"I do however,support the basic fundamentals of balancing the herd with the habitat."

As do i. And thats not what I see occurring.

"I see less deer today than I used but that hasn't effected by success or hunting experience in a nagative way.Even though I hunt where the deer densities are extremely low,compared to most other parts of the state,I still can't see whyhunters feel the hunting is poor. "

I donno why you make such a statement. It seems only obvious if LESS deer are available and LESS big buck than could be, naturally satisfaction is not going to be as high. I cant even fathom what has you confused about that. Kinda like someone stealing afew grand from you, then looking you in the eye and saying What are you mad about? You still have$50 in the bank...that should be more than enough!

"the regeneration is responding very favorably in many areas where the herd has been reduced.I don't have a report to prove it but I've walked through enough areas with professionals to see that it's happening."

And many areas that have been reduced arent. Also many areas were never poor to begin with. Yet everything is being painted with the same ridiculously broad brush. And imho we all know why.

"More and bigger bucks?That was a ridiculous and irresponsible statement for anyone to make.That kind of nonsense is what me have reservations about all of this at the beginning.It simply couldn't come true if you reduced the herd by approx 50% "

I agree. But we didnt know it was gonna be reduced to the extreme. The impression was given often that the "cuts" would be more reasonable than 50% and continuing....But if the herd was reduced LESS, a reasonable amount as it should have been in most areas, the prediction would have been very likely.