"No they haven't.They've rated it as satisfactory,not excellent as you a claim.That's also after the herd has been reduced by more than 50% as you claim."

And it was not rated as "poor" prior to that either.

"Wow are you now stating that the PGC is not trying top reduce the herd in 2A or are you changing your position to suit your lame argumenet? "

My position has been the exact same and never changed and you know it. You are just taking offense at your "extremism" being pointed out blantantly. As you well know, pgcs STATED GOAL is stabilization... IVe also said that it is a LIE. It doesnt take 55000 and 60,000 antlerless allocation to "stabilize" a smaller herd when previously only 45k was needed to reduce a larger herd approx 7% according to pgc. According to pgcs "science" and data more reduction even according to them is not needed....But it is occurring anyway due to rediculously inappropriate allocation.


"2G has the worst habitat in the state do to decades of having too many deer.Interestingly,the 3.5 year old does were slightly more productive that the 3.5 year old does in 2A "

I agree. And that alone show that pgc wants FAR fewer deer in 2G than there could be and should be.

BTW, I wouldnt put too much stock in addressing herd health on fawn data and 38 total fawns for the ENTIRE HUGE UNIT.... Especially when such a sample size would have a difference of approx SIX fawns difference between 8% bred and 30% deemed as "good". With a total of 38 fawns, only 6 more of those had to be pregnant.... SIX....(LOL)

How about some of the other wmus that didnt even have 30... Some only had SIX to start with in the first place!!! some 15.....19 etc. Thats a joke! (LOL) If Im not mistaken, isnt that why pgc is being sued?

"It looks like the more recentincrease in the deer population was starting to take it's toll on both the habitat and the health of the herd."

We still have far fewer deer than previously. The habitat data was also collected from 2001 to 2004. The herd has been reduced even furthersince 2004, it had to of. Alsoif the data were collected earlier in that range, then the herd would have been higher yet, andfar from being cut in half compared to the late nineties. The habitat health hasnt changed. Always been good in sw pa.