Sounds Cornie is a stranger to the concepts of time lag and correlation lag in the statistical analysis of things like changes in animal population in relation to changes in local natural environments.

"Sounds Cornie is a stranger to the concepts of time lag and correlation lag"

Yeah. I suppose you are gonna insult every member of this board reading this's intelligence by saying the effect has been "lagging" for decades? lmao. Because thats how long its been since this wmu had lower deer numbers than we do now! lmao.....and the habitat NEVER rated as poor by pgc here. reduction was supposedly done years ago. and all of a sudden "the lag effect lmao" it just showed up the year before last. No particular reason, just because lanse says so. LMAO! Regeneration being cut by ridiculous amount in two years. Two years with modern day low deer densities in the unit. lmao. Hell even the complete econuts biologists at audubon on their infamous "deer study" showed 2A to be healthier than most of the rest of the state for cryin out loud! lmao!

C'mon lanse. Lets revisit reality and give me a reasonable argument that makes SOME sense? I dont believe that position exists. But I sure enjoy seeing you try.

Landowners and farmers have been given excellent tools in the form of red tag farms, DMAP programs, PGC Co-op programs, and the LINK pogram by the PGC. If they fail to take advantage of these programs, it is through no fault of deer hunters.

"Dunno if the number of farmers and land in crops has risen or dropped, but should growing complaints about crop damage also be ignored as well just for the sake of holding on to the good old days of deer hunting?"

Its addressed with cac. It was also addressed with cutting the herd dang near in half statewide. I think the poor little farmer (as some here like to portray) can now learn to make do and take advantage of all the additional tools hes been given. We've been bent over far enough by the "antideer" factions. Enough is enough.

Btw, we are only talking 58k farmers. And of those SOME arent even antideer. How many are? Half? A third? How many of those few to begin with are crying about killing MORE deer? So how tiny is this "problem"/excuse some like to use anyway?

The answer is simple , the sampling methodology is obviously flawed. There is no logical reason why the regeneration rate in 2G should decrease with a decreasing herd, just as there is no logical reason to explain a 25% decrease in regeneration in 2A or why 5C has the worst regeneration in the state when the deer have unlimited food supplies, a very long growing season and very mild winters with limited snow cover.

Funny how 2G and now 2A are used as the examples.

In the 2G doe mortality study, 8% and 15% of the adult does that died died from hunting mortality. Yet 2G is held up as the "wiped out" WMU Tags are at the lowest levels in a decade per quare mile yet some hunters still blame the doe tag numbers. Obviously something else is going on up there.

As for 2A, the deer density numbers there are right up with the highest WMU's in the state. Personal observations arent really that significant but since thats what were hearing on this forum when it comes to 2A, I'll offer some too. The 2A hunters that I talk to hunt on and near a SGL in Greene County and still see dozens of deer most days and they take very respectable bucks. Most of the deer they see are on or coming from the SGL.

EHD did have some localized effects, some isolated spots were decimated (why we need smaller WMU's) but overall, the effect was not significant across the whole WMU.

Maybe 2A is now seeing a regeneration crash like 2G saw several years back.

So, since you claim to know what the "problem" is, obviously you have a solution. What is it?

Wrong again!! The PGC admitted that the harvest rates in the doe mortality study may not represent the true harvest rates. Furthermore, the buck harvest rate correlates directly to the estimated deer density in that WMU. The simple fact is that once the herd is reduced to 8 DPSM it can only support a harvest of less than 4 DPSM when the area is 90% forested.

That is pure nonsense . A regeneration crash may occur when populations are at the MSY carrying capacity of the habitat. They do not occur when the herd is being reduced.

Manage the herd based on the true carrying capacity of the habitat and let landowners that have a problem with deer damage manage their herd with DMAP tags, red tags and killing deer for crop damage.

"Funny how 2G and now 2A are used as the examples."

Im sure we could pick out more. Plenty to pick from.
Id imagine people post about the ones they have the most interest in? I seem to recall bb making mention of data from others as well.

"Tags are at the lowest levels in a decade per quare mile yet some hunters still blame the doe tag numbers. Obviously something else is going on up there."

They have the herd so low that predation + far fewer doe tags is holding the herd low. All need be done to hold a herd stable is have the harvest equal recruitment. Not hard to have the harvest equal recruitment when that recruitment is coming from a herd of less than 10 dpsm. Even productive doe doent exactly have 10 fawns apiece.

Theyve accomplished their ecoextreme goal there. On to the next wmu for them.

"As for 2A, the deer density numbers there are right up with the highest WMU's in the state."

As they should be. The entire state, on a wmuwide basis was raped basically. 2A had a higher cc than many. Had more deer to start with also. i dont see where that has a thing to do with what any wmu SHOULD have as the deer density.

"EHD did have some localized effects, some isolated spots were decimated (why we need smaller WMU's) but overall, the effect was not significant across the whole WMU."

The herd was reduced prior to the ehd outbreak. That just took the herd lower yet in areas. Even if it had never occurred the herd had already been reduced completely according to pgc. Only "nonplanned for" and slower rate of reduction has occurred since.

"Maybe 2A is now seeing a regeneration crash like 2G saw several years back. "

In one years time? And coming off of TWO trends that wouldnt lend themselves to that conclusion? Leading up to this "event" the previous years we were on an INCREASING regeneration trend and the herd as stated was on a reducing trend. Not only that, the "improvements" to the understory etc. are easily seen by anyone whos lived here and hunted very long. It makes no sense.

Wrong yourself!

Those are the real numbers. That is how many actually died from hunters. You may not like the numbers but those are the actual stats. Funny how every stat you like is like a quote from the bible yet every one you dont like is wrong.

And if the reduction started too late, the MSY would then be a downward moving target so that scenario is at least possible

And who determines that capacity and how? Be specific. You've been very specific in your criticisms (distorted but specific) so it follows that you should produce specific measures you'd take to fix what you percieve to be wrong.

Oh and you never answered this question.... Does DCNR who administers land owned by all Pennsylvanians get those DMAPS, red tags etc??? How about the USFS who manages national forest land on behalf of all US citizens?