"Funny, all the hunter's I've talked to have had some of their best hunting this year."

Ha ha ha. Whatever you say chief. Apparently you didnt talk to the nearly 80% who said hr went too far on the poll in the Pa threads. Or the 90+% around here who'd like to see pgc tossed on their keisters....Or the 74+ percent who said similiarly over on huntpa that hr has gone too far... Guess you run in select circles.

" I just love the "excessive extreme unnatural levels of biodiversity" comment. "

Im glad you like it. Its 100% accurate. You apparently arent very familiar with the "data behind the plan". But I wouldnt expect you to, since you couldnt keep up with terminology etc. in the debate in the other thread.

"Shows you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Do you think its natural to be able to see over 100 yards in a forest because theres NO regeneration?"

No. I think its natural to see 100 yards in mature timber because you arent supposed to have so much regeneration under a closed canopy that you cant see 50 feet. lol. You are basing that on pgc saying Thats what we need. They get that straight from audubon and other extreme groups who are currently entrenched at pgc. As for my statement of whats the norm...what am i basing my conclusion on?? Oh not much, just the fact that situation of copius shrub layer, excessive regeneration etc. in a mature forest scenario simply isnt the norm in any eastern hardwoods forest. The only place it exists is inside of fences in UNNATURAL deerless setting. To expect it to all of a sudden become the norm here in Pa by decimating the deer herd, and being necessary to keep it low to have such ridiculously unnatural conditions is exactly as i stated...unnatural and extreme.. Btw, Ive personally been to most eastern states and havent seen this "environmentalist extremist haven" EVER in any of them, and you can see for 100 yards or more in mature forest, and in most cases ALOT more.

"Do you think its natural to see 40 deer run past your stand with the first 39 being doe? "

Nope. But then in nearly 30 years of hunting, i never have. And CURRENTLY not even close. Thats a ridiculous extreme example and one not occurring over the huge majority of the state. So i fail to see the point.

"Open your mind a little bit. I hate people who only think for themselves, and use idiotic evidence to support their claims. Sorry, it needed to be said."

My mind is always open to change. I originally supported the plan. Generally in theory the basics are very sound. In practice however when they are taken to extremes, its no more acceptable imho than having done absolutely nothing in the first place. I most definately think SOME areas needed SOME reduction. But Almost ALL areas got reduction and many alot more than needed. In fact according to pgcs own data most wmus are STILL being reduced despite calling it "stabilization". That can be confirmed on the annual wildlife reports herd change index. Perhaps you need to think for yourself a bit more, and look at the proof "evidence" behind positions and not simply be lead astray by believing every single thing youre told. Btw, its clear you have no valid rebuttal and are frustrated by it, but try not to sink to the 'disrespect to make a point' tactic. IF you think im wrong about something say so, why, and back it up with more than insult. Ive studied these issues in Pa and other states managementwise for around a decade so my position is far from "unbased". BTW, I also know what saw & pole timber is.;')