<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The reason the harvest was as high as it was in 1990 was because the population was high going into the season.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote> Logs, &quot;high&quot; relative to what? Supposedly going into this season, the population was high too. So if both were &quot;brown&quot; seasons, this years' total should have been alot higher that it was, right? After all, 1990 was a RECORD!

Again, if you and Bill Mytton are right, the &quot;brown&quot; season effect should have meant no record in 1990, since from what you said, <BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The &quot;brown seasons&quot; do effect deer harvest. You can't shoot what you can't see. And most hunters can't see deer as well or often with limited snow cover.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>. I agree! So again, the DNR said going into THIS season, we again had record numbers of deer. If that indeed was the case in 1990 as well and that is why that harvest was so high that year, shouldn't this years harvest have been a record as well?

At least according your and Bill Mytton's logic...?

Edited by - TJD on 01/09/2002 13:56:55