodenhorn