Btb, when i say youve lied about something, that means you have. Im not debating your lies with you. To making knowingly false statements (lie) then whine about me making false allegations about you lying makes you sound like a 5 year old. Continue if you like but you sound utterly ridiculous. My suggestion? Just quit lying about things continually and there will be no issue.
Next, I didnt "duck" anything. I havent been on here since my last post.
Now to address the details...You agree btb, that you were wrong about the 1% and that indeed 2A is being further reduced and not insignificantly since you werent aware of how the chart worked etc... I can respect the fact you owned up to it this once and didnt simply tuck tail and change the subject. Im not a poor winner, so im not gonna rub your nose in it further. 
As for your question about deer density being nearly double or for that matter double pre-deer plan here in 2A, thats really quite simple. All the info you need is in the various annual reports since the program began. They are available for anyone to see, and if you'd actually read them, you wouldnt need to question every single statement bb or I make. Anyway, According to them we had 69 deer per forested square mile in Greene and 74 in Wash in 1999. Using even the lower of the two, in Greene and applying the 61% forested area to determine square miles to compare to current which is in square miles we would get approx. 42 overwinter deer per square mile. Compare to currently with less than 25, which you get by taking the given deer density from 2005 or 2006 annual report and applying the data from the deer density change charts.
Btw, what I actually stated was that the habitat was healthier when we had nearly/ double the deer as well. That too is fact. On our first regeneration study, our deer herd was much higher than currently, yet the regeneration was 58%. As the herd started being decreased the next assessment had us at 61%....The herd continued being reduced. then all of a sudden ridiculous changes were made to the guidelines of the regeneration assessment and exactly what "acceptable regeneration" entailed was changed, and our regen fell straight down the crapper to 46% in 07, and even worse in 08 annual report....all while the herd was still steadily being reduced!
The changes were spoken of in an annual report, i believe it was 2007? Anyway, its pretty clear that it was designed to target areas of "more" deer and give reason for further reduction where no other reason existed prior to the change and regardless of what was previously acceptable regeneration. Anything to reduce for the biodiversity agenda. You can have good regeneration in good habitat with 25-30 dpsm and I feel thats a conservative statement... But you cannot have very extreme levels of biodiversity unless you go lower. Much lower.... Which I think Ive made it pretty clear, is exactly where we are headed.
Last edited by Cornelius08; 10-23-2009 at 08:12 PM.