It was you who said that the special regulations units were only able to harvest the ten to eighteen deer per square mile each year, and year after year, because of all the areas hunters couldn’t go.

If that were true then you should go ahead and explain just how many deer they have per square mile on those lands that are 20% developed lands with virtually no deer habitat. Where hunters are harvesting an average of fifteen deer per square mile in units that are ten to twenty percent buildings and roads either they aren’t being protected in very many places or there are an awful lot of deer in those places they can hunt.

Unit 5C only has 965.53 square miles of forested land so that is all that would be considered as deer habitat with escape cover. They have had an average deer harvest of 32.14 deer per forested square mile yet you tell us the only reason they have that many deer is because of all the protected areas where hunters can’t harvest deer. If that is true, and since hunters rarely harvest even a third of the deer population even where they have full access to the land then they must have well over a hundred deer per square mile on those lands where all those deer you are talking about go to avoid being harvested.

What I was pointing out is just have ridicules it is to believe the reason the special regulations unit have so many deer is because they are protected form harvest. If where true then they wouldn’t be harvesting an average of fifteen deer per square mile unless there were literally hundreds of deer per square mile on some of those lands. If you didn’t either have a comprehension problem or were being honest, honorable and objective you would have recognized the point as what it was. The point was and still is that the deer aren’t being protected in those special regulations units they are being hammered by hunters and their populations are still high. In fact snipers in those units are still killing a lot of deer at night because hunters can’t even get enough to control the populations. Add those that the snipers kill and you can see just how hard it is to over harvest a deer population if hunters can kill that many and snipers are killing even more yet there are still more and more deer to harvest each year.

The fact is the deer are proving that hunters can’t over harvest their numbers where there is suitable habitat to sustain high deer numbers. The deer in the big woods units are also proving that if you under harvest them the population is not going to increase and very well might decline instead.

I think if hunters really were smart they would be demanding that deer be managed using the methods that are proven to result in sustainable high populations and harvests instead of the proven failed method of harvesting fewer to get more. Harvesting fewer to get more has been proven not to work yet hunters keep demanding to continue down that proven failure road time after time.

There you are trying to use statewide data to prove something related to a single unit again.

That is simply a flim-flam job at its finest. Only someone with no honor at all would use such a deceptive tactic

ORIGINAL: wayne c

It was you who said that the special regulations units were only able to harvest the ten to eighteen deer per square mile each year, and year after year, because of all the areas hunters couldn’t go.

If that were true then you should go ahead and explain just how many deer they have per square mile on those lands that are 20% developed lands with virtually no deer habitat. Where hunters are harvesting an average of fifteen deer per square mile in units that are ten to twenty percent buildings and roads either they aren’t being protected in very many places or there are an awful lot of deer in those places they can hunt.

Unit 5C only has 965.53 square miles of forested land so that is all that would be considered as deer habitat with escape cover. They have had an average deer harvest of 32.14 deer per forested square mile yet you tell us the only reason they have that many deer is because of all the protected areas where hunters can’t harvest deer. If that is true, and since hunters rarely harvest even a third of the deer population even where they have full access to the land then they must have well over a hundred deer per square mile on those lands where all those deer you are talking about go to avoid being harvested.

What I was pointing out is just have ridicules it is to believe the reason the special regulations unit have so many deer is because they are protected form harvest. If where true then they wouldn’t be harvesting an average of fifteen deer per square mile unless there were literally hundreds of deer per square mile on some of those lands. If you didn’t either have a comprehension problem or were being honest, honorable and objective you would have recognized the point as what it was. The point was and still is that the deer aren’t being protected in those special regulations units they are being hammered by hunters and their populations are still high. In fact snipers in those units are still killing a lot of deer at night because hunters can’t even get enough to control the populations. Add those that the snipers kill and you can see just how hard it is to over harvest a deer population if hunters can kill that many and snipers are killing even more yet there are still more and more deer to harvest each year.

The fact is the deer are proving that hunters can’t over harvest their numbers where there is suitable habitat to sustain high deer numbers. The deer in the big woods units are also proving that if you under harvest them the population is not going to increase and very well might decline instead.

I think if hunters really were smart they would be demanding that deer be managed using the methods that are proven to result in sustainable high populations and harvests instead of the proven failed method of harvesting fewer to get more. Harvesting fewer to get more has been proven not to work yet hunters keep demanding to continue down that proven failure road time after time.

All i can say is WOW. lol.

