I can't answer your first questions completely.I can say that I know for a fact that some areas of the Quehanna wild area had deer densities as low as 2 dpsm in some of the most rugged and remote areas.Hunters didn't reduce the deer in these areas,the poor state of the habitat did.Those old old forests have terriblehabitat and therefore few deer.I wouldn'timagine dmap would even be necessary.

All that matters is that they state forests have thousands of more tags plus another week to fill them.Obviously those lands are being managed for less deer than the rest of the state.How can you even argue about that?

I never dodged any question.The answer is simple.We had to many deer for too long and the habitat sudffered as a result.Other areas were not at that point because they didn't have those high deer densities for as long but they were on their way down the same path.

The sins of our pastare very obvious accross the traditional range of the state were we used to have the highest deer densities.You should really come out and see it some time.

You may think the deer denities are way too low but not everyone feels that way.I know alot of hunters that hunt 2G(WHERE WE HAVE THE LOWEST DD IN THE STATE)that are completely satisfied with theoverall deer hunting experience.None of the guys I hunt with would ever want to go back to the way it used to be.If my deer hunting is considered poor,the rest of the state has to be much better.