But then the question is who gets to determine what constitutes an adverse effect on the habitat or on the non-hunting public. Those decisions are not made based on science, but on the personal preferences of the stakeholders involved.
A-a-a-a-nd thats the problem in a nut shell. We're the odd "stakeholder" out. We are supposed to shut up, do our duty and help the enviro-dream come true whether we like it or not.
Right off the bat, human conflict can be considered a nonissue, since in many wmus it was not rated as high even prior to reduction, No reason to think it will be now with half the deer. Since then, the only recommendations by even the stacked cac for reduction have been only in sras, confirms what im saying.
As for habitat...all boils down to what you want in that habitat. Do you want very few deer and a thick carpet of trillium & wall to wall oaks in 50+ years or so?. Do we want a deer behind every tree with no understory at all, but plenty of birch & striped maple?, or do we want a balance. I want a balance. However that balance doesnt include deer densities lower than other "normal" states, statewide blanket reduction, endless reductions & rock bottom deer numbers for decades, or goals of extreme biodiversity not found anywhere else in the country other than behind fences. It also doesnt include goal of seeing no further than 50 yards in mature forest due to a shrub layer which can only exist in such a manner with very few deer forever after. Those are position held by pgc, dcnr and audubon though.