[QUOTE=bluebird2;3450190][QUOTE]Now guys like you, the bird and the USP types continue to bash and demonize our hosts because they expect a decent return on their investment. [/QUOTE
That is another flat out lie. No one is demonizing or bashing the timber industry or other property owners. What we are questioning is if the PGC is lying to us when they claim they base the doe tag allocations on herd health and forest health. As yet no one can explain why the PGC wants to keep the herd stable in 11 WMUs when forest health varies significantly and there is no apparent correlation between deer densities and forest health.
Here is a quote from the PGC website regarding forest health and regeneration. How does the rankings compare to the data I posted?
Ranking Forest Health
Assignment of “Good”, “Fair”, and “Poor” follow specific criteria. A WMU’s forest habitat health will be
considered “Good” if the observed percentage of plots with adequate regeneration is greater than or equal to 70
percent. A WMU’s forest habitat health will be considered “Poor” if the observed percentage of plots with
adequate regeneration is less than 50 percent. “Fair” forest health falls between “Good” and “Poor”.
Forest health
Percent of plots with
adequate regeneration Description
Good >70% Forest canopy replacement will occur without further actions to mitigate deer
impacts.
Fair 50 - 70% Forest canopy replacement can occur but DMAP, and some deer deterrent
fencing are required.
Poor <50% Forest canopy replacement will not occur without deer deterrent fencing and
DMAP.