Originally Posted by
bluebird2
In 2007 87 does and 8 bucks were harvested on 2100 acres.Last year,8 bucks and 142 does were harvested on about 2300 acres.
I honestly don't know the total acres of suitable habitat.We have 3500 acres of undeveloped land,two golf courses,and two lakes.The total acreage is 9500 acres.Most of the residential areas are still actually forested as there's a restriction on what trees can be removed from your property.
If you honestly believe a harvest rate of 29 DPSM in 2007 and a harvest rate of 42 DPSM in 2008, isn't reducing the herd, then just like RSB, you have no credibility. BTW, in 2008 the highest harvest rate in the state was in 2B with 14 DPSM and the lowest was 2G with 3.84 DPSM.[/quote]
This is another perfect example of how bluebird manipulates data to suit his make believe fairy-tail deer management world.
He took over fourteen square miles of limited deer hunting area where the deer have free range of all fourteen square miles and then calculated the deer harvest for all of those deer on the less then three square miles open to even limited hunting and only with archery equipment.
Even though the hunters only have access to less then three square miles to hunt the deer still have all fourteen plus square miles to feed on and avoid hunters on.
The fact is the harvest in 2007 was only about 6.78 deer harvested per square mile and in 2008 it increased to about 12.71 deer harvested per square mile. That is a far cry from the 29 and 42 harvested per square mile that bluebird made up with his fuzzy math used to mislead people and misrepresent reality.
R.S. Bodenhorn