Originally Posted by
bluebird2
The only ones that label Eveland's presentation as a phony conspiracy theory are those that were duped by Alt's prediction of doom and gloom if the herd was reduced to the previous DD goals. Now, even though his claims and predictions have been proven to be false ,guys like you and RSB are still defending a plan that resulted in the loss of over 200K deer hunters from 2000 to 2008 and produced the lowest buck harvests in over 40 years.
Would you please explain how our herd increased for 20 years from 1980 to 2000, when the habitat had been over browsed since 1930?
First of all,Alt was an idiot and I'm done debating that.It still doesn't change the fact that it's been univerasally accepted by every expert that we had way too mnay deer for the habitat.It's easy to find the information and it's not debatable.We had too many deer and the habitat suffered greatly.You been waiting for some type of expert to agree with you but the guy you came up with has no credibility,which is relevent to the converstaion.
Deer are resilient and they can find food in some of the worst situations.That doesn't mean they are as healty as they can be and it doesn't mean that they aren't causing severe damage to the habitat.On top of that,with the exception of a few bad winters during that time period,the deer had an easy time because the winters were mild,allowing them to spread out and use more of the habitat.Also,in many areas(about 40% of pa)the deer rely very heavily on mast crops.Unfortunately,an oak/hickory forest is not renewable at the deer densities associated with the kinds of deer densities you demand.