"Just like no one said that 2.5 bucks would get bigger"

HUH???? Of course they did! What cave have you been in the last nearly decade!! Same age bucks were most certainly SUPPOSED to be larger. Nutrition was supposed to improve due to hr and that was supposed to lead to larger racks and bodies. Due to ar, and increase in age classes, yearling breeding was supposed to be suppressed. The yearling year is year where most skeletal and muscle growth was occurring we were told. They werent supposed to be doing much of the breeding, they were supposed to utilize their energy & nutrition for GROWTH. Not running themselves ragged fighting each other and steadily chasing does so we were told... With our "plan" in place, yearlings were supposed to be suppressed by the older bucks which we were supposed to have so many more of, or so we were told.

Funny thing is, most recently we were told yearlings are STILL doing a huge amount of the breeding. Just one more failed prediction by pgc.

I have no problem with you making a fool of yourself with half truths and out right lies. The PGC facts support my position while at the same time they show that you have to distort and manipulate the data, just like you did when we were discussing the change in sample size and location of roadkilled does.

If the numbers from the doe mortality were as meaningful as the reproduction stats, why did the PGC change the way the way they marked the does they were tracking. The answer is because they knew there was a problem with their methodology. But, their has been no change in the way they collect data from road killed does ,except to include does that are lactating as does that have been bred.

What reduction of this years total allocation of doe license would be needed to appease the deer programs nay sayers?

And should dmap and all other uncontrolled and bonus tags be included in this reduction?

And what standards should be used to measure the success or failure of this reduction.

The allocations should be reduced enough to allow the herd to return to the true MSY CC of the habitat,except in areas where deer/human conflict is the controlling factor.

DMAP tags should remain the same and bonus tags should be limited to private land
The buck harvest should return to normal, as Alt said it would after the first year of ARs.

Not exactly, what was predicted was a higher percentage of 2.5+ bucks would be available to do the breeding. That has happened. More of the bucks available to breed are 2.5+. That doesnt mean that 1.5 bucks dont still breed.

The only part you got right there is that a bucks majority of skeletal and muscle growth takes place as a yearling.

As for the rest of it, AR coupled with HR was supposed to increase competition. That doesnt mean the 1.5 bucks go quietly back to eatin acorns! They still chase seek and do all the other stuff rutting bucks do. Just because they don't all get to actually breed doesnt mean they would not try and to think that they would stop chasing and get fat is about as childish and naive a notion as ever I've heard. You may have gone whimpering back to the potato chip bag when you got rejected for a better guy but in the deer world, the wimps don't give up and get fat, they simply tag along and wait for their chance.

So deer numbers should be managed at levels that appease hunters yet cause untold financial damage to a larger number of the states residents?

As "normal" are meaning that as a statistical percentage of the total harvest? Or do you have a specific number?

[QUOTE]So deer numbers should be managed at levels that appease hunters yet cause untold financial damage to a larger number of the states residents?
[/QUOTE

I didn't say that, but if that's the way you want the herd to be managed , I'm sure it would make a lot of hunters happy.

A normal buck harvest is the harvest that the habitat has shown it can support.

"Not exactly,"

Yes exactly.

"what was predicted was a higher percentage of 2.5+ bucks would be available to do the breeding. That has happened. More of the bucks available to breed are 2.5+. That doesnt mean that 1.5 bucks dont still breed."

What was predicted was EXACTLY what I said, and I didnt bring it up to debate it, cause its not even debatable.

"As for the rest of it, AR coupled with HR was supposed to increase competition. That doesnt mean the 1.5 bucks go quietly back to eatin acorns! "

Not what I said. It also wasnt "my" theory.

"They still chase seek and do all the other stuff rutting bucks do. Just because they don't all get to actually breed doesnt mean they would not try and to think that they would stop chasing and get fat is about as childish and naive a notion as ever I've heard."

Then you agree pgc is full of **it yet again? because that was their conclusion, not mine. And i agree completely that indeed they were full of it.

"You may have gone whimpering back to the potato chip bag when you got rejected for a better guy but in the deer world, the wimps don't give up and get fat, they simply tag along and wait for their chance."

Dont know why you are explaining it to me. I made it very clear that pgc stated this and I too thought even then that they were full of **it. and it wasn that yearlings were never gonna do any breeding at all or going through some of the motions. Just that they would be decreased significantly. I buy that to a degree. But not in our situation where the only increases are to the percentage of 2.5 year olds and VERY little to the older buck, and most 2.5's are harvested, so really a nonissue here anyway.

"So deer numbers should be managed at levels that appease hunters yet cause untold financial damage to a larger number of the states residents?
"

"human conflict" was not rated as "high" in many areas even when we have far fewer deer, so its a nonissue. There are tools some may use to micromanage if necessary.