RSB says: "Apparently you don’t understand that with the present deer management objectives and program all habitat available to the deer is taken into consideration."

No itis not. Far from it. And you either dont understand my position or intentionally try to distort it.Pgc is quite decietful when they post deer density figures on their annual reports etc. When they say for example 20 dpfsm, that number is LESS than that, because they do not consider all the available habitat, especially in broken habitat and farm country.ITs very deceptive in thatItbloats the figure, and thats the intent. When all habitat were considered, the more realistic actual numbers are then seen LOWER, in some cases significantly so.

Despite your attempts to discredit...I know all about the herd health, as you could easily tell by my posts stating pgcs data which shows that there isnt a problem and in most areas never was. When breeding rates overall havent gone up but declined, shows there never was.


"Since the reproductive rate data only counts the number of fawns that dead doe was carrying at the time she died it doesn’t really tell us if those fawns were going to be born at the required weight to have survived after they were born."

Pgc uses the data of embryocounts etc. as herd health indicators. Once again, obviously due tosome apparent antideeragenda, even more extreme than pgc's own, you dont agree with them, and Im surprised you claim to agree with their deer program when you seldom if ever agree with them on ANYTHING. I agree with most basic principals, yet dont support the unwarranted slaughter that goes above and beyondsimply to cater tooutside interests. I also agree that generally speaking the herd health indicators they use are acceptable. I doagree with pgc, thatin an unhealthy herd, less embryos would be carried in the first place, than is found to currently be the case.

"You also seem to place a lot more credence to the word “acceptable” deer herd health then I do."

Thats because Im well awarePgc isVERY conservative in their data collection and analysiswhen consideringthe variablesthat could be seen as supporting more deer to exist. (LOL)

"What is acceptable to man might very well not be so acceptable to the deer this year should we have a bad winter with deep prolonged periods of snow cover."

Acceptable is acceptable.Man, In this case PGC has determined what they deem acceptable and not acceptable towards those deer. Not my term and not my parameters. Pgcrates "fair" as acceptable. That doesnt mean that rating will never improve. Itjust means we will wait and see, not take extreme measures.

"All that acceptable means is that the adult does were within a mid range level of reproductive rates."

And thats fine and dandy. we didnt need to rape the herd by over 50% in some areas when that was the case all along based on those herd health criteria.

"What those reproductive rates don’t tell you though is if those fawns are at the correct birth weight to survive after they are born. If they die a day or two after they are born, as often happens in marginal habitat, then having that “acceptable” rating didn’t help the deer population at all. "

Thats your theory and nothing more. To insinuate that on average habitat and herd health this would be a problem is absurd. IF you were speaking solely of the worst of the worst, Id venture a grudging maybe. But then these days, according to pgc data that isnt the case much of anywhere. In many places it never was. Again, you are only emphasizing your problems with pgcs deer management. Your concerns would be better voiced to Rosenberry, though I dont think he will be any more concerned with this doom and gloom theory than I.

"It is also concerning that the deer that get sampled are the ones living in the best habitat areas along the roads running through the farmlands and areas where hunters have always had the best access for keeping the deer numbers within the closest balance to the existing habitat. The deer that live far back in the remote areas, that never get their reproductive data sampled, might tell a very different story about just how acceptable their health and reproductive rates are."

Again...another problem YOU have withPGCS deer plan. Sounds to me like you should join USP. Isnt that why they are suing the commission?Insufficient reproductive dataetc. to support the program?Honestly seemsto melike you agree with them 100%, only the end product you disagree on. You wanna see fewer deer they want more. But you both agree on theunacceptable management of the deer herd and techniques being utilized. I actually dont have that problem with them so much as a problem with overkill that isnt supported by the data, and basically going above and beyond to cater to people like audubon etc.

"It might very well be that a high percentage of the deer living in the unit where the habitat isn’t as good wouldn’t agree with the acceptable rating if don’t find the habitat as acceptable as you do."

They have no problems with it anywhere in the wmu where Im from. Period. Never a poor rating. Fair, but Id put it with the best in the state. Apparently pgc did as well when they made it a 4 point area instead of 3. Herd was very healthy previously, and habitat just peachy. Now that we've since been sniped down by over 50-60% owdd, Id say we have as much toworry about deer herd health here now, as does the manon the moon....We are now supposed to be in stabilization mode...Yet the obscene allocation here, more than issued to reduce previouslytells another tale.