I don’t profess to know more then experts, but I also know that the experts don’t disagree with me. I talk with those experts about these subjects pretty frequently so I know what they have to say and they know what I have to say. We agree about nearly all aspects of the deer/habitat inter-relationships and also about the habitat being the real limiting and often controlling factor on deer numbers.
You are obviously suffering from a severe case of denial. You said there weren't enough bucks to breed the doe and Dr. R and the deer said you were wrong. The experts claim breeding rates decreased by 5% and you claim they didn't. You claim rack sizes of 2.5+ buck increased and Dr. R. says there is no data to support your claim. You said increased productivity would make up for the effects of HR and the experts said HR would reduce the herd by 50%. You claim the PGC data on forest health and herd health is flawed and the experts claim it is sufficient to manage the herd. You claim the habitat is controlling the herd and not one expert at the PGC supports that claim.
I also see that according to you the number of deer we should have is now at 70 per square mile. What happened to the figure of 100 per square mile you where demanding yesterday? Or, what about the quote you used from the report snippet that said that 30 deer was the limit of the natural carrying capacity?
That is a flat out lie. I never claimed we should have either 70 or 100 DPSM. What I said was the work of DeCalesta showed that the max. CC of typical northern hardwoods was 70 DPSM , but I was wrong. The Max. cc was 80 DPSM!!!
The reason 2G has such a high herd health index is because the sample nearly all comes from the soil and crop rich farm land of southern Clinton County where there are plenty of highways that results in highway killed deer. Up in the mountainous areas of unit 2G there aren’t many roads and darn few highway killed deer to sample
If that were true, then all WMUs with a much higher percentage of farm land would have a higher number of embryos/doe than 2G.
f you think the hunters killing a total of 3.84 deer per square mile are the controlling factor on deer populations in unit 2G then explain why hunters killing 14.17 deer per square mile in unit 2B, city streets and all, aren’t even reducing their deer populations?
Your thinking doesn’t even rise to the level of logical thought process when you refuse to acknowledge that the habitat is the real limiting factor in deer numbers.
And you are an absolute and total fool if you expect 8 OWD PSM in 2g to produce the same harvest rate 30 OWD PSM in 2B.