To answer your question......."The reason the harvest was as high as it was in 1990 was because the population was high going into the season. I'd be quessing but I'll bet the kill was a smaller percentage of the herd size than the DNR wanted havested."
And to answer part two......
"Further, the brown season effect does not effect the state equally. There are times that everything north of Hy 8 has a good snow cover and the remaining part,the greater percentage of land, has no snow cover. Agian this is looking at the entire picture not just what you a single but deeply concern individual can see from the limited position."
I'd rather you took the time to read the post the first time and not ask questions already answered.
If the state would have been completely covered with snow in 1990 the kill would have been even greater. Just as this season was the sixth highest on record and it was a brown season. Therefore the deer population was sufficent to afford these number under less than desirable conditions. If we would have had a complete snow cover what do you believe the kill would have been, in 1990 and in 2001?


<font size=5>agian nice font up top there</font id=size5>
And nub I'd like to think so also but unfortunately that is not the case for most hunters and Im not casting any doubt on your ability, Im speaking of hunters in general. But then agian we'll never know how many deer we didn't see that were really there will we?

Edited by - logs on 01/09/2002 15:33:06