BTB, I think you have to take his state,ment in it's proper context. In all fairness to BB, you made it sound as if he advocates DD of 200 dpsm, which is not and has not ever been the case. We are all very aware of the stress and damage to habitat that would occur and is occurring at VF at those levels. What he was pointing out, is that even this pocket of the worst habitat you'll probbaly find...that has been overbrowsed so severely, is still supporting those insane deer densities, even allowing the herd to increase after decades. What this study does, is steals any credibility in the PGC statement that the habitat is / was controlling the herd in NC PA, or anywhere for that matter....their own data shows that breeding rates and recruitment never suffered even during our years of highest DD. He isn't advocating DD of 200 dpsm.....he is showing the obvious truth that our habitat can support far more deer than the single digits that we have been dealt. I also think it is ironic that the animal rights groups are opposed to the hunt. In my experience, they are usually hand in hand with the eco- lobbyists that have been pushing HR since its inception, setting aside temporarily their goal to stop sport hunting, in order to pursue a more attainable one of biodiversity and low enough deer numbers to possibly maintain numbers through alternate means (contraceptives.) One question we should all be asking ourselves though, is why the wildlife experts at VF, even with such extensive habitat damage, are still setting their stabilization goals WAY,WAY higher than any WMU in PA under our deer management plan. That's right. The most overbrowsed piece of land in the state is still going to be allowed to support more deer than your local SF or SGL hunting spots. WHY?