ORIGINAL: Cornelius08

"You ask what evidence there is that Penna. Hunters want more deer then the habitat can support? That is a real hoot. All one has to do is read the posts you, Corny and Screaming man come out with to see the evidence of hunters that are out of touch with the balances of nature and demanding more deer the habitat can support long term."

All we do is ask for responsible management and do not support managing our deer herd at rock bottom levels to promote biodiversity extremist agendas. That my friend is a helluva long way from asking for more deer than the habitat can support. Especially when some areas of the state had fine habitat with twice the deer as currently, and the fact that our deer densities are as low as the lowest states density goals in the nation. What backs YOUR assertion that we are asking for more deer than the habitat can carry? Nothing. To say we can have NO MORE at all period in most wmus is completely unsubstantiated and refuted by the facts. To say NOWHERE in the state can have any more deer than currently is completely outrageous extreme nonsense.

"Breeding rates were not higher in when we had more deer in the habitat damaged areas, either. In those old habitat damaged areas, of the past, the breeding rates and reproductive rates are better now then ever in the past. If the breeding and reproductive rates have declined anywhere, (and I’m not saying they have),"

You do not have to say they have or have not. Pgcs own annual reports show it to be the case. There was nothing wrong with the reproductive rates in the first place.