Less deer will always mean more food for the ones that are there.It's not even debatable.

[QUOTE]I'm not spinning anything.The audit did point out flaws but it never said the basic premise of herd reductions was flawed.Without a doubt,100 plots to monitor the state is ridiculous.That I agree with.We have almost that many on 9500 acres and monitor them every two years.[QUOTE

You are confusing the fact that while the audit supported the over all goal of herd reduction and improved regeneration, it pointed out many significant flaws in how the herd was being managed, which means that the PGC DMP is flawed and you claimed that it wasn't.

WMI couldn't even figure out how the PGC used the forest health criteria to determine allocations, because I have said for years ,it make no sense.

[quote=bluebird2;3579308]I'm in basic agreement with everything you just posted.

Wmi said while thats sometimes a viable option it wasnt in our case because the adult deer info was already too small of a sample, and fawn data would be smaller still. It also showed our fawn data that pgc does have as being in line with that in other northern states.

"Apparently other states agree because some plan on going to larger units because of that reason."

I dont see any going to larger units. All i see is a few mention that its a consideration they wouldnt rule out. And as scientists, nothings ever ruled out completely in those type cases. Just as smaller wmus have not been ruled out by them.

Wmi stated larger wmus were "acceptable alternatives" to smaller ones. And that was because of exactly how everything else was being done by pgc. They didnt rule out smaller ones, and it wasnt even addressed from a standpoint of possibly implementing them, only whether or not the large were deemed "acceptable". That was pure bull- imho. No doubt the product of wording derived via the flower sniffers who worded the proposal for audit.

Also remember, when wmi led the deer management working group earlier on in the program, the request given was for MORE & SMALLER WMU'S, SMALLER IN SIZE AND GREATER IN NUMBER THAN THE COUNTY BASED UNITS. Course pgc didnt comply.

As for the program basics being scientifically sound I dont think that was ever in question. Many were just hoping to have suggestions of viable subsitutes. That wasnt even explored at all.

The audit was a sham from word go with who was doing it, then the wording and request for analysis as drawn up by the eco-folk was meant for nothing more than a whitewash, and after all that, they STILL found significant problems.

I'd say the experts have spoken, both from inside and outside of PA, and the plan is a viable, legitimate plan that needs some fine tuning. Those still left complaining, which would be those 4 or 5 people here, will always complain about something and will never be happy.
The healing process has begun in PA now that the pgc has been vindicated and if you aren't ready to do that then you'll remain part of the problem. You've lost the war. It's now time to rebuild.
I've seen that even hollywood has gotten into the picture. This movie trailer should help lighten up the mood.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzJYIMzMDao

If WMI would have audited the previous DMP they would have reached the same conclusion , since the goal of the previous plan was to control the herd in order to allow for adequate regeneration. The only major difference between the two plans is how the PGC determines how many deer need to be harvested and WMI found significant problems with the methods the PGC is currently using to make that decision. The previous plan was based on 20 years of research in PA and the current plan is based on the survey of less than 100 survey plots/yr.