I see nothing incorrect about that statement and see it as WMI recognizing that hunters should have input but not an absolute say. Hunters like you and Cornboy are examples of why a statement like that would even come from a game management organization. You have a one track mind when it comes to deer management and that track is more deer no matter what. You seem to keep forgetting that hunters alone own only a small percentage of the land that supports the herd. You seem to think that those who provide feed and habitat for the majority of our deer all year shouldn't be on equall footing with deer hunters when it comes to managing the herd.
You've also proven by your previous posts that you don't care about the effect of deer on other species or on the habitat, timber and food sources so long as we manage deer at MSY. I see that WMI statement as reasonable and practical if hunting is to survive well into the future.
WRONG AGAIN. That is just your very biased and uninformed opinion of my position. I fully understand that our herd can not be managed at the MSY CC of 40 DPSM and that other stakeholders should have input regarding how the herd is managed. But managing the herd at the biodiversity carrying capacity just gives preferential standing to one species at the expense of another species and the hunters of PA. There will be no economic gain from managing the herd at the biodiversity CC ,but there will be significant economic loss due to the decrease in the number of hunters and related activity.
The average citizen will derive no benefit from managing the herd at the biodiversity carrying capacity and in fact may be disappoint by not seeing deer in their area. Hunters spend millions of dollars for the privledge of hunting and doing the work of the herd while the average bird watcher contributes nickels and dimes in comparison. If the herd was managed between the CC for max. regeneration and the MSY CC all parties would be treated equally and all would benefit from proper deer management.