ORIGINAL: bluebird2
You and people like you simply aren’t knowledgeable, or perhaps smart enough, to understand that the health of the forest and the number of deer are not two separate unrelated issues. If you want to have high, or even moderate, deer numbers anyone with half a functioning brain cell should be able to figure out that you have the MOST DEER where you have the healthiest forest.
Wrong again sport. The PGC says there is no direct correlation between herd health and forest health, forest health is simply a measure of the forests ability to regenerate the existing canopy species. herd health is a measure of the productivity of the herd which is based on the carrying capacity of all the habitat the deer use , not just forested habitat. To prove my point , 5C has the poorest forest health yet it has the second highest harvest rate in the state. But. 2B which has the highest harvest rate in the state has a regeneration rate that is twice that of 5C.
Therefore, there is no correlation between forest health and herd health.
After this statement maybe you won't be so quick to take people out of context any more.
