What you left out is the fact that, in your global warming example, there is plenty of science to support the other side to global warming. In the case of deer management, your side falls way short on science
Actually the science and the deer support my position and it is the PGC that can't provide the data to support their claims. While the PGC claimed the deer were preventing the forests from regenerating , the number of SM of forest increased significantly. After AR and HR were implemented breeding rates, productivity and the breeding window did not improve as predicted and regeneration in 2G decreased instead of increasing.
That and maybe a flawed study or two like the Mississippi study that was pretty much picked apart as incomplete and therefore unreliable.
That isn't even close to being true . The decrease in rack sizes was documented from 2.5+ buck that were harvested statewide. No one has found a flaw in the results from Miss. ,although some have misrepresented those results.