Muzzyman, only an idiot would disagree with the "basics" of the plan. That is, keeping deer herd within habitat carry capacity and human tolerances etc. These things are only common sense.

Fact is, these things have been far far over-shot. The herd was reduced FAR more than necessary in many areas, and articles such as the one you post say nothing to dispell that concern. Articles with basic "flowery" statements coming straight from Pgc can only be EXPECTED! (LOL)[:'(]

Do you think the attention would be placed on the rediculous 40+ year low buck harvest? The numbers of hunters dropping at over twice the national average? The reproduction rates that didnt increase as predicted, but according to pgc annual reports ACTUALLY DROPPED and are lower for last several years than they were previously? The fact some of the best areas of the state habitatwise had been reduced by over 50% even though habitat wasnt an issue and human conflict was rated as low?? These writers arent gonna study in depth the data and decipher the details when they can be quite happy throwing together, as quickly as possiblenext monthsarticle, by doing an over the phone interview with pgc personell in about 20 minutes.

Sorry my friend. Its gonna take alot more than one highly biased straight from the game commission article to make all well In Pa. I do like the magazine. I also dont blame them for believing they can take things from Pgc at face value. They have no other source for information, and dont look "in depth" at the data in annual reports etc, nor do they know the intracies of our situation and exactly why we are in it to begin with.