Take a WMU and do a study on the overall herd in that area and if it's as low as you say you could then argue you are an "independent" source of data.
What would be the goal of that study? How would they obtain breeding data or harvest data when they have no authority to examine roadkills or force hunters to report their kill?
How can you argue your right and they are wrong with nothing to back it up
The strongest case the USP can make will be by using the PGC's own data to show that he plan decreased breeding rates and productivity and failed to double the number of 2.5+ buck or 8 pt. buck. The USP can also show that the forest health in 2F and 2G are still rated poor after over 10 years of herd reduction.
Game agencies and biologists across the country have continually shown their support for the PGC's methods and game management but no one in the USP etc crowd has an answer as to why all those professionals are "wrong".
No state game agency has shown support for the PA plan by implementing it in their state. No state has implemented a plan that reduced their buck harvest by 46%. No state has issued a report in support of the PA deer management plan. None of the experts support ARs as the best method for improving the age structure. No state that has implemented ARs,except PA, has failed to release the data on rack sizes of 2.5+ buck.
BTB is just making up the support for the PGC plan , but he can't back up his claims with facts.