"But, since you frequently bring up Greene County I looked up the data for Greene County and unit 2A, where Greene County is located, and I simply don’t see one thing about the harvests in Greene County or unit 2A that indicate any major reduction in the deer population."

Then you better look again. The data shows it clearly. Also, anyone living here can tell you, and I mean ANYONE that the highest years by far were the 90's. When you could drive down the road in a several mile area and see a hundred deer on a regular basis. Now you can drive the entire length of the county and see 10 or 12. Did we have too many deer then? Probably. The numbers were a bit extreme. Now? Ha ha ha. Hardly, but by stating this obvious fact, I still never inferred "there are no deer".

"Over the past five years unit 2A has had the second highest antler less deer harvests per square mile in the entire state and the highest buck harvests per square mile in the state."

1.Thats because we we still reducing the herd.
2. Those antlerless harvests of the reduction years werewhat has led us to a smaller herd.

AlsoYou like toadd in those years like 5 years ago 4, etc. when the herd was larger, and the harvests werent sustainable long term either. That skews the data to use that "convenient bundled together" collection of yearsand you know it. When you take that into account along with usbeing the best type habitat in the state, and the fact Most of the state has been reduced to extreme unnecessary levels, your statement of where the wmu places harvestwisedoesnt amount to much in the way of what is or isnt appropriate for the area. One would onlyEXPECT one of the best areas of the state would be within top 5 in harvests![8D] If not, then we'd have a SERIOUS problem all the way around.

"That certainly doesn’t support all of or any of the yammering around being done about poor hunting or low deer numbers in Greene County."

Numbers are decent. Could be higher, especially when using pgc guidlines on acceptable herd density (of course we all know they only apply when the equal LESS deer, not more).

Wehad someareas wiped out by ehd, which havent come back even close to previously yet, no do I expect they will for at least another year or two, as long as doe tags dont increase.

Aside from that, no reason in the worldforcontinued reduction and rediculousallocation when herd is claimed to be in the stabilization mode... Yet, once again, the harvest goals and the allocation is ABOVE what they were when theherd was being reduced.

Those are my problems with this management plan in this area. Please note: No yammering involved,no comment of "poor" hunting, or anything else. Simply the direction we are clearly taking stinks, we are being lied to, and we are already below what COULD and Should be had. Thats all. Nothing more nothing less.

"But, if the deer management were left topeople like you the habitat and deer numbers there would soon be nearly as bad as it is in parts of the northern tier."

Would never happen. Absoluteimpossibility as long as herd numbers did not exceed previoushigh levels. To insure this, reasonable reductions of 10-15%and stabilization at that point would have provided theperfectbalance. Would have been within cc, and would provide the most responsible level, including a better sustained buckharvest.

With our habitat type and conditions compared to the northern tier, we would have far far too many deer by anyones standards and past human conflict acceptability before ever coming close to destroying the habitat.

This is far from simply a 2A problem. In fact there are far worse off places in the state if speaking of huntable deer numbers and not just how fewer deer we have than the habitat can responsibly hold.

This is a statewide problem. Unnecessary blanket reduction. We all know why, and it has little to do with "herd health" or the sport of hunting. And EVERYTHING to do with catering to ecoweineys and interests like timber etc.

All one need do is google terms like "Pa deer management audubon" and see howinstrumental audubon has been in this whole sham....Then see how extremely exact the deer plan mirrors their suggestions.

Who has input into the use of gamelands usage? Audubon.
Who paid for the initial, start of it all, deer study?Audubon.
Who has made gamelands and sf designated as not one, not 2, not 12, but 83 special bird areas, which entail management strategies that might not be conducive to game management, even though hunters bought the game lands? Audubon
Who has had the inside track and been part of every decision making process in regards to our deer plan? Audubon.
Who is Roxy Palone and a couple other commissioners favorite conservation organization... Audubon.
Who wants even lower deer numbers than most timbermen and farmers? Audubon.
Who is pgcs favorite "hunters" organization to ask when they want the answer they want to hear so they can have a showing of manufactured support among hunters even though many arent even hunters? PFSC. Which now added the ending ...AND CONSERVATIONISTS. Whichis basicallynonhunting extreme conservationists.. Which includes audubon.

Im just wondering if once Pallone and schliedens terms expire very soon, if we will get lucky and get "pro-hunting" representation. I doubt that it would be permitted, considering who has majority control of the governors advisory council these days, as well as a few of the Senators who are like minded. Would be nice to have at least some say for a change, like being heard when demandingresponsible deer management, which IS possible while still considering the well being and future of oursport and management toolwhich ishunting itself. In a state with so deeply engrained a passion for huntingcompared to the rest of the nation, to have our numbers dropping at over twice the national average because of an ecoextreme agenda is completely unacceptable.