Mike, what I see on public land I hunt on is..... poor, overbrowsed, poorly regenerating habitat. What I do see thriving is the less desirable species, at the expense of the regeneration we need. You folks don't want to acknowledge some facts: Bucks and does are undersized, antler growth is poor, fawn mortality is increased because habitat is poor (good habitat means good concealment cover in addition to the nutrion it provides) Where I've seen deer congregate on public land is where habitat is better, thicker, more cover, more food. You folks ignore the poor habitat, sight an example here or their where habitat is better (although some thicker habitat is full of undesirable growth so other than cover doesn't provide the nutritional kick needed) and say we don't have a habitat problem. We do. You folks don't want to admit habitat is difficult to regenerate and will take years to do so. Suddenlty it becomes a myth foresters propogate so that they can have better forests so they can make more money. You folks don't want to admit deer are the problem. They are. Acid rain does not create browse lines. Acid rain does not kill seedlings (deer eat them long before acid rain can even effect them). You folks don't want to admit we need to harvest more deer until things are back in balance and even if we overharvest we will be able to quickly bring deer numbers back up. The facts are habitat, while easy to destroy is harder to restore and deer numbers, while they can be reduced can quickly be restored. The solution, while not palatable, is necessary. The problem, while ignored, is real. I can't really put too much stock in any arguements folks are making when they fail to acknowledge the simple truths that exist, even if you don't agree with the methods being used to solve them. Juniorpc.