I'm surprised he never started war on the squirrels?You know what though,let's leave Alt where ever he may be.

Lets leave him where hes at? Im fine with that! Especially since he is FAR from Pa and right where he belongs. California.

http://www.garyaltconsulting.com/1762139.html

Where did you get that goofy idea that the deer herd in 2A was reduced by 50%?

Since you are one of those that wants to work with deer numbers go ahead and tell us how many deer 2A had before reductions and how many there are now. Since you claim a 50% reduction I figure you should be able to provide us with some hard numbers to prove your point.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RSB, Don't expect and answer much beyond his claiming that he just "knows" the numbers are true or "it's obvious".

Bluebird at least uses a few real numbers when he posts. Of course they are usually out of context and his conclusions are way off base.

Cornelius simply guesses, pulls numbers out of the air and makes them up as he goes.

Rich,because you see acorns on the ground,you assume there's no deer.Does that also mean that there's no squirrels,chipmunks,turkeys or bears?

"Where did you get that goofy idea that the deer herd in 2A was reduced by 50%? "

The same place I got it the last 20 times we discussed this on this board and several others, so dont play stupid Mr. Damage control.

Pgc annual reports. Ive given you the data far too many times. Look it up for a change.

The overwinter herd deer density ACCORDING TO PGCdropped from around 80 down to 35 dpfsm. Id say that is over 50% wouldnt you?

You certainly like to repeat alot dont you?

BTBOWHUNTER, you are the most uneducated on this topic yet you run your trap more than anyone. Why not quit making yourself look like a complete fool?

I make no unsubstantiated claims other than when giving an opinon. And if you cannot tell when an opinion is given, that is your problem. THe 2A statement is not opinion. ITs fact.

36 dpsm is not enough ?

Thank you for reinforcing my point. You are posting opinions almost exclusively. When was the last time you posted a fact or figure with the reference to back it up? By that I mean real references not evasive, unsubstantiveanswers like "according to PGC" or "Pgc annual reports. Ive given you the data far too many times. Look it up for a change" .

If you had a way to back up the things you say, you'd do that instead of simply resorting to name callingand personal attacks.

The simple fact is that you spout off numbers and facts without anything to back yourself up. When questioned as to the source you respond with a personal attack and them either evade the question or give vague answers like you just did. I have no doubt that you actually believe the "facts" you put forth but you haven't backed up hardly anything you've claimed on this forum.

Oh and by the way,as Doug asked, ARE you saying that 36 DPFSM isn't enough???

There actually aren't bears there Doug.Once in awhile one travels through.I know there's turkey and squirrels there because I saw them and the sign.Unless deer fly they usually let some sign.

Phew...Dang shame I gotta be pulled away to actually hafta work, then come back to .....THIS. (LOL) Btb, for cryin' out loud grow up man! I never see you EVER try to prove anything with facts or disprove others with facts...Like I and others do. All I see you do is hee-haw and bray like a dang donkey about absolutely nothing. Get with the program or step aside and let the big boys talk eh? Id be happy to engage ya in debate if you would actually offer something other than complaining and insults.

Now back on track, FIrst off, sorry fellas, I made a typo. Was in a helluva hurry, had business to tend to thatactuallytried to pull me away before I even started my last post... Anyway, That 35 dpsm was supposed to read TWENTY FIVE.

That is the average deer density ow on the 2005 annual report for 2A. And that is meaningful because the last 4 years our goalwas supposedly stabilization.The range given is 21-30 for the wmu. Averages out to 25.

Anyway, you ask me if 36 is enough...Or for that matter you could ask 25? 50?

I have no set dpsm we must have. And we dont have deer goals because it is or isnt enough. But by pgcs reasoning, herd health, human conflict and habitat are the measuring devices. Based on those the amount of reduction (could even be argued any at all) was grossly unnecessary. I also believe Id stated my opinion on the matter already when I said I believed there was no need for extremes, 10-20% reduction would have been PLENTY for soley preventative measures.

When stating the above I do so as objectively as possible, not at a person whose hunting has been effected by this, just looking at it all from the outside in an unbiased fashion, and stating what seems pretty obvious. If I were to do so otherwise, to ask myself how it effects my hunting in a less than beneficial manner it would be because we have fewer good buck now than we did previously thanks to all that reduction and less buck being born and fewer bb existing because they too are shot for antlerless. ONly concern I have about doe isnt about me harvesting them. Thatsa joke. Id hardly call shooting a doe a challenge even if thedpsm were 15. Its producing the good bucks that has taken the hit.

And btw, despite pgc claims we are STILL reducing the herd even more and that is what I have the biggest problem of all with here. The claim was stabilization 4 years ago and up to and including this year. The doe allocation was raised twice in that time period by over 15,000 tags total, And goals of 18k harvested when only 16,500 reduced it approximately 7% according to pgc 2004 annual report.