Here's a clue,for you. Twenty years of managing the herd based on population estimates and DD goals, produced a healthy herd with record buck and antlerless harvests. In addition, it produced a harvest of 52+K , 2.5 pt. buck without ARs.

What has the current system produced in comparison?

BTW, I am still waiting for you to explain how the PGC determines the number of tags to allocate , if they don't know how many deer we have and they don't have any density goals.

No, only some areas of state forest is entered into the DMAP plan. The doe allocation for the rest of the state forest lands, including the DMAP areas, are allocated with a blanket allocation plan which could potentially lead to overharvest. We are searching for an answer to the question, which you claim to know, as to how the PGC knows how many tags to allocate based on the current herd population.

Do you know the answer or don't you?

Always wear your safety glasses! Safety first! Hope you are feeling better. You might have scaratched the cornea. If that's the case, best get to a Dr. But, if you won't go to the Dr, at least get it cleaned out. Put a patch over it for 24 hours and your scratched cornea will probably be healed. It's oneof the fastest healing area of the human body.

What if allocations were adjusted within each WMU to the township level, based on desired harvest, and the previous years harvest data. Remember, the PGC requires you to post the township of your kill, so they obviously have the data, and could fine tune the world's greatest math equation that they use to figure reporting rates and the actual harvests, to the township level. Also the WCO's who patrol each WMU as well as CAC's ets would provide localized info per each township on DD, etc. But wait...that would be called "micromanagement" and would of course cost the agency trillions of dollars, require thousands of new employees and a 500% license fee increase, right? Gimme a break!

Doing each township would be so difficult. To both calculate and enforce. If you're like me you hunt multiple townships every year and sometimes day to day. It would be way to difficult.
-Jake

yes it would be impossible

The deer plan most definately imho should be based on reasonable DEER DENSITY GOALS and not vague open to interpretation goals of regeneration etc.

With known to be nondetrimental deer densities as shown and accepted via studies from all across the nation per habitat type there is no reason to believe the habitat wouldnt be healthy. Though that wouldnt leave pgc any excuse to cater to econuts with rock bottom deer numbers in the name of extreme unnatural biodiversity. There would also be no "changing" guidelines of what is acceptable regeneration as has occurred once already causing some wmus rating to drop. Pretty certain to happen again in the future as the goal becomes reduce the herd further.

In most wmus human conflict isnt an issue as most wmus were not rated as high conflict even previously. Also aside from sras....the cacs arent voting for fewer deer.

Herd health is a nonissue, as we've come to find out there wasnt a thing wrong with it in the first place, and certainly isnt now.

We are currently managing for obtuse thinkers views of what our forests should be. It is NOT in the best interests of most to have unnatural excessive biodiversity such as audubon wants.

Wmus should be smaller without a doubt. County size or smaller imho.

Regardless of wmu size allocations should be cut across the board and basically statewide except perhaps areas of higher human conflict such as some of the sras. the cuts should be made to encourage appropriate DEER DENSITY GOALS for each wmu, just as most other "normal" states do. There are no rational excuses not to. The only reason we arent doing so currently is because the plan is not rational.

I would like to see doe tags cut back abit.
Smaller units would help some i think.

Well it looks like BTB finally realized he has no idea how antlerless tags are allocated and can't answer our questions. Furthermore he was wrong when he claimed the PGC knew how many tags it takes to harvest a deer in each WMU,when in fact . that is only true if the herd is stable. In a decreasing herd it takes more tags to harvest a deer ,but a lot fewer deer need to be harvested to keep the herd stable or reduce it even more.

The data from 2G clearly shows how the tags needed /deer increases as the herd is reduced.

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
2007 5,100 6,600 2.8 25,000 3.79 tags/deer
2008 6,800 6,500 3.2 25,000 3.85 tags/deer


The number of tags /deer can also be skewed by issuing excessive number of tags like in 5C.

Bluebird has proven once again that he sees only what he wants to see in the numbers.

Since, as Bluebird and others have pointed out, we cant do an exact count on the deer herd, we have to rely on trends and averages. Trends and averages also are necessary for a clear picture because the bulk of the doe harvest takes place within a relatively short time window. Weather variations from year to year and other factors make using trends and averages even more important for long term accuracy. Over the six years he pointed out above, the tags/deer ratio works out to 3.82 tags/deer. Amazingly close to the most recent ratio of 3.85

Thanks, Bluebird for managing to prove yourself wrong while you tried to make a point for your warped agenda all in the same post.

Just another good example of why wildlife management should be left to the professionals........