Here is the link to the 2009 Deer Chronicle which proves you are just making things up as you go along..
http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/p...rchronicle.pdf
From 2007 to 2008 the percent of plots in unit 2F with adequate regeneration increased by over 41% (24% in 2007 to 34% in 2008) and stayed stable at 42% of the plots with adequate regeneration in unit 2G. Therefore, there is not reason to believe the habitat will not continue to recover without increasing the allocations
You have just proved to everyone that you have no clue how to analyze data. If regeneration increased from 24% to 34% in 2F, that is a 10% increase in regeneration , not 41% as you claimed. But the data really shows that regeneration increased from 34% in 2007 to 39% in 2008 which is a 5% increase, not 41%.
But in 2G regeneration decrease from 42% in 2007 to 38% in 2008. So why didn't the PGC increase the allocation in both 2F and 2 G in order to improve forest regeneration to the goal of 70% regeneration? Furthermore,the doe in 2F only produced 1.39 embryos/doe while in 2G it was 1.68,so why didn't the PGC increased the allocation in 2F , if reducing the herd improves productivity and herd health?
BTW, you still didn't answer the question about how the PGC determines the number of doe that need to be harvested when they claim they don't have any DD goals and don't know how many deer we have in each WMU??