There you go again! WRONG!!!

The mortality studies showed that only a fraction of the does that died in 2G were killed by hunters but you continue to ignore that fact.

That is absolutely ridiculous claim. The PGC biologist clearly stated that the rates in the mortality study did not reflect the true harvest rates for deer that weren't tagged.

The simple fact is that the large antlerless harvests in 2003 and 2004 resulted in harvests that exceeded recruitment which resulted in the lowest DD and the lowest harvest rates in the state and the PGC data clearly shows that to be true despite the spin and propaganda spread by you and RSB.

Wrong again. They did NOT say that the rates DID NOT refllect the true harvest. They said MAY NOT. Big difference! They merely acknowledged that tagged deer COULD HAVE been left alone by hunters. Of course, the new study with less visible tags will clear that up, but you are denying the facts of the study and have chosen to ignore that hunters are obviously not the primary reason for the decline in deer numbers in 2G.

Only a fool would use the results from a doe mortality study conducted in 2007 to deny the effects of HR that occurred from 2000 to 2005. One has to be extremely gullible to believe that the same habitat that supported 19 PS DPSM in 2003 could only support 12 PS DPSM in 2005,while ignoring the fact that the harvest in 2003 removed 7.4 DPSM and the 2004 harvest removed 4.7 DPSM. If those deer hadn't been harvested the OW herd would have increased by over 12 DPSm instead of decreasing by 7 PS DPSM.

Priceless!! LMAOROTF!!

You must be laughing at yourself, because you can't produce anything to refute the facts I posted.

That alone is a real knee slapper. :s5:

Now thats is pure Comedy..