ORIGINAL: SilverKype

Is it not just harvest that is contributing to kill numbers. Predators have increased too. If you're going to use the dpsm data, please use the 92% of collared deer data as well.

Places that have the habitat have the animals.. been that way forever and it always will be. The level of acceptance is what varies.

However, without accurate overwinter deer numbers, you can't claim that we aren't./quote]

Wrong again! The fact that the herd and harvests are not increasing prove that we are harvesting a lot more than 8% of the adult doe in 2G. The PGC even stated that the study did not accurately reflect harvest rates for adult doe in 2G so there is no reason to use the results from that study.

The downward trend in hunter participation in the north woods and the deer herd's inability to recover should offer insight. You skipped the 92% data that your opinion doesn't agree with. If you gonna use some pgc data, use it all. I know, i know, the pgc collars doe far away from roads. LOL !

There is no evidence that the herd is unable to recover and there historical data to support that claim. The herd in the NC counties peaked at 40 DPSM in the late 70's and dropped to around 20 DPSM in the early 80's and increased to over 25 DPSM by the late 80's before bonus tags were implemented. Furthermore, DCNR is crying and moaning that the reduced allocations and shorter seasons will allow the herd to increase and wipe out any gains in regeneration.

BTW all the studies show that the MSY carrying capacity of over browsed northern hardwoods is 40 DPSM , so it should be obvious to any educated ,rational individual that the habitat is not limiting the herd in 2G.

ORIGINAL: S-10

If the area held sufficient numbers of deer to keep hunters happy and hunting there prior to 2001 with the habitat that was there how can the habitat be blamed for low numbers of deer now? It just isn't logical for them to claim that. What is more logical is what I have been preaching since I started on this site-----Once you get the deer numbers somewhere below 10 dpsm predators and natural mortality will keep the herd in check WITHOUT hunters. That is happening out west with the deer, sheep, and elk, as a result of wolf introduction and I have always said and believed it has always been the plan for the states forests and large timber holdings. It's what you can expect when you let the enviromentalists run things.

ORIGINAL: deerfly

Habitat is not blamed for low numbers now. We've established HR is, haven't we. Bad habitat does not allow the numbers to recover.

You did a fine job of contradicting yourself. In the first sentence you claimed that the habitat is not the reason for the low deer numbers we have now and then you say the habitat is preventing the herd from increasing ,which means it is responsible for the low deer numbers we have today ,at least according to you. But, the fact is the low deer numbers have nothing to do with the habitat. the habitat in 2G in 2009 produced a sustainable harvest of 9,400 deer or 2.28 DPSM. If those deer had not been harvested the OWDD would have increased by 2.8 DPSM and fawn recruitment the following year would have increased proportionately. Therefore, it is obvious that the harvests are preventing the herd from increasing, not the habitat as you and RSB claim.

Public land or not, a one week doe season and minimal tags should allowthe herd to increase according to the theory that hunter pressure is the issue

ORIGINAL: deerfly

Public land or not, a one week doe season and minimal tags should allowthe herd to increase according to the theory that hunter pressure is the issue

What do you know that the PGC biologists don't know? For the past 4 years the PGC has stated that the antlerless allocations were designed to keep the herd stable. That means that the total harvest would equal recruitment. And, if you look at the harvest stats for 2G you will see that the harvests either kept the herd stable or reduced it even more.