Accurracy ain't quite the word I would use for DD "Facts" The way he extrapolates data, heck we won't have no trapolations left!!!
My research has shown that DD's facts that have some truth in them occurr at a 1 to 10 ratio compared to those that have no truth. What I propose is a plan by which we can reduce DD's facts without truth in them down so that they are oh, I don't know at about a 1.1 to 1 ratio with the facts that have some validity to them. Most of DD's facts are debunked by the time they are a year and a half old. What I propose is to only shoot down DD's facts with no validity. Do this unlimited times, then any facts with some kernal of truth in them we will leave alone allowing to stay out thier maybe an extra year or two. This will probably not work and DD's "facts" with no validity will continue to grow and outnumber those with some small kernal of truth in them. More and more will be produced ruining the habitat of the internet. Then it will take years to rebuild a healthy internet habitat. We could put Jim Slinsky in charge of the program!!
Junioprc.

deadeer? are you on drugs?? if you are please stop hunting in pa. peace

Thanks JuniorPC, I needed that!

Instead of just taking cheap shots,why don't you Alt supporters try engaging in a rational debate in which you support your opinions with facts. I listed five statements from the PGc regarding the alledged increase or decrease in the herd . None of you chose to voice your postion on the issue but instead resorted to personal attacks. All that shows is you don't know enough to support your opinions with facts.

DD imagine you talking about RATIONAL[&:][&:]. Your freaking amazing.
ALT has stated that some steps that will need to be taken won't be popular, including reduction of the deer herd. He's also stated that mistakes will be made (and I've herd him admitt to several over the past bunches of years), that changes will be based on the data, and that this is a long process that requires time and patience to correct. Sound pretty underhanded and decietful to me. He's stated this from the begining. You have no rational reason to believe that his deer number goals are too low. No fact to show they are too low. The one overriding thing you fail to
point out to folks is that no matter how low deer numbers go they can rebound exceptionally quickly, unlike habitat which will take much longer. That is the cruxt of the problem. Although if Alt does expatriate the whitetail from Pennslvania I nominate you to harvest the very last one. Kinda symbolic of you being right and me being wrong.
Hey thanks for that face thing advice as folks can see I can now post them!
Juniorpc

The above quote from the PGC site is just one reason I have to believe that the OWDD goals are too low. Another reason is that Alt admitted that 5 C with a goal of 6 DPSM can support more deer than than 2 G with a goal of 15 DPSM. Alt admitted the goal for 5 C was wrong and he did not claim that 6 DPSM , was the cultural OWDD goal. Furthermore, it is simply commonsense that mixed farmland and forest will have a much higher carrying capacity than the contiguous forests of 2 G.