Wrong again. every question you've asked has been answered logically but you simply dismiss the answers.
Wrong again, I used PGC data to show the sample size and location of does sampled did not shift as RSB claimed, which means his answer regarding the 5% decrease in breeding rates were flawed. PGC data shows regeneration in 2F is worse than in 2G , yet the PGC is managing 2F at much higher DDs so, RSB explanation was wrong. Obviously the rack sizes . Obviously the average age and the rack sizes of buck harvested increased ,but that does not mean the average rack size of all 2.5+ buck increased.
You dismiss the overwhelming evidence of overbrowsing that took place throughout the state before HR and ignore the fact that the regeneration taking place was often restricted to less desirable and less beneficial species.
I never said over browsing was not a problem and you know it, but you can't win a debate unless you mis-represent what i said. What I have said consistently is our herd is being managed based on the regeneration of commercially valuable trees and not on the carrying capacity of the habitat.
I think RSB hit it dead on when he said you're either afraid of what a truly independent audit will bring or know what it will bring and therefore want to promote an auditor that you can later try to discredit when the inevitable results come.
I am not promoting anyone to do the audit and I don't know enough about Evlands association with the PGC to know if he has a similar bias. In fact, I am not sure there is any biologist that has experience in deer management could do an unbiased audit since they would all agree with the basic principle that the herd should be managed in balance with the habitat. But then, the question is which RDD do they believe is the proper RDD.