Whattya make of this piece, Doug?
The audit states that the PGC is using just 495 plots to monitor forest regeneration and only 20% of those plots are monitored yearly. That means the PGC is basing the antlerless allocations based on less than 100 plots of forest land that are .25A in size.
I find that a little disturbing to manage the deer statewide based on regeneration evaluation of only 99 plots each year. Evidently WMI raised some eyebrows at this method as well. I still believe that smaller WMU's ae the answer, yes, data needs to be gathered from large areas, but to be applied in smaller areas. There are absolutely some areas with healthy habitat that could carry reasonably higher numbers of deer without excessive impact, but the continued high allocations within the large WMU's contribute to low DD there.