I never attacked his character.I'm saying that there's no evidence to point to who he claims to be.When people make such outlandish claims,I have no need to listen to any of the nensense they have to say.

I never denied that the Audubon,timber industry or DCNR wanted less deer.They were always very vocal about it but that doesn't mean they were wrong.

LOL.Clinton county has some of the lowest deer densities of the wmu has has the lowest deer densities in the entire state and they still over winter over 20 dpsm.I'm willing to bet that most of the guys that hunt there claim that there's no deer.

>I'm willing to bet that most of the guys that hunt there claim that there's no deer.

I know Mike the manager of this property. He sends surveys to all the guys who get DMAP coupons. Of those that return surveys the average guy hunts this property about 4 days and see like 1.7 deer total for the season.




WV Gino

S you proved there area areas with more than 1 or 2 DPSM , which we already knew that. Now prove that there are no areas in the state with 1 or 2 DPSM.

Of course you attacked his character by claiming he exaggerated his work with the PGC on bear and elk.


But it also doesn't mean they were right either and what it shows is that a particular group of stakeholders blackmailed the PGC to reduce the herd to satisfy the special interests of DCNR and the timber industry at the expense of the hunters.

Did he or did he not write the original bear management plan for the PGC?How bout the elk management plan?I've seen no evidence that he did so how is that attacking his character.It's calling a spade a spade.It's also pointing out that he obviously has no credibility.

Sure there are area that have less than 2 dpsm.That's the case in every wmu.Now show us those areas and explain why there should be more.

Exactly how did the Audubon black mail the PGC.Are you once again stating that the deer did not damage the habitat?

I didn't say the Audubon blackmailed the PGC, they just supported DCNR which blackmailed the PGC.

Of course the deer have negatively affected the habitat in some areas. But the current plan is not based on the carrying capacity of the habitat, it is based on the regeneration of trees. A healthy dense stand of pole timber will still provide very poor habitat for wildlife for 50 or 60 years.

Yes,DCNR blackmailed the PGC because they demanded less deer.It's no secret.It was actually posted on the first paragraph of their deer management plan.No one needed a phony conspiracy theorist to make more out of it than there was.Alot of groups supported the need to have less deer because that's exactly what was needed.

Yes pole timber is poor habitat.No one has disputed that but adding more deer to poor habitat is poor management.What do you suggest?Should they continue to cut the timber as soon as it reaches the pole stage?

Good regeneration means better habitat for more than deer and the 4 other species that Eveland claimed benefitted.I'm all for that.