ORIGINAL: Screamin Steel
AND...by altering the criteria by which they have judged forest health and regeneration for the last six years, they have stet the stage for continued herd reduction throughout much of the state. When a WMU that had been reduced, and then given a status of fair or good regeneration has suddenly been declared poor, it only stands to reason what we can expect for future antlerless allocations. Reminds me of a company that sets performance incentive standards, and then raises themduring the last quarterof the fiscal year to avoid paying out. It's as crooked as it is scandalous. Clearly, an honest and comprehensive audit would find fault with such a practice.
So are you are then saying that the professional researchers and managers should just ignore all of the scientific evidence the deer and their food supply provide for each unit?
I would think anyone interested in the best possible future for the deer or the hunter would certainly want the professionals using the most up to date and best possible data available when managing the resources instead of saying it should be ignored because we don‘t like what it shows.
That ignore the scientific facts sounds like a bad idea to me, based on past experience. In fact, that ignoring what the deer and habitat say is what has lead us to so many areas of the state having lower deer numbers now then they likely would have had we listened to the scientific data of the past instead of ignoring it to appease hunters and politicians.
R.S. Bodenhorn