ORIGINAL: bluebird2

Blaming poachers for the decline in the herd in 2G is just plain silly. The fact is that two years of 52K doe tags reduced the herd in 2g at the request and direction of the PGC. Are there 52K poachers in 2G?

Year antlered harvest antlerless harvest harvest PSM antlerless allocation

2003 10,110 20,370 7.4 52,000 2.55 tags/deer
2004 6,400 13,100 4.7 52,000 3.95 tags/deer
2005 5,000 6,200 2.7 29,000 4.70 tags/deer
2006 7,200 4,600 2.8 19,000 4.10 tags/deer

ORIGINAL: ManySpurs

Speaking of feeder studies, now hear this. The bobcat that killed the button buck at our feeder now has its 35 pound carcass in a freezer awaiting taxidermy services.

ORIGINAL: R.S.B.


Oh my, but you aren’t telling the rest of the story about the number of 2G antler less license or antler less harvests. You only posted the numbers for unit 2G since it was formed as a WMU. Since there were no WMU, which are much larger then the county units, prior to 2003 those number aren’t relevant to anything for comparison factors. But, they can be made relevant once you look at the allocations and antler less harvests of the counties that make up unit 2G.

I have taken the time to make those allocations for unit 2G relevant to the number of license and harvest prior to changing to WMU’s by taking the historic allocations and harvests of the counties that make up each unit so it could be compared by allocations and harvests per square mile of land mass.

Here are the allocations and harvests for the counties that make up WMU 2G compared to the resent allocations and harvests since 2003 when we shifted to the WMU. All data is in number per square mile of land mass.

Years……………….antler less allocation……………….antler less harvest
1983-1987.……………..12.90.…………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.3.98
1988-1992.……………..16.21.…………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.5.48
1993-1997.……………..13.08.…………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.4.36
1998-2002.……………..12.30.…………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.4.66
2003-2007.………………8.65.…………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.2.35
2008.…………………….6.32.…………… ……………….Not yet available

As you can see that argument about fewer deer in unit 2G today because of increased antler less license and higher harvests is false, unless you consider the higher harvests of fifteen year ago or longer the reason for lower deer numbers now.

R.S. Bodenhorn

Years……………….antler less allocation……………….antler less harvest
1983-1987.……………..12.90.…………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.3.98
1988-1992.……………..16.21.…………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.5.48
1993-1997.……………..13.08.…………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.4.36
1998-2002.……………..12.30.…………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.4.66
2003-2007.………………8.65.…………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.2.35
2008.…………………….6.32.…………… ……………….Not yet available

As you can see that argument about fewer deer in unit 2G today because of increased antler less license and higher harvests is false, unless you consider the higher harvests of fifteen year ago or longer the reason for lower deer numbers now.

Congratulations, that is a huge bobcat.

Any pictures?

ORIGINAL: bluebird2

Thank you very much for doing an excellent job in demonstrating how the high antlerless harvests during the bonus tag years of 1988 to 2002 produced harvests that reduced the herd. Once the herd was reduced it took lower allocations and lower harvests too reduce the herd even more and that is why 2G was the only county at it's deer density goal in 2000. Then the high allocations in 2002 and 2003 produced harvests that greatly exceeded recruitment resulting in a sustainable antlerless harvest that was less than half of what it was when the herd peaked in the late 80's.

This is an excellent example of how the PGC used antlerless allocations to reduce the herd in 2G to less than 50% of the MSY carrying capacity of the habitat. Unfortunately forest health is still rated as poor in 2G after 20 years of herd reduction and herd health is no better than it was back then.

ORIGINAL: bluebird2

Thank you very much for doing an excellent job in demonstrating how the high antlerless harvests during the bonus tag years of 1988 to 2002 produced harvests that reduced the herd. Once the herd was reduced it took lower allocations and lower harvests too reduce the herd even more and that is why 2G was the only county at it's deer density goal in 2000. Then the high allocations in 2002 and 2003 produced harvests that greatly exceeded recruitment resulting in a sustainable antlerless harvest that was less than half of what it was when the herd peaked in the late 80's.

This is an excellent example of how the PGC used antlerless allocations to reduce the herd in 2G to less than 50% of the MSY carrying capacity of the habitat. Unfortunately forest health is still rated as poor in 2G after 20 years of herd reduction and herd health is no better than it was back then.

ORIGINAL: R.S.B.


Congratulations, that is a huge bobcat.

Any pictures?

R.S. Bodenhorn

ORIGINAL: BTBowhunter


And there we have it.

Thank you Bluebird for proving a point I have contended all along. The point being that the Uniformed Silly People and the Bluebirds of this world have been crying about the doe harvest for decades.

They cried when the first bonus tag was issued and have gotten louder with each passing year.

Even though doe tags are less than half what they once were PSM, the BB's and USP's are still crying the same old song.

It will never change

Even though doe tags are less than half what they once were PSM, the BB's and USP's are still crying the same old song.