"veryone that has any logical understanding of deer management already knows that several of you don’t understand or support scientific resource management because it doesn’t fit into your misguided agendas."

No rsb. That is your unsupported attempt to discredit and nothing more. Just trying to make my opinion appear to be something it isnt. My position is 100% rational fact based and about as far from "extreme" one way or the other, as it gets. The fact that I am vocal on the issue doesnt change that fact.

"The worst part is that hunters are forcing the same stupid mistakes time after time, decade after decade, generation after generation. We will end with very few places that support more then limited numbers of deer unless that cycle of the same stupid mistakes demanded by the unknowledgeable hunters can be broken."

My position isnt, nor has it ever been that we must have our highest previous deer densities. By my contention most definately is that its completely unsupported that we must stay at or below exactly where we are currently. It is also my position that pgcs data had been used by them to come to the conclusion that we could STABILIZE our deer herd 4 years ago. BUT we have been continually reducing according to the annual reports data during that time! That means that at the very least, that reduction over the last 4 years is most definately unwarranted and not supported by the "science" AT ALL. It was 100% unnecessary and counter to the sportsmen of our state. If nothing else, that is undebatable. I also believe that in many areas, the reduction was not warranted even prior to the levels where stabilization became the goal. Regardless its been a one size fits all reduce everywhere as much as possible campaign. SOme places just havent reduced at the same rate for obvious reasons.

"The good news is that it appears that more and more hunters are finally beginning to understand the need for listening to the deer and their habitat instead of the whining of a few hunters that refuse to learn from decades of the past stupid mistakes. "

Wishful thinking.

That history is the highly biased version of course. Of course it is coming from the exact same source that is encouraging the wanton slaughter of the deer herd for the good of the trillium and hobblebush.

"This should also prove that the hunters have fought that knowledge that would have resulted in more deer today for many decades and into the third generation. "

what it show, is exactly who had control at various points in time. When the ecofreaks did, the goals changed. When pro-hunting minded individuals were in charge, the changed again... And each saw the other as the "villain" when they had the reigns. Just by seeing that "history" link, that alone tells you the mindset of the author. Currently pgc needs cleansed of the riff-raff, just as back in the day when the "pro hunting" pgc tossed LATHAM out on his duff because of his extremist views... Now all of a sudden, to the current crop of flower sniffers, hes a hero, akin to Jesus Christ himself. LOL That alone should tell us a regime change is badly needed.

"There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that we would have far more deer in almost areas of the state today if hunters had listened to the professional deer managers of the past."

No. We'd have just had fewer all along, and even fewer than we do now.

"There is also no doubt in my mind that the only way we will have more deer instead of fewer deer for the future is if hunters finally learn from those past makes and finally allow the professionals to scientifically manage both deer and their habitat."

Get unbiased noneconut "professionals" without agendas to do the job, and I'll gladly stop fighting and heap the praise. When you have econuts like audubon and idiots like shissler etc. and his "type" designing our deer management plan....Hunters are gonna lose in that deal everytime. And thats a fact.

"Unfortunately many of the people that post on this very site are the perpetuating and prolonging the very deer management problems they both want and demand be corrected. "

Tell you what, cut the doe tags to non-slaughter levels, and I think most of us will be more than content to take our chances. And there really isnt any "chance to take" nothing to lose, just alot to gain. The data supports us strongly. Both here and deer herds from around the country say we do not have to have below 10 as a minimum owdd, and below 25 as the max anywhere. But those are the dd's we are talking about here, and STILL declining for absolutely no good reason![:'(]