Fair enough, germain. We must agree to disagree. You cite three fenced enclosures where you say the growth outside the fence is the same as that inside, and state that the reason no growth occurs outside most of the enclosures is that there is a closed canopy and that the inside is limed. From what I have read elsewhere, this doesn't ring true. The enclosures are in various areas where canopies are closed or open, but the one unifying factor in the VAST MAJORITY of them is that the growth inside is lush and that outside is not. In the enclosures I have personally seen, the lack of growth outside is due to overbrowsing. So in this case, I think your statement is biased.

It isn't wrong for a hunter to question the future of his sport, germain. Isn't that what I am doing? I also question the organizations running the state, particularly the legislature. I choose to believe what is scientifically accurate, not necessarily what I want to believe. This doesn't mean that I accept such things as the impact of deer on the ecosystem without question. It does means that when I read the Audubon report I found things that concerned me about the overall environment. I guess you will just have to dismiss me as an Audubon supporter, or perhaps as being in league with the DCNR. The difference between you and me is that I care more about the health of the entire ecosystem than just for how many deer can be supported by the forest without regard to any other species that might be harmed by their overpopulation. You need to open your mind to the idea that perhaps your conspiracy theory might be all wet. It is, IMO.

You didn't need to reread your post, germain. The use of the term, "blame commission" is mine, not yours. It comes from a series of articles written in the old Pennsylvania Sportsman magazine by a writer by the pseudonym of J. W. Gramp. While these articles were written many years ago, they highlighted a feature of the thinking of many hunters, that the Pa. Game Commission was at fault for nearly everything. If we could just substitute the DCNR and perhaps the Audubon Society for the blame commission, perhaps it would make more sense to you. If you took this personally, I apologize. I didn't intend it to be directed exclusively toward you, but to those who oppose the use of science in deer management. Those folks prefer, as you seem to prefer, deer management to the end of supplying enough deer for them to have an "enjoyable and rewarding" hunt. That is not the purpose of game management. Management of game populations should always be aimed at limiting their numbers to what the environment can support in a sustained manner without damage to the overall ecosystem. Yes, flowers and birds matter to me, germain. That they don't seem to matter to you is evidence of your myopic thinking.