Good solid science by professionals would not reach the conclusions you've reached without far more information. You grab a small bit here and there and assemble those bits into your own personal truth because it's the "truth" you wish to find. Now that an independent audit is about to take place, you are circling your wagons because you are concerend that your flimsy arguements will be blown away like the house of cards that they are.
i
And just where are these wonderful professionals going to get a larger sample size to establish breeding rates and productivity? Are they going to shoot does in the spring just to check if they are bred. The fact is the professionals at the PGC claim they are managing our herd based on sample sizes that are so small that they have to use 3 year averages,which meaans they are not using herd health to manage the herd from one year to the next.
Obviously your agenda is to manage at MSY or above without regard for the habitat, other wildlife, or the interest of the owners of the resources that feed the deer.
That is your opinion and once again you are wrong. The MSY carrying capacity for 5 C would be over 100 DPSM, but that would not be acceptable due to crop damage and road kills and I would not expect the PGC to manage the herd at that density. But ,it was ridiculous for the PGC to claim the habitat in 5C could only support 6 DPSM.
All I am doing is pointing out that there are many issues that if the audit does not address, it will do nothing to resolve the current divide between hunters and the PGC. Is that what you want, a worthless rubber stamp audit?