The deer plan most definately imho should be based on reasonable DEER DENSITY GOALS and not vague open to interpretation goals of regeneration etc.

With known to be nondetrimental deer densities as shown and accepted via studies from all across the nation per habitat type there is no reason to believe the habitat wouldnt be healthy. Though that wouldnt leave pgc any excuse to cater to econuts with rock bottom deer numbers in the name of extreme unnatural biodiversity. There would also be no "changing" guidelines of what is acceptable regeneration as has occurred once already causing some wmus rating to drop. Pretty certain to happen again in the future as the goal becomes reduce the herd further.

In most wmus human conflict isnt an issue as most wmus were not rated as high conflict even previously. Also aside from sras....the cacs arent voting for fewer deer.

Herd health is a nonissue, as we've come to find out there wasnt a thing wrong with it in the first place, and certainly isnt now.

We are currently managing for obtuse thinkers views of what our forests should be. It is NOT in the best interests of most to have unnatural excessive biodiversity such as audubon wants.

Wmus should be smaller without a doubt. County size or smaller imho.

Regardless of wmu size allocations should be cut across the board and basically statewide except perhaps areas of higher human conflict such as some of the sras. the cuts should be made to encourage appropriate DEER DENSITY GOALS for each wmu, just as most other "normal" states do. There are no rational excuses not to. The only reason we arent doing so currently is because the plan is not rational.