Now that is a flat out live. I posted the PGC data that showed the herd increased during the period RSB claimed it was declining due to a decrease in the carrying capacity of the habitat. I backed up what I said , but RSB can't do the same.

Oh come on, you aren’t really that dumb are you? Or, perhaps I should just call you a LIAR since that is the way you deal with everything that doesn’t suit your biased horse puckey opinions and posts?

Since unit 2G is 4114.04 square miles, in size, it certainly should have a higher buck harvest then unit 2A which much less then half the half that size with only 1810.78 square miles. I would have thought anyone with a lick of intelligence and commonsense would have figured that out all by themselves though. That is why I post everything in harvests per square mile, to make then as equal, unbiased and comparable as possible.

Also your home unit of 2A was forth highest in in the state in buck harvests. That hardly seems like a unit that has been suffering from excessive deer harvests. So I have to say you are full of both nonsense and horse puckey.

Now to prove how far off base you really are and allow the readers that have enough common sense to learn from facts, I will post the buck harvests, by unit, in descending order (that is highest to lowest) based on the buck harvests per square mile of land mass for each unit.

Rank…………Unit……………..Buck harvest/sq. mile
1.……………..5C…………………….4.01
2.……………..2E…………………….3.96
3.……………..2D……………………3.82
4.……………..2A……………………3.70
5.……………..1B……………………3.54
6.……………..2B……………………2.94
7.……………..1A……………………2.92
8.……………..3C……………………2.92
9.……………..2F……………………2.90
10.……………4C……………………2.76
11.……………3A……………………2.72
12.……………4E…………………….2.48
13.……………5B…………………….2.46
14.……………4B…………………….2.46
15.……………3B…………………….2.44
16.……………2C…………………….2.42
17.……………4A…………………….2.42
18.……………4D…………………….2.40
19.……………3D…………………….1.79
20.……………2G…………………….1.63
21.……………5A…………………….1.61
22.……………5D…………………….1.56

There,now everyone can see that you simply don’t have a clue what you are talking about. In fact you pretty much never seem to have a clue, but that sure doesn’t seem to stop you from ranting on.

R.S. Bodenhorn

In 2G. More bucks were harvested total than 2A. You can manipulate the stats and flip them sideways if you like. Fact is, 2A has a lower buck harvest than both 2G and 2F.

"Since unit 2G is 4114.04 square miles, in size, it certainly should have a higher buck harvest then unit 2A which much less then half the half that size with only 1810.78 square miles. I would have thought anyone with a lick of intelligence and commonsense would have figured that out all by themselves though."

Hardly, when the carrying capacity of the habitat in 2A is over double under THE BEST of circumstances, yet 2g was said to be in TERRIBLE shape!!. Kinda neglected that lil tidbitin your words of wisdom didnt ya?? Comparing mature forest andwhat is claimed to be the worst area in the state, tofarmland, reverting farmland andedge habitat of the southwest? LOL. C'mon, if ya dont quit being rediculous, im gonna hafta break out my colored text and large font!LOL!!! You also overlooked the FACT that both 2F and 2D are much smaller than 2G, yet they both had higher buck harvests than 2g. 2d having MUCH MORE, with 9500!!! So put that in your cob corn pipe and smoke it! (LOL)

"That is why I post everything in harvests per square mile, to make then as equal, unbiased and comparable as possible."

But its not equal.That sounds like the "ONe size fits all" mantra you eco-folk are famous for spouting. Kill em all everywhere regardless of the habitat....[:'(] Anyway,You like to compare in any way that makes your point look legit when it isnt. In fact, you tendto change the topic to change the argument from its original base, since youhave no argument to present. My comment, which started your yapping, and that which was my concern was the herd goal not being adhered to. A complete SHAM if you will. Yet you jump AROUND the issue, and wont touch it. Course your elusiveness doesnt make you look any better than it would if you'd just take your lumps and say you were wrong.

"Also your home unit of 2A was forth highest in in the state in buck harvests."

Only by way of your rediculous comparison. Otherwise itsmiddle of the pack at 8 or9...

"That hardly seems like a unit that has been suffering from excessive deer harvests. So I have to say you are full of both nonsense and horse puckey."

A liar with an agendaWOULD say that. The overharvest is easily seen by comparing the harvest goal to the results... THE GOAL IS STABILIZATION. Something you have yet again conveniently ignored. Care to quit being a liar and address the real issue for a change??


