Actually, rsb couldnt have been farther off. These guys bring up some good points, but it has nothing to do with what rsb said. Rsb said HABITAT and herd health was controlling the numbers in 2G (and for that matter anywhere else where reduction has occurred). Pgc data shows thats not the case. The lowest deer pop. areas such as 2g had good herd health ratings (reproductive data), in fact one of the highest in the state. Now one could argue the sample sizes arent big enough and inaccurate as I contend, but even if thats the case, there is no evidence to suggest habitat is controlling the herd. Predators, other forms of natural mortality and hunting are another thing...

If a herd gets low enough through too many tags or whatever else there comes a point when predators etc. can keep the herd in check alone with minimal harvest. Few deer to start with = little recruitment. Harvest + coyotes+ whatever else kills more than recruitment and the herd is not gonna grow.

I also agree with you liv, and Germain about tag reduction alone might not immediately restore the herd of the north. But it would help some. Maybe not as fast or extreme as we'd like to see. But there IS a reason why they keep it where its at and not lower it. Thats because they DO NOT want herd growth currently. Pgc believes allocation reduction WOULD increase the herd and would effect the habitat further. I dont know about the habitat, but i know if predators are killing 100 deer in an area, its not gonna help things to shoot 200 there as well, as compared to only shooting 100. 300 dead deer would breed less than 200 dead deer from a same sized herd.

.