"That really isn’t entirely correct. Many farmers don't want burdened with killing deer several nights a week or even per month. "

1.They recieved SOME relief by lowering the herd ANY amount. And 2nd Isee it as far greater of aburden to 900,000 + hunters who pay for wildlife management to be forced to accept dirt poor deer numbers across an entire 60 mile by 60 mile wmu just because3 farmers in the wmu dont wanna be bothered shooting deer or with letting people shoot deerout of seasonfor red tag! And as I said, we have cac to address human conflict.

"The CAC can only be used to reduce deer numbers to a level that is below the natural carrying capacity, they can‘t force a deer population to be higher then the natural carrying capacity. Only the affects of nature, combined with a healthy habitat, will allow a deer population to be sustainable at an increased population level. "

I understand that and I never said otherwise.

"Man simply can’t demand the forces and effects of nature be changed, no matter what he wishes."

But he CAN demand the forces currently directing our deer management plan be modified as they should have been without need to "demand".

"In many areas human conflict issues are more of an issue then most hunters know or want to believe. That includes your area."

WTF do you want rsb? Do youthink you dictate what is acceptable? This isnt MY opinion, its the results of following the guidelines pgc set forth!! The damn cac was put into place for a reason. Red tag is for a reason. Dmap is for a reason. The human conflict here was rated as LOW on the pgc annual report prior to ourcac's and that was when we were at NEAR MAXIMUM HERD SIZE for our wmu!! Now the cac even voted for stabilization.... SO frankly, I dont care who likesit or not, I shouldnt need toapologize for a thingfor wanting REASONABLE numbers of deera hunter of this state. The people have spoken and they sure as hell didnt ask for more deer to be slaughtered. Yet that is exactly what we are getting.

"No, it is all done scentifically with the same methods and criteria for all areas of the state."

YEah, and look how well its working! LOL.The studywas done the same for all areas of the state previously BEFORE the rediculous change as well, butthen, it didnt equateto ridiculous deer levels here and even more extreme blanket reduction!

"If some areas are coming up poor it is because they are poor and most likely have more deer then the habitat is going to be able to sustain for the long term. "

Not when the exact opposite was show so recently and now with a smaller herd. Its a sham period. No logical acceptable explanation for it.