"Show us where that's a fact.If you claim they have to rubber stamp the candidate before they get approved,you're also saying that they have final say.Once again,show us some proof. "

You dont need proof Doug. You know it to be fact every bit as much as I do. How do I know this? Because you took part in this exact same discussion on several message boards already, including the one you got booted from. You want the info, apparently you are quite cozy with dcnr employees....Ask Diberdanis.

"Byron Shissler was the one at DCNR who was asking for these extreme messures.I've spokenwith Byron personally and can tell you that he was dead serious about those requests."

They simply gave suggestions which is a reasonable part of filing their proposal to pgc. Fact remains, they wanted ONE THING and that was FAR FEWER DEER, and it didnt matter if their general suggestions--each and every single one-- were implemented or not. They got their wish.

"You talk about the excessive reduction on state forest land.How many different state forests have you hunted on?I hunt on them all the time."

SF land? a few times a year. Not often. Usually just predator hunting...Once in awhile bear. Deer, rarely through the years...

"I see excessively poor habitat accross much of them,especially those with poor deer numbers.There are areas with,food cover and better habitat.I routinely hunt,see and harvest deer in these areas with very little effort. "


Then on the other end of the spectrum, some of the very best habitat in the state, public and open to anyone private have far fewer deer than they could or should have as shown BY THE VERY SCIENCE THIS "PLAN" WAS SUPPOSED TO UTILIZE! Thats the rediculous blanket effect of our reduction.In WMUS wheresome was needed, we got gross overkill. Where none was needed...didnt matter...we got it anyway.