"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?"

Unlike the 11 square miles mentioned, Its huntable land. The land being discussed was a particular parcel and not general statewide "underhunted" pockets. But the effects of the harvest on that particular land was the point as you know.

" 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."

We werent discussing the northern tier. We were discussing 3 square miles under strict and specific management conditions. Conditions which arent expressed statewide...across the northern tier...in Timbuktu.... or the other 11 square miles in question.

"It is you and bluebird that are twisting the facts to suit your goofy and misguided agendas."

Insult all you like. Its pretty much cut and dried common sense to anyone not trying to sell a failed deer management plan anyway. I cannot speak for bluebird, but my only "agenda" is to see reasonable and responsible deer management taking place and implemented by a non-extremist management agency. And I shouldnt need to fight for that, it should be a "given" with any reasonable management plan.