It pretty easy to realize why DD speaks of 2001's 203,000 buck harvest. its because it was the last harvest before we started the AR/HR scam. Sooooooo....its not ver y difficult to see we can use 2001 for a reference of before AR/HR. Would you like to use 2000? Oh, thats right it was 203,000 also....hmmmm seems like we were doing pretty good before AR/HR. Don't it?
DD must have you flustered if you had trouble fielding that one.
For about the past year DD and I have discussed at great length the deer situation in this state(mostly on the PA boards). He and I both know our opinions and I'm pretty sure we both know they aren't changing. I have no trouble 'fielding' his remarks at all. Sorry, there doesn't seem to be an emoticon for SARCASM! I figured rolling the eye's was close enough....I guess I was wrong about that too! BTW, we actually do agree on a few things....just not anything about AR!
I want a solid answer as to why he compares the highest with the lowest harvest numbers. It can only be to mislead as the last 4 years have been record overall harvests as well.
Let's see here. 203k bucks out of ~900k hunters = 22.6% success rate on buck for the highest ever buck harvest
142k out of ~900k = 15.8% on the lowest year of AR.
I don't have any founded evidence to support this, but I recall for years reading, hearing, etc. that only one in ten hunters bags a buck. If that's true then we're still over the national average....too bad we had so many years of quantity management that left us in a state of greed. When it had to be taken away.
You have to have lows and highs to get an average, otherwise you'll constantly be chasing the target. In this case, herd needs reduced and the b:d ratio needs bettered. I'm seeing both of those happen in my area. I'll predict a higher buck harvest than last year for 2F.