ORIGINAL: wayne c

There you are trying to use statewide data to prove something related to a single unit again.

That is simply a flim-flam job at its finest. Only someone with no honor at all would use such a deceptive tactic

.

You mean like when you tried use sras to show the deer herd couldnt be overharvested with unlimited tags in other areas of the state? lmao.
 

 
It appears you might be as dishonest and dishonorable as he just proved to be.
 
Can you show anywhere that I used statewide data to represent what is happening in any single unit? I am sure you can’t because it is something I don’t do.
 
I will post the data from various units, and generally in harvests per square mile, so it can validly be compared from one unit to another. There is noting deceptive about that and is a very valid way to show what works well and what doesn’t.
 
As for your comment concerning unlimited antlerless tags and the affect they have, I have just two questions. Can you show where unlimited antlerless tags have had any damaging affect in any unit they have been used? How do you know unlimited antlerless rags wouldn’t result in more hunting opportunities, increasing deer harvests and still higher sustainable populations in other units where it has never been tried?
 
Unlimited antlerless allocations has resulted in both high deer harvests and populations everywhere it has been tried. It seems to me once things are proven to work to the hunter’s advantage smart hunters would want to do more of the same over larger areas to see if it might work there too.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

What I was pointing out is just have ridicules it is to believe the reason the special regulations unit have so many deer is because they are protected form harvest

Unit 5C only has 965.53 square miles of forested land so that is all that would be considered as deer habitat with escape cover

"First of all any buck harvests you posted prior to 2002 can’t honestly be compared to the years after 2002 because antler restrictions prevent a lot of bucks from being legal for harvest."

Then the 2A buck harvest remained stable and even increased right up to the time EHD (a nature deer population reduction instead of hunter harvests) reduced the 2A deer population in 2007.

"One year of low harvest data doesn’t show a trend and it might bounce right back again next year."

"But all indications are that the 2A deer herd is still pretty stable since it maintained the third highest harvest in both bucks and antlerless deer last season, which was the highest in the state behind two of the special regulations units."

"As for the 2C buck harvest data the same thing applies to using the before antler restriction data there too. You just can’t do that and honestly us the comparison data when representing deer populations. It is not an honest representation. "

"But, what I find the most interesting is how you neglected to include the 2010 buck harvest results. Was that because they show that the herd has bounced right back up to where it was before the EHD natural herd reduction? Were you really trying to be dishonest and less than honorable when you failed to provide the 2010 data? Well have no fear I put the 2010 2C buck harvest data in there so all can see how the herd is remaining stable and possibly even on the increase."

They will also form an opinion about why you would have excluded the 2010 data for unit 2C but included it for 2A.

The fact is the deer are proving that hunters can’t over harvest their numbers where there is suitable habitat to sustain high deer numbers.

ORIGINAL: stradic1

The only way to stop this is for every hunter to get involved, join in and get a bigger and better lawsuit going. I would love to see the PGC held accountable for what they have and are doing to the deer herd in this state.  P.S. I could be wrong...but I'm not. 

As long as you and your 3 USP buddies use your own money for your lawyers, keep on filing lawsuits and they'll keep on getting thrown out, until you run out of $.

After three and one-half years of litigation and $60,000 in legal fees retired Judge Barry Feudale unilaterally dismissed USP’s case not once, but twice,

ORIGINAL: eyesandgillz

ORIGINAL: stradic1

The game commission has an agenda...and I am pretty sure it doesn't involve hunters. In fact I think you could make the case they are now an anti-hunting organization. As I see it there is nothing to be gained from arguing with them because no matter what you See, 'KNOW' or say about what they have done and or are doing to our deer herd doesn't matter and you are wrong. The only way to stop this is for every hunter to get involved, join in and get a bigger and better lawsuit going. I would love to see the PGC held accountable for what they have and are doing to the deer herd in this state.  P.S. I could be wrong...but I'm not. 

hahahahaha hahahahahahaha hahahahahahaha (break) hahahahahah hahahahahaha

Now that right there is funny...
As long as you and your 3 USP buddies use your own money for your lawyers, keep on filing lawsuits and they'll keep on getting thrown out, until you run out of $.

PGC, antihunting, come on, you got to be kidding me? They may be a lot of things to many people but antihunting?

Thank god it is time to go turkey hunting and crappie fishing.

I agee that it takes quite a stretch to paint the PGC as anti-hunting. That being written, I wouldn't exactly characterize them as pro-hunter either. I think they are tolerant of hunters at best and ambivalent at worst