Actually I did but since you didnt understand, I'll rephrase it. It's always been a fact that with 900000 hunters, everyone cant have "success" the way you define it. Based on what you insist is "success" the deer herd would be wiped out if the majority of hunters were "successful"


You answered your own question here. Doug has done more to study the real situation or the deer and their habitat in his WMU than probably 99% of all hunters there. Doug is doing the right thing. I'm pretty darn comfortable saying that I highly doubt that Doug would shoot the last few deer if he knew or thought thats all were in the area. He probably wouldnt be hunting those type of places. I cant say the same for several folks here who've admitted to shooting one or multiple deer even while believing there are too few.

No you did not answer my question , you attempted to dodge it as usual. Once again, how many additional buck and doe could hunters have harvested in 2008 ,without reducing the herd and future harvests? The answer is easy if you are willing to face the cold hard realities of HR.

Until you can recognize the cold reality that hunters are still harvesting deer because they work for it and not because they are "lucky" or hunt "where it's like a fenced preserve" , you wont be able to accept the answer for what it is.

Let me see if i hear what you are saying-- We cant give everyone a deer, so lets just be happy with unnecessarily low deer densities no matter how low they are or may go?

At what point are enough people satisfied? By that logic, its completely unnecessary for ANYONE to be. I personally do not find that acceptable. I think when your approval rating is as low as it currently is at pgc, most can see its time for change.

Preventing fee increases, alt wearing the infamous vest, and everything else extreme that has happened only happened because the plan itself was so extreme. And the plan itself was so extreme because the people who put it into place and keep it going are so extreme. Cant have audubon society & other exteme enviro's dictating deer management it just doesnt work.

Please if you quote someone make sure the quote contains the Author that said it.

Is real hard to follow exactly who said what.

JW

That is simply another silly attempt to avoid answering my question. I know for a fact that I and many others harvested a buck in 2009. I know that 122 K hunters harvested a buck in 2008 along with 213K antlerless. That has nothing to do with the fact that hunters are seeing approx. 600K fewer deer than in 2001 and are harvesting around 165 K fewer deer than in 2000.

So please tell us how many additional deer hunters could have harvested if they had hunted harder in 2008?

Is that necessary if the quote is from the previous post? If it is I will just use the quote feature and post the entire previous post.

Hey just asking as I keep going back trying to understand.

JW

As Lanse so aptly pointed out, an awful lot of those who are so heatedly criticizing the states DMP also are reporting good results and often multiple harvests. Seems to me people got spoiled by the easy days of the recent past when we had far too many deer. The posts here clearly show that folks are still harvesting deer, often more than one. Yet they continue to complain that we're taking too many. It just doesnt add up

Balancing the herd with the habitat is not being extreme. Allowing the forest in the Northern tier to finally regenerate is not extreme.