Doug,

I agree that eliminating doe season north of 80 is a very broad brush but that statement was made by livbucks. One of the same people that voted that herd reduction has not gone too far. Figure that one out.

Personally, I would like to go back to county size management area and I think each county should be analyzed before making any adjustment to the size of the deer herd but I bettin that most of the counties around me could sustain larger deer herds.

How much progress has been made in stands of pole timber?

None and your point is?Surely you aren't stating that all of 2G is pole timber.There is plenty of it and that's the worst habitat there is.Why add more deer to areas that can only support 5 dpsm?

I made that statement to evoke some thought. Do I think it has gone too far? That depends on the definition of "has" I suppose...LOL. Yes I voted that it has not gone too far, because too far would mean that there are no huntable pops of deer left, and we all know that there indeed are huntable pops. You must go hunt them now for sure. Not every stump in the open woods will yield the same chance at taking a deer anymore. The only reason that was the case years ago is because of pressured deer running willy nilly about the countryside with a thousand rounds per hour coming at them. Those days are over. One of the reasons that pressure existed is because the majority of hunters would congregate in the mountainous areas for two days of bang 'em up hunting. Now the hunters are just as likely to hunt more urban areas as they are mountainous regions. I do not think that HR has gone too far. I do think it has gone far enough. I would not want to continue the decline further than what has transpired.
What would the ramifications be of a one year moratorium on doe hunting North of I-80? Crunch the numbers and see if we have gone too far, or really not far at all in terms of recoverable losses.

"or really not far at all in terms of recoverable losses."

We wouldnt have to RECOVER if it hadnt gone too far in the first place! Btw, recovery isnt an option. We are to be held low for quite some time. Might wanna have a look at some of the econuts estimations on full forest recovery time, including the biodiversity, shrub layer etc... Your kids will be older than you are before more deer are permitted again, minimums ive seen were in the 50 year range.

" Yes I voted that it has not gone too far, because too far would mean that there are no huntable pops of deer left, and we all know that there indeed are huntable pops."

So there have to be absolutely no huntable population before you consider things having gone "too far"?

:nonono2:Im speechless.:nonono2:

Great! That means that you agree then.

........ :eek2:

livbucks,with a closed season I don't think the deer population would increase as much as some think.The predators are doing a pretty good job on them right now.You'd have to get to a higher level of deer numbers before the predators didn't have such an impact.
Obviously this isn't scientific but simply my findings from being in the woods dang near year round.Although the fawn study showed a pretty good number being taken from predators.But depending on the area that number could be higher or lower.
The yotes are doing a pretty good job in my area lately.

I won't argue with that. I said exactly that very thing. Where I am hunting in 2f, there is virtually no hunting pressure, and hasn't been for a few years, but the deer are scarce, and the predators are everywhere. The tag allotment has virtually nothing to do with the DPSM in my area, so how is the GC to blame? You guys say that the tags should be cut drastically, but that doing so will not make a difference, because it has gone too far. Now you see where I am going with my train of thought? Some of the things you say have no logic.
How many years of closed doe season would it take to get back where we were? Could we get there at all?? Ever?

Kinda fits right in with what RSB told us months ago. That it wasn't predominantly hunting that was controlling em anymore, at least in the traditional big woods. That also fits with the small percentage of does and fawns that were killed by hunters compared to other causes of death in the mortality studies.