Anyone who has been here any length of time knows that you have done your best to dispute the science of the current deer management plan. From your smoke and mirrors twists of fact to your laughable claim that folks like Dr Kroll, Charles Alsheimer, Dr Samuel etc simply "don't understand their own data", you have disputed the science all along. Now that an objective audit is getting started, you are back-pedaling before the thing even starts. LOL!
I have challenged the science on which the PGC based the current plan and refuted it with science that is more valid than the science the PGC used. The PGC science said breeding rates and herd health would improve as the herd was reduced and my science proved they were wrong. Their science said there was problem with late breeding and my science proved they were wrong and the deer proved I was right from day one. The PGC science says they are keeping the herd stable and my science proves it is still decreasing.
The science of deer management is by its very nature a subjective science, since it is based on the desires of those that are managing the herd. A herd can be managed at the biodiversity carrying capacity to satisfy the Audbon ,but a slightly higher density may satisfy DCNR. Or the herd can be managed at the MSY carrying capacity which would satisfy a lot of hunters and with supplemental feeding and intense management the herd on private property can be managed above the MSY carrying capacity of the natural habitat.