That is an interesting theory , but it isn't a valid theory. The increase in the 2.5 + buck harvest from 1999 to 2002 can be explained by the increase in the herd due to the low antlerless harvests in 1998 and 1999 which increased the herd by at least 20%.
Thanks a million for pointing out that ARs only increased the 2.5+ buck harvest by only 0.21 2.5+ buck PSM . That is what I have been saying for years and you disagreed. You just proved that Alt was full of beans when he claimed ARs would triple the number of 8 pts.

So what did our illustrious biologists recommend for our farm rich areas? Did you forget they recommended 6 DPSM for 5C and 5 DPSM for 5 B . Maybe you forgot that they assigned the highest DD goal of 17 DPSM to 2F which has the worst regeneration rate in the state. Then we can look at 2A and 2B where the habitat is so good they needed a 4pt. restriction to save enough buck, but the goal for 2B was 10 DPSM and 2A was 13 DPSM. Therefore, IMHO it is quite clear that the PGC is attempting to manage our herd at much lower densities than the true MSY carrying capacity of the habitat.

BB2 what percentage of land in 5C and 5B is private land?

In 5C it is 99.5% and in 5B it is 98.6% ,but that has absolutely no effect on the carrying capacity of the habitat. That is, unless you want to claim that private land has a much higher carrying capacity than land managed by the state.

I agree, that has no effect on carrying capacity. Have you seen a decrease of deer in 5B and 5C with all the doe tags that have been issued with the 5 & 6 DPSM goals?

Hope you don't mind WTD but letsinclude 2Bin that question.

I don't mind at all!

I can only address my area of 5C,where the vast majority of land is hunted hard even though a lot of the land is posted. Although I have no stats to support it ,I would say the herd is down by 30-40%. But,at the same time it would not surprise me if the herd was increasing in other areas of 5c where the herd is protected by city or borough ordinances that prohibit hunting,

But, in any case, if the herd was being managed based on the true carrying capacity of the habitat ,then we should have at least 35-40 DPSM,but we don't.

PGC data shows that the herd in 2B, 5B and 5C are as follows from 2004, 2005 & 2006. Table 8 Change in herd size and Table 5 doe tag allocation in parenthesis from the year before: http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/pgc/reports/2007_wildlife/21001-06Z.pdf

2004 2005 2006
2B1.07 (45,000)1.15(68,000) 1.29 (68,000)
5B 0.91(60,000) 1.01(64,000) 1.09(56,000)
5C 0.97(66,000) 1.00(71,000) 1.06 (71,000)

So BB2 what would you conclude from the relationship between that tags that were alloted and the change on herd size for these three WMU's?

Without a doubt the data shows the herd was increasing in all 3 WMU;s. But the data also shows the herd in 2G increased by 42% from 2005 to 2006 and the herd in 4a increased by 74%. can you explain how those increases were possible?