Well blue, I know your all about your stats, so please post some references.
What references would you like to see? A good start would be reading the AWRs on the PGC site.
[QUOTE]didn't Gary Alt say you would need to bring the numbers down and keep them there for 20-30 years, 3rd party auditor says you haven't reduced the herd enough for regeneration, foresters say you haven't reduced it enough, wildlife biologists say the same[QUOTE]
Alt said the buck harvest would return to normal after the first year of ARs and that increased breeding and better recruitment would make up for the decrease in the overwintering herd.
The 25% decrease in the herd was the statewide average. The fact is the herd in 2G has been reduced from 40 DPSM in the 70s to around 8 DPSM now ,which is a decrease of 80% ,not 25% and forest health is still only 38%. Furthermore , if you had read the DMAP Enrollment Reports you would know that even DCNR foresters admitted that further HR would not result in increased regeneration in many areas because of other environmental conditions.
So blue let me make this very very clear, your knowledge of qdm and the qdma is equivalent to a 1yr old entering kindergarten. I say it's more than likely that a 25% herd reduction was not large enough to meet the goal of balancing deer with the habitat. And you say, "them there qdm'ers liked it much better when there were 1.6 million deers." Dude, come on
You can say whatever you want ,but you can't back it up with facts. I can back up my position with independent data and quotes from DCNR, the PGC and other qualified professionals.