"The facts and history of the deer in both forestland and highly mixed farmland or residential areas all clearly do show that high deer populations can’t be sustained long term without a healthy forest."

And despite pgcs new ridiculous claims,reasonable numbers of deer shouldnt be making forests "unhealthy" in those habitat types in the first place. Many states have those type wmus density goals setin the 30' and often upwards of 40 dpsm. Except for us in Pa withour "science". [:'(]LOL.

"During the summer months whether forest habitat is high or low quality many deer can be sustained by eating grass from lawns and hay from farm fields with little complaint from the farmer or lawn owner. But, high deer numbers will also eat a lot of farm crops and neighborhood gardens during the summer and that starts the deer/human conflict problems that lead to the over whelming none hunter/public demands for fewer deer. Thus both more crop damage kills, red tags and increased antler less allocations and hunter harvests in the future."

Has nothing to do with anything if the cac has voted and the human conflict ispercieved aslow. If a few farmers still need more deer killed and lower deer density than "reasonable" deer numbers in a wmu, then they have the tools you mentioned and are more than welcome to use them so the rest of the wmu doesnt have to be held needlessly low.

"As that forest food supply starts to decline more deer move out into the neighborhood shrubs and ornamental landscaping causing damage them. "

Again, I dont think what is being argued here is "human conflict". That is an issue all its own, and if the cac addressed it, I dont see it as an issue. Afterall, that is what its for isnt it?

"Even with that having been explained I will also tell everyone right now that those areas with a good mix of farmland, forestland (good quality or not) and small landowner plantings that come with high quality soils areas will probably always result in higher deer numbers then the poor soil big woods areas. But, even though rich soil, mixed habitat areas will have higher long term sustainable deer numbers with a healthy forest habitat then that they will have with poor forest health. "

Not when it is factored in to regeneration assessment that if deer are actually browsing anything, (acceptable regeneration or not), as ANY reasonable number of deer WILL DO, the herd will be knocked down. If existing factors do not equate to fewer deer, another is added.