RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
Interesting Bluebird.
Rsb attempt at discredit:
"Perhaps you need to slow down on your reading of the reports because you obviously miss a lot or have some serious comprehension problems. "
Not hardly.
Though you say the units are all either good or fair you as mistaken. There are two units that have a POOR herd health rating in that report, you linked, plus another two classified as UNCERTAIN (do to low sample size) that have reproductive data in the poor category.
"There are only two units (4B and 4E) that have both good herd and forest health which means that only 7.3% of the state is in category that would put it as someplace practical for a possible deer herd increase provided the public wanted more deer. The other 92.7% of the state has either poor or marginal herd and/or forest health."
NIce play on words and change of subject. I stated herd health and said nothing of regeneration. Not that it is even poor mind you across most of the state. YOu also state the majority of herd health as "marginal or poor". Pgc disagrees. You know that, you just like to play on words. The rating is FAIR and GOOD for the HUGE majority of the state.
"We would be absolutely STUPID not to listen to what they tell us."
We would be complete idiots to believe it without proof, yet withmuch to the contrary just because a few exreme viewed pgc employees say so with no proof.I dont mean that as a "slam", I do see your views as not the norm, even by pgcs standards.