Wrong again. None of the land I hunted after I sold my land was state owned land. Furthermore, I never stated how much land I owned after I MOVED TO A NEW AREA , but I can assure you i wasn' t hunting for free.

the previous DMP had nothing to do with the decline in the hunting quality on the land I owned in lack. Co. the decline was solely related to development of the surrounding properties.

Are you telling me development lowers deer numbers?:s12:

No. I am telling you that development reduces the number of deer that are available to be harvested just like in WMU 2B and 5D.

Plenty of deer to be harvested in 2B. I average 4-6 per year there. You just have to know where to look.

There are so many deer in 2B that it has the highest harvest rate in the state. but the only reason that is true is because limited hunter access has prevented the PGC from reducing the herd. So once again you are just blowing smoke!

And you contributed to poorer hunting in PA for personal financial gain yet scream the loudest about lower deer numbers, all the while profiting for lower deer numbers. Classic.:s5:

How am I blowing smoke when I say that there are plenty of deer to be harvested in 2B and you just agreed with me?

but in just your previous post you said.....






Of course, you contradicted yourself a bit from the previous post.

Which one did you really mean or are you just blowing smoke?

How do you know I profited from selling that land? How do you know that selling that land lowered the deer numbers?

We can play word games until the cows come how, but it is a fact that VF and the surrounding development produced a lot of deer ,but only a very small percentage are available to be harvested by hunters. The development in 2B and 5C also results in higher DD than on SGL, but a much smaller percentage of the deer in 2B and 5C are available to be harvested than on SGLs or SFL.

Unless you gave he land away, and I wouldn't put it by you to say that you did, then you profited by selling it.

Am I noticing a pattern, it seems that where ever you hunt the deer are few and almost unobtainable.:s12:

BTB, I think you have to take his state,ment in it's proper context. In all fairness to BB, you made it sound as if he advocates DD of 200 dpsm, which is not and has not ever been the case. We are all very aware of the stress and damage to habitat that would occur and is occurring at VF at those levels. What he was pointing out, is that even this pocket of the worst habitat you'll probbaly find...that has been overbrowsed so severely, is still supporting those insane deer densities, even allowing the herd to increase after decades. What this study does, is steals any credibility in the PGC statement that the habitat is / was controlling the herd in NC PA, or anywhere for that matter....their own data shows that breeding rates and recruitment never suffered even during our years of highest DD. He isn't advocating DD of 200 dpsm.....he is showing the obvious truth that our habitat can support far more deer than the single digits that we have been dealt. I also think it is ironic that the animal rights groups are opposed to the hunt. In my experience, they are usually hand in hand with the eco- lobbyists that have been pushing HR since its inception, setting aside temporarily their goal to stop sport hunting, in order to pursue a more attainable one of biodiversity and low enough deer numbers to possibly maintain numbers through alternate means (contraceptives.) One question we should all be asking ourselves though, is why the wildlife experts at VF, even with such extensive habitat damage, are still setting their stabilization goals WAY,WAY higher than any WMU in PA under our deer management plan. That's right. The most overbrowsed piece of land in the state is still going to be allowed to support more deer than your local SF or SGL hunting spots. WHY?