First, I wont do what you did and answer your question with a question.

I am inclined to lean toward less deer in the more traditional deer ranges (NW, NC) but about the same in the Southwest. I qualify that by saying it's based purely on personal experiences and limited anecdotal evidence.
I, like most of us, anxiously await this years harvest figures.

Now, answer my question if you will. You implied that a 300k reduction in doe tags will not significantly slow the HR rate. I contend you have nothing to back that up other than your best guess.

That is what I said and i stand by it. If you would have studied the history of the herd and the harvests as I have, you would realize that the harvests have been reducing the herd since 2000. Even the PGC stated that the PS herd was reduced from 1.5K in 2000 ,to 1.37K in 2001 to 1.3 K in 2002. The anterless harvest in 2001 was 283K and it increased to 352 K in 2002 and 323K in 2003. Those anterless harvests have reduced our OW herd to below the 777K OWD we had in 1997 ,when 677 K anterless tags produced an anterless harvest of 220K ,in just 3 days, that kept the herd stable . Since then . the anterless season has been increased by 400%,which increases the efficiency of the anterless tags issued. Therefore a reduction of 300K tags would still produce a harvest that exceeds recruitment.

I think it plays out like this, lots of people will bitch about not seeing enough deer, but when Doe tags go "on sale", they will all get bought, like usual.

I myself will apply for a doe tag, and not hesitate for an instant about shooting 1 early in archery, then be selective about my buck.

1st I love to hunt, 2nd I love venison-yum yum

True but not anywhere near to the extent you imply. The last year we had a 3 day season (2000) 28% of doe licenses became kills. In 2003 35% of doe tags were filled.

Oh and back in 1997 with a 3 day doe season, according to the numbers, in your last post Pa 32% of doe licenses resulted kill.

So the rate of doe killed has not changed nearly as much as you would have us beleive even with a 400% increase in the number of days that doe can be hunted

At a 35% kill rate 300k less licenses should mean somewhere around 105k less doe killed.

Wrong wrong ,triple wrong.

In 2001 with only 773K. , 227 K less anterless tags than in 2004 , hunters still harvested 283K anterless, which was 63K more than the 220 K anterless deer that kept the herd stable in 1997.

The issuance of 450 K bonus tags makes your analysis invalid because the success rate for bonus tags is lower than for first round anterless tags.

proof???????

All figures are calculated, they have doubled the harvest figures since 1985.

The proof is ,nobody fills a bonus tag before they fill there first tag.

You apparently have any real documentation so since were going on hunches, it would be my hunch that the hunters who apply for bonus tags are more avid hunters and are more likely to fill that second tag than the average one day wonder is to fill his first. We've all heard that a small percentage of the hunters harvest a large percentage of the deer.There's also the buy and burn club who buy that first tag and never use it

Lost Horn
You are correct that the figures have doubled but you also need to remember that way back then they only published the reported kill (meaning report cards received) they have since gone to a calculated number based on the estimated reporting rate. this is one of the reasons most of on either side of AR/HR are all screaming for more meaningful reporting.