"Thank you for admitting that your agenda is about what you want and not about what is scientifically sound"

I dont see bb asking for that. Its only common sense that this audit exists in the first placebecause ofhunter satisfaction beingsolow, and it should address that aspect thoroughly. As for what WE want and what is scientifically sound, the two arent necessary on opposing ends. I am confident that there are things that can be done that would fit both descriptions. It is just that currently, Pgc doesnt care about one of them. If the plan doesnt address hunter satisfaction along with the science its 100% useless. I believe that is what bb was saying and i agree 100%. I dont think you'd find any of the "disgruntled masses" that would disagree.

"We all need to remember that the forest industry "tolerates" us because they need us to help control the deer. "

You need to remember, we shouldnt give a rats crotch over someone "tolerating" us. To NOT tolerateus is to be antihunter. And antihunters can kiss our ass as far as Im concerned.Perhaps it should be looked at as mutual tolerance, and not as one sided as you depict. We are under no obligation to take it completely in the backside any more than they are, but that is exactly what is happening...we are. Also id hardly call it "tolerating us" ....When the herd was reduced SOME and we had to accept it and tolerate it, they tolerated reasonable deer numbers and the reasonable consequences of having them. Currently they arent tolerating us. Deer in many areas that effect forest industry are at rock bottom. We are getting screwed. Plain and simple.

"They own or control much of the land available for us to hunt."

No they dont.As for state forest,land belongs to the people of Pennsylvania. Also, the deer plan effects everywhere else as well, private land not associated with forestry as well as our gamelands.

"We represent less than 10% of that public. If we don't cooperate and help keep the deer under control to the point that the desirable timbercan regenerate, they will eventually find a way to control the deer without us and we hunterscould well find ourselves shutout of the vast property holdings to which we currently enjoy free and easy access. "

I dont buy it. And we are more than willing to keep the deer herd at DECENT LEVELS. And beyond that, we already have the herd at levels where they are stating stabilization is the goal. Even though the goals are extreme, we did the job. I see no reason for hollow scare tactics to be spoken of, that being the case. Society is more the hunter than it is the timberman. 900,000 plus hunters plus every friend and family member that doesnt hunt, yet supports us. Id call that a MAJORITY.