RSB, pgcs herd increase prevention plan is extreme and effective. That herd will not be permitted to increase and I dont care what the habitats like.

Too many built in escape buttons for them to push to keep FEWER deer not more. TO start with on ground zero,using the "forested square mile" deer densities which take ZERO into account some of the VERY BEST deer habitat that exists period. Reverting abandonedfarm and pastureland, end habitat, brambles, other browse covered areas other than woody, and yes at least a portion of farm pasture and cropfield as well. Then they setvague unchallengable conditions that must be met. Usually if one is met another is not. If all are, then they simply structured the cac in a way to make any real widespread increase nearly impossible. Then, if the eco-weiners dont hold up their end, pgc simply raises the initial criteria. Ex. Higher herd health ratings necessary to increase herd. You said you look for that to happen in the future. And while it is FAR from needed as I stated, I wouldnt doubt for that to happen. We were promised herd growth when the habitat can support it (which is a sham in the first place) but what better way to break that promise than to raise herd health goals to prevent that from happening?

Also you mistakenly or deceptively lumped "fair health ratings and "poor" rating together. Pgc doesnt do that, neither should we. According to pgc, FAIR is ACCEPTABLE. And of course GOOD is acceptable....POOR is NOT ACCEPTABLE rating... THerefore the HUGE MAJORITY of our states herd health is fair and good AND acceptable. Just trying to clear up the spreading of inaccuracies and/or mistruths.