ORIGINAL: Cornelius08

RSB, Doug hunts. Lots of people do. He doesnt speak from a hunters perspective. He speaks like an obtuse "naturalist". A few of which even claim to be hunters. Although their goals dont include "love of hunting"...Its simply a way to slaughter the 150 lb white tail tree wrecker rats.[:'(]

"Yes many of the units of the southwest presently do have fair to good habitat."

And ALWAYS has been.

"If is for that reason the habitat there is still pretty good. If you back off of the deer harvests you will see the habitat decline and then you will also so the deer numbers decline even more then they are now."

Nope...Didnt happen with over twice the present overwinter herd, so thats utter nonsense.

"If you protect the deer instead of the habitat then the deer will damage the habitat and then the deer numbers will decline to where the can’t possibly increase unless the habitat improves first."

And thesw herd is FAR from that point.Also, that "point" has its limits. The point of diminished returns.For no reason other than catering to ecofools and their distorted beliefs of presettlement condition "utopias".

"Those areas certainly aren’t exempt from having too many deer, declining habitat and naturally declining deer populations that then follow declining habitat."

No danger of that. Thanks for the concern. You know even far less about down here than you do your own area. And that is saying much.

"As for you comment concerning the report cards and 60% of the hunters not reporting about all I can say if that it seems you don’t have any idea how that works either."

I do know that very conveniently the reporting rateissaid to be dropping along with the dropping harvest. Therefore its very likely the dropping harvest is actually dropping even more than the estimates show thanks to some good ol' pgc "massaging".

"That simply didn’t leave enough bucks in the fall population to get the does bred during the correct time periods. "

Thats a lie and the pgc reproductive data proves it. The timing of the breeding window according to pgc HAS NOT CHANGED. Also, as we discussed, the embryo counts DROPPED as did the percentage of adult does bred STEADILY since this joke reduction has been ongoing. Lets stick to the facts and not make up stuff. We have discussed the pgc data enough for you to have memorized this by now. But apparently you dont want to know the truth. Read the annual reports, you just may learn something.

It's also interesting to note that 2A had one of the lowest breeding rates in the state for fawns in 2006.Less than 8% of the female fawns checked were pregnant.That's certainl;y not a sign of a healthy herd.

ORIGINAL: Cornelius08

Doug, herd and habitat health were both never rated as poor in 2A. I understand you trying to post complete fabrications to counter ANYTHING that I say which is factual in order to "pay me back" for my obvious observations of your "other" agendas. But lets at least keep to the facts.

By the way "Somerset" isnt in 2A. It is MOUNTAINOUS area similar to north woods. NOT the farmland of 2A. You apparently know as much of the area as RSB does![8D]

BTB, doug pulled out ONE YEAR of data speaking of rediculous reproduction issue. Thats absolutely meaningless. One year is effected by everything from weather to previous mast production to other variables as well.

Also note he spoke of 2006, which only would show what we've been saying anyway. The plan is a flop. The breeding rates statewide declined. NOT improved as promised

ORIGINAL: Cornelius08

'It could mean that the BD ratio is still out of whack"

Hardly. The buck to doe ratio is as good here as any state IVeever hunted. In fact, the last few archery seasons, myself and those I hunt with, throughout the wmu actually have seen around 2adultbreeding age buck (1.5+) per doe if not better. To me, that shows a problem in itself.

"or that not enough bucks are making it through the season to breed doe fawns in the secondary rut."

Not likely either with 4 pt ar in place.

"Or it could mean that the doe fawns aren't getting to the body weight necessary to come into estrous in their first season."

Not likely since the habitat has never rated poor, even back with higher herd numbers. I would venture a guess of more "late bred"fawns in the first placedue to the lower percentage of ADULT doe that now exist thanks to hr. Those fawns that were being bred are having late born fawns which never reach the appropriate weight in time to reproduce themselves. Creating a never ending cycle.