Wrong again. They did NOT say that the rates DID NOT refllect the true harvest. They said MAY NOT. Big difference! They merely acknowledged that tagged deer COULD HAVE been left alone by hunters. Of course, the new study with less visible tags will clear that up, but you are denying the facts of the study and have chosen to ignore that hunters are obviously not the primary reason for the decline in deer numbers in 2G
Only a fool would use the results from a doe mortality study conducted in 2007 to deny the effects of HR that occurred from 2000 to 2005. One has to be extremely gullible to believe that the same habitat that supported 19 PS DPSM in 2003 could only support 12 PS DPSM in 2005,while ignoring the fact that the harvest in 2003 removed 7.4 DPSM and the 2004 harvest removed 4.7 DPSM. If those deer hadn't been harvested the OW herd would have increased by over 12 DPSm instead of decreasing by 7 PS DPSM.