RSB, you are twisting the data just as pgc and dcnr does to fit their agendas. The harvests were EXACTLY as bb stated.
3 square miles of the land were open to hunting. The other land was not hunted and therefore the stats cant really be applied in the manner you suggest. The harvest occurred on THREE square miles NOT 14! There is also no determining the overlap of those deers home ranges within that 3 square miles compared to the 14, or for that matter the surrounding properties...
If you want the herd reduced on the surrounding 11 square miles then it needs to be hunted. If its not hunted, the deer densities of the two areas shouldnt be expected to be equal.
You twist the data, just as pgc and dcnr do when speaking of deer densities. Same way dcnr tried to summarize and glaze over the results of the flyovers. Lots of territory with few to no deer, but god forbid if there were a pocket of 15 or so too close together and existing within the stateforest. That means hunters shouldnt be crying, but slaughtering some more of the "woods wreckers" lol.
Once again, bluebird, way to deliver the strap once you have 'em over the barrel. Bravo.
Last edited by Cornelius08; 07-21-2009 at 06:22 PM.