OK, so you want basically the same things I want regarding our deer herd. This is a good start......
That said, do you have a better plan than the PGC has implemented?
"I realize that the current plan is too broad in scope, and that we have gone too far in reducing numbers in many area`s.......
How can ANY plan work in this state with the sheer volume of hunters, and the majority mindset of said hunters?
A question.........why would the PGC want to carry less than is easily sustainable in regardess to the deer herd?
Less deer equals less hunters equals less money? "
Good question. Why dont you ask them. Its undeniable that currently that is exactly whats happening since the data and numbers show it clearly. Only things I can figure are the few who do want fewer deer yet, are simply getting their ways. Audubon/ecoextremists wants far fewer than most deem necessary as does the timber industry. These people would have been addressed to some extent with ANY reduction we would have implemented. I think that exactly who is on the board of commissioners currently has MUCH to do with the mindset and the direction we are headed. Also, less deer equal less money. Some on the board see that as a good thing short term. Some are STRONGLY in favor of alternate funding. What better way to acheive that than to make it the only option? Not saying I have all the answers, just throwing out some possibilities and there are more. Others paying the bills limits even further hunters "say" in wildlife management and more say to eco-extremists, timber etc.
"The old wives tale about auto insurance companies simply does not wash?"
Wether they play any role or not, From my perspective, Id say insurance companies are the least of our worries. I know some of the "ties" that some of the commissioners have, especially those who consistently support less and less deer and everything it takes to get that,and understand full well how theyare seeing these issues and why....and it aint the insurance companies.
"Although I would be willing to entertain the notion that the PGC is being stubborn at this juncture, what possible motive would they have for carrying well under the capacity in whitetails?"
Well, many possibilities of motives exist. Wether you may be willing toentertain them or not, doesnt dismiss the fact there are many possibilities. Its not as important why as it is to address the problems. I just care what is occurring and what our future holds.
Do I have better ideas? Absolutely. Just as a start and very significant in all regards would be smaller wmus. In my opinion, not even debatable. Its the way to manage if all things are to be considered and not just kill the deer widescale... 2nd. Put the deer where the deer can be. Thats absolutely not being done. I believe it has everything to do with whose making the decisions and whyand very little with the "measuring" techniques they are supposed to be following, but seem to only follow when it equates to fewer deer. If it does not, they ignore it, and strive for fewer anyway.
I also dont look highly upon the fact we had an eco-extremist pgc insider placed on the 2a CAC.Person wasnt from 2A, didnt own land in 2A and works with pgc. Also is seeking seat on the board. She voted FOR REDUCTION despite the huge majority of people she surveyed saying they wanted stabilization or increase and a tiny fraction only, wanted reduction. She voted reduction. Despite the fact pgc has been supposedly "stabilizing" the herd, and the fact we already had 50%+ ow herd reduction to this point.
The cacs are a huge farce. Makes any reasonable herd increase nearly impossible. Just generally speaking to make the point, If 6 people in the entire county want less deer, they can effectively prevent increase for the next 15 years as long as 2 of them go every five years and say NO to increase. Doesnt matter if every single person in the county wants more. Its just too bad... Then, if ever that huge obstacle were overcome by some miracle, pgc can just point to any vague unchallengable statitistic in regards to habitat they like, and simply say no!Herd should be scientifically evaluated first, then MAJORITY RULE as long as the desired goal isnt unacceptable. Its not majority rule. Its "If anyone wants less deer at all for any reason no matter how few" they rule.
Only "increases" that will ever be seen are on very few areas of the state that have gone past rock bottom. And thats a real shame.