"Can someone still provide me the answer as to why "deer management" website always uses the words pertaining to "adding" deer if its about "reduction" because so far an answer that should be very simple was never given."
I'll answer based on what I have understood about wildlife management and its use of hunting: Deer management is about both adding deer and reduction. It depends what one is being added and reduced. The act of hunting itself results in a reduction of existing deer numbers at the time. Depending on what deer are being targeted, per deer management policy, one can reduce or add bucks, or one can reduce or add does, or add/reduce the number of born fawns of one or other gender or both. Both together, reducing and adding, they constitute keeping the numbers overall in check.
"Come now if its about "reduction" we should not be seeing words such as "produce" , "provide", "fawn recruits", "fawn crops", "restoration " (of deer that is), "kill varmints that are a threat to the "recruits", "provide for millions of hunters every year" etc etc etc. I have posted the same question at least 3 times already and everyone been dancing around it. Here I will give it to you again …"
Terms such as "produce" , "provide", "fawn recruits", "fawn crops" and deer "restoration " may show that there has been a reduction or addition of certain deer as a result of either previous deer management plans, and/or a heavy winter or drought, and/or other factors. The terms also can entail reducing and/or adding certain deer for the next or existing hunting strategy. Again, hunting as a management tool is about the continuation of sustainable deer populations that can survive within the limitations of their habitat. This requires reducing numbers, reducing/maintaining/adding/restoring some deer age/gender and reducing/maintaining/adding other deer of particular age/gender.
""Some people disagree with shooting antlerless deer; they reason that protecting them -- thus maintaining a maximum breeding base -- will assure large numbers of antlered bucks because terrific numbers of deer will be born each year and button bucks wouldn't be harvested. "PA. Game Commission "
There's a limit to which resisting shooting female deer can assure a maximum breeding base and larger numbers of antlered bucks due to increased numbers of deer born each year. Deer management programs that don't incorporate commensurate antlerless harvests will promote too much growth within the herd. Long-term resistance to shooting antlerless deer and so long-term application of hunting just antlered bucks and not harvesting other bucks could lead to increased number of deer and decreased amount of forage, which leads to underdeveloped antlers in males and eventually low reproductive rates among females, which all overtime will leads to weaker deer and mass die-offs, and in the end no quality specimen deer to hunt = end of hunting. Would hunters jeopardize their sport, and would game managers advocate less than maintaining wildlife populations at levels consistent with the quality of the overall ecosystems?
""Thus, late fall up to early winter is very important for deer herd managers to impact and influence fawn production, so make sure the plant communities on your property is properly managed deer habitat. " Deer Hunting and Management TREATMENT"
One needs to know why this is being done to influence fawn production. Is fawn production so low? Imo, this could take place in areas where there aren't enough hunters to make hunting a viable management tool and where deer populations are so reduced or unhealthy in terms of quality deer that mother nature is unable to restore numbers and health. Again, one doesn't want too many fawns produced as it can end hunting altogether.
""Historically in all states, including West Virginia, hunting regulation have been restrictive during the period of deer restoration with mainly short buck-only season to protect does and encourage deer population growth." Fundamentals of Deer Management W. VA."
Sounds logical. Restricting deer hunting in order for the deer population to come back. A number of factors may have contributed to the reduction of deer (winter mortality, urban sprawl, posted land, not enough hunters, deer management policies) that now requires deer restoration, or increasing deer by restricting antlerless hunts. Also, see above on limits of antlerless shoots.
"Here is more that I have collected and even the "carrying capacity" chart I found on QDM website talks about "low recruitment" when its "above carrying capacity". Wow, why would they even consider "recruitment" at all if its about deer herd "reduction" because of Deer Vehicle Accident injuries and death and deer overpopulation , "starvation" etc.? "
Again, different factors besides or including hunting policies can result in "above carrying capacity" (a couple of mild winters, not enough hunters, deer management programs). Hunting, as with predation, is always ongoing. Deer populations are dynamic, not static. See comment at the beginning of post in re adding and reducing deer.
"So many left wounded and crippled and all you do is make excuses and lies and your comment are a broken record the same old, same old of "ethically kill" that I hear from other wildlife serial killers."
I never said that wounding and crippling deer and not recovering them (ending their misery) were "ethical" or "ethical kill[s]."
"Here is a story of a boy who hit wounded deer over the head with a tree limb to "end the suffering"
http://www.theleafchronicle.com/article ... with-stick"
Is this standard hunting practice? I rather doubt it. So, I'm not sure what your point is.
" Yup lots of "ethical" hunters out all right. There is something terribly wrong with humans who enjoy killing and call it "sports" so the words "ethic" will never fit into what these sports wildlife killers do."
One can enjoy hunting and make an ethical kill at the same time. Killing animals, respecting animals and enjoying the process of procuring one's own food are not mutually exclusive. This may be difficult to behold for some people who have relinquished their responsibility to others to procure their animal food, choosing to either give up the meat they once indulged in, or eating meat slaughtered on their behalf out of sight, out of mind.