"Cornelius and Jim,there's only three WMU's that had an increase in allocations from 2003-2007"

Thats not what was said and not what is the problem and you know it. That was some nice par for the course ignoring what was said and answering something that wasnt asked.

".2A which has the highest dd in the entire state "

No it doesnt. The dd isnt as high as the sras. It also SHOULD be as high as any other wmu in the state BECAUSE ITS THE BEST HABITAT in the state being farmland and reverting farmland, far milder climate than the mountainsand the human conflict was rated low. Yet we were dropped by over 50% to the ow herd and CONTINUING despite claims of "stabilization" as Id shown. SO please, tell me, how does your statement address ANY of that? Should we have even fewer deer even though there is zero reason for it and the claim is stabilization? Or is it you just blindly strongly support anythingthing the pgc does or says?

I had heard a time or two.[:'(]that the goals were human conflict, herd health and habitat. I guess those only matter when it equals less deer. Not more. Perhaps youcould show mewhere the goal has changed to being particular deer densities as youseem to believe, which pgc has stated countless times IS NOT the case?