"Kind of apples and oranges but I'll give you a few points for effort. Of course your response lacks any specifics but we kind of expect that."
Apples & oranges? lol. No comment necessary. I'll take that as you conceding the point. SPecifics? lmao. I think someone needs to reread, or tell the truth. I gave some VERY specific details.
Oh and again, where did Audubon DICTATE any game land use policy?
I believe i answered that as well. You like to play semantics games instead of addressing real issues. Its clear your priorities arent the same as mine. Im concerned about audubon & OTHER Groups of enviro types and other user groups etc dictating how many deer we have to have (which includes on gamelands since thats where a disproporitonate healthy portion of the allocation is used), how our habitat on gamelands in SOME cases is "manipulated" or "not manipulated". to understand that, you'll have to research audubon & their "special bird areas". They have 80 some across the state, taking up a good portion of the state, and if the three toed flying orange grackle (LOL), for instance covets a certain habitat with that special bird area. And that special bird area overlaps the gamelands as many of them do,.....In many (if not most?)cases that habitat will stay as is in. Regardless of its value or nonvalue to game. Be it mature forest....whatever the case may be. One thing is for sure. Its not gonna become food plots and or successional growth. What is being given highest consideration in this case? They also have voice (are asked) about usage issues by pgc. They have NO BUSINESS giving input into game lands usage period. Their goals and desires do not mirror those of the hunters, and often are in conflict. Doesnt matter what their input is Good bad or ugly, because there should be NONE.
Then again, you could look at the picture above one more time. lol.