Originally Posted by
Cornelius08
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.
Oh, ok then since we only have a handful of hunters on our game lands and other public land up here anymore, even the first day, and there are thousands of acres without a man track on them we should count those out of the areas being hunted? I guess using that goofy method you and bluebird want to use we are probably harvesting in the neighborhood of 50-60 per HUNTED square mile up here in the northern tier.
It is you and bluebird that are twisting the facts to suit your goofy and misguided agendas.
R.S. Bodenhorn