We've been through this too many times.Only 40 does were checked accross the entire wmu.That's hardly statistically significant.What areas did they come from?Unless you know,that stat is meaningless.Less deer also equals more food for the deer that are remaining.I guess that means the plan is a success.How many fawns were pregnant?
The experts who are managing our herd disagree with you, but of course you and RSB know more than the experts.
The fact is,we have a very even aged stand of timber across 2G and we were faced with so many deer for so long that they destroyed the habitat.In areas that are being timbered,the herd is growing and the deer are healthy.Unfortunately,because we have such an even aged stand of timber,the amount of logging taking place is slow.In the areas where the habitat is very poor,it doesn't take many deer at all to have an impact on it.The areas that have large acres of ea
No the deer did not destroy the habitat, they just altered it. The habitat is still capable of supporting 70 DPSM and the only thing that is preventing that from happening is the antlerless harvests.
Bb and those clamoring for more could care less
Wrong again sport. The discussion is about whether the habitat is limiting the herd , not whether we should have 8 DPSM at the biodiversity CC or 40 deer at the MSY carrying capacity.
BTW, should all of our WMUs be managed at the biodiversity CC like 2G?