Read carefully, and im NOT yelling, this is so you can see it. Seems you go conveniently blind the last 15 times Ive posted it.

THE GOAL FOR 2A HAS BEEN STABILIZATION FOR YEARS, YET THE HARVEST AND HERD HAS DECLINED DURING THAT PERIOD SIGNIFICANTLY....AS HAS THE DOE HARVEST... = PGC LYING, and now, YOU LYING ABOUT THEIR LYING!!!

What you have just shown is that the WMU with the worst regeneration rate has the highest buck harvest rate in the state while the best managed WMU 2G has one of the lowest buck harvest rate in the state..

Wait 5 minutes and his story will change as needed.

Uh oh! somebody said sumpin he didn't like. here goes another Corny Tantrum

First of all the data you posted only covers the period of five years of ideal environmental conditions between 1996 and 2001. As I already pointed out short periods of increase during ideal environmental conditions is possible even with low harvests. But, also as I pointed out those increased populations don’t last once the ideal environmental conditions aren’t there for a year or two.

The other problem with you using the estimated over winter deer densities has been pointed out to you time and again as well. Those are the least reliable estimated numbers available since they are the last estimated number derived from calculating several other estimated numbers.

Therefore, every percentage that each previous estimate is off is compounded in the amount of error in those estimated over winter deer densities. That is the very reason they are no longer released to the public and only used minimally in the total deer management equations of today.

Now to further prove my point of how every unit that has reduced their antler less harvests over the past fifteen years still has declining deer populations and harvests I will post those units and their harvest history.

The pre WMU harvest history is based on the harvests of counties that made up the WMU of today and compared to the harvest of those WMUs during more recent years since 2003. Since antler restrictions occurred during this historic period only antler less deer harvests are being used in this comparison.

Unit…………88-92(counties)…..98-02(counties)……….03-07(WMU)……………2008(WMU)
2G……………5.48.………………..4.66.… ………………..2.35.……………………. 2.21
3A……………6.52.………………..6.08.… ………………..6.07.……………………. 4.97
3C……………6.22.………………..6.11.… ………………..5.49.……………………. 3.38
4D……………5.25.………………..4.90.… ………………..4.03.……………………. 3.39

Now let’s compare the same data for the units that have had unlimited antler less harvests where hunters could get as many license as they wanted and harvest as many antler less deer as they wanted over the past twenty years.

Unit…………88-92(counties)…..98-02(counties)……….03-07(WMU)……………2008(WMU)
2B……………4.98.………………..8.39.… ………………..10.70.…………………..1 1.23
5C……………3.69.………………..5.84.… …………………7.94.…………………… 9.31
5D……………2.69.………………..5.30.… …………………5.27.…………………… 5.39

When looking at this data remember that the harvests are by square miles of land mass, including the city streets and buildings. The top units have very little developed area while the bottom three units include the cities of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.


Now after seeing the deer harvest facts, one group of four WMU where deer harvests have been reduced with lower allocations verse another group of three units (the second ones) where they have had unlimited harvests, which area obviously has the management style that results in increasing deer numbers?

I simply can’t understand why anyone that really cares about the future of hunting and having the best possible deer numbers for the future would refuse to acknowledge how deer management has worked much better where the habitat is protected with high deer harvests then it works where deer are protected in the mistaken notion that harvesting fewer will result in more. If that could work it would surely have happened in the past twenty years, but exactly the opposite has happened and all of those units now have even fewer deer then they had twenty years ago even though the harvests have been reduced and then reduced even more.

When will hunters learn the things that the professional managers already know? If they refuse to learn will they ever at least stop fighting the facts the deer provide and just allow those professionals to do their jobs of providing the best deer management possible? Or, are the hunters going to continue listening to the people that so obviously have no idea what has really been happening with deer populations or why?

R.S. Bodenhorn

Nope. I explained ahead of time it wasnt meant to be loud . You read it. Therefore you are lying.... Intentionally.... Again. Boy thats news eh?[:@]

I guess you really are that dumb. I didn’t think that were possible but I guess I was wrong.

What is worse is that I see bluebird is striving his best to match your level, though for him I believe he is simply trying to twist the facts for damage control.

R.S. Bodenhorn

LOL I guess that's yer story and you're stickin to it eh?

Yep, the checks in the mail. Obama's not a socialist and that wasn't meant to be loud LOL LOL LOL