The DMP That Self-Destructed

In 2000 the DMP was simply to reduce the herd by 5%/yr. until we reached the deer density goals in DPFSM that were established in 1980.Then in 2002 the PGC added ARs to improve the buck age structure and increase breeding rates and productivity. In 2003 they implemented the new WMUs and measured deer density in DPSM , based on the old deer density goals based solely on the carrying capacity of forested acreage. Then ,in 2003 or 2004 the PGC changed the entire plan and based the goals on herd health,forest health and deer /human conflicts as determined by CACs.

But, after 10 years of herd reduction and numerous changes in the plan there has been no significant improvement in forest health, herd health and the CACs have been discontinued. Also, the concurrent seasons have been restricted in numerous WMUs while antlerless allocations have been increased in those WMUs. The PGC has also abandoned the previous method used to determine herd health because there was no direct correlation between herd health and forest health,which contradicts what we were told when the PGC was selling the plan. In addition, the audit stated the the method the PGC was using to determine forest heath was flawed and did not accurately represent the true health of our forests.

So, everything the PGC has presented over the last 10 years has been challenged, changed or abandoned by the PGC and we now have a plan that no one knows what criteria the PGC is using to determine antlerless allocations .

I believe the decrease in license sales has been beat to death, just like beating a dead horse. But,for some strange reason you felt the need to post about the decline in fishing licenses on a hunting forum. Could it be that you felt unqualified to engage in discussions on the subjects regarding the DMP?

If you had a clue you would know that is not the answer. The data the PGC provided does not show the deer density in each WMU ,but it does show that HR has not resulted in a significant improvement in forest health in the vast majority of the WMUs. If you actually believe you understand the correlation between the antlerless allocations and herd and forest health, all you have to explain how that applies to 2E,2D ,2f and 2G and don't forget to include the deer density PSM in each WMU!!!

Funny.  29 pages of how the biologists arrived at their allocation reccomendations.  This was presented to the BOC before the meeting for them to review and prepare questions. 

But , just like you those biologist ignored the relative deer density in each WMU. When professional deer managers fail to acknowledge the deer density and it's relationship to forest regeneration,it is a clear indication that they have no idea what they are doing. Furthermore, the data they provided shows no correlation between HR and improved forest health,which shows that their basic premise for reducing the herd was flawed from the beginning.

Deceitful Misinformed Pest