"Putting the deer herds in balance with their habitat, as you suggest, is exactly what the Game Commission is and has been doing. Yet you are screaming about saying we need more deer. "

Because there is no reason to believe we have to have the exact level of deer that we have, or we cannot be addressing the habitat. I support the concept of habitat being a strong consideration in any deer management plan, in fact the focal point. But that can vary greatly in application. We can have a healthy habitat as defined by how it meets the needs of the deer. We can define healthy habitat based on extreme biodiversity, and we can take all into consideration in the evaluation of habitat, compromising between the values. Imho, we are doing number 2 currently when it should be number 3.

"The deer and their food supply very adequately tell the professionals how many deer are too many, and most areas are already proving they WILL NOT support more deer for long term periods and if you try to keep more for the short term periods you are doing nothing more then assuring that you will end up with even fewer deer in the long term."

That is true in theory but the theory currently doesnt apply when we are so far below cc at the moment. There also isnt much in the way of evidence that says we were over cc previously either. In fact there is much to the contrary. I say this only for purposes of disputing your claim, as I have no problem with some areas having recieved SOME level of reduction.

"The professional managers within the Game Commission have known that for many decades but they have failed at making hunters understand or accept those facts. That failure in education though, in my opinion, is the fault of the hunters instead of the efforts of the Game Commission. "

Hunters do not hold the same values in the same order of importance as other stakeholders, and vice versa. There should be a balance between these desires and there currently is not in my opinion and in the opinions of many hunters of this state. And that is why much of the state has been reduced to the level that is has. NOT statewide reduction for the habitat alone in any "reasonable" sense. Because its not realistic to believe statewide the habitat needed it when other most states have higher density goals than our current densities and our history of dd and habitat condition do not bear out the need for reduction everywhere based on that. Nor was it for "human conflict" when many areas other than the sras were rated as low human conflict by pgc even very early in the program with much higher deer densities than currently.

"The worst part is that there are still a lot more areas on the road to destroyed habitat and low deer numbers for the future because today’s hunters refuse to learn from the past and want to continue down the same stupid and destructive path of their fathers and grandfathers."

Not gonna happen with current deer densities. Not possible. Thats according to history and the data. Only way to show any declines would be to change the measurement procedure and raise the bar, and we know pgc wouldnt do that now would they? LOL And for comparative purposes of habitat quality compared to previous when most of the state was not "poor" in the first place, raising the bar, and then downgrading habitat even though it hadnt declined at all compared to previously, is nothing short of pure deciet.

"I know some of you can’t accept that and will say it isn’t true; so I will now go and start collecting some of the facts that support the statements I just made."

Not sure which "facts" you are speaking of. I could probably guess at some you will likely attempt to cover. I think we have seen what you have to offer in the way of supportive facts, and I cannot imagine there to be anything else that would be available to support your position any more than past argument you've presented, In fact im guessing it will probably be some of the stuff we've already discussed, but Im willing to have a look and assess your data and analysis.... But will have to do so tomorrow, Im dead -beat. Have a good evening gentlemen.