NJ_Bowhntr is right on the money the AR must focus on monitoring the harvest. There is no sound process in place to see how old the deer are in PA that get harvested. No check stations is proof postive of this.

Without a process to measures the age of animals harvested the QDM talks and theories are just smoke and mirrors. While staffing and manning of check stations would be a huge undertaking, I would think that in order to make arguements based on theories of the biologists(Alt) that the data must be there to support such claims. If the herd will get in balance how will we know without some data.

A policy should be based on more than just sound theory it needs to incorporate data to support its case. PGC misses the mark right now and with that said there would be a ton of people that wouldn't check their deer in, just the same way people now don't send in their report cards or leave deer in the woods but a few quick measurements of rack and tooth size would be enough to age the deer and provide a small glimpse into some details of the herd.

I agree with the NJ to his point of increased antlerless tags will serve to decrease the population of button bucks, however his logic in saying that just makes more hunting pressure on the 2.5 and older group of animals is a bit off bucks that were harvested in years past were 1.5 and younger in a lot of cases thus the average age increasing from 1.5 - 2.5 is significantly larger than the avergage age previously.

As far as the antlerless kills I agree yet again NJ earn a buck program or unlimted does has destroyed populations in a few areas accross the state. Everyone that has been on this board throughout the year has heard the tales of years before I would see 15-20 deer and now I am lucky to see one. It strikes at the heart of the policy to kill off too many does to bring the herd into a different balance but my guess is the boys follow and find the girls. if your area has been one of the places where a lot of does were removed then the bucks found areas that had more does and of course there won't be as many deer.

Alt wants fewer deer and larger bucks and there are valid argements for each side of that arguemnt. In certain areas the deer do damage the forests. I agree it is better to have hunters rather than PGC sharpshooters hunt the deer. If the damge to certain areas continues we will see more of this happening. A few years back sharpshooters got to hunt on the Gettysburg Battlefield. How many hunters would have shelled out a few bucks to be in a lottery for a partial morning hunt 6a-10a or something like that. Maybe just like the elk program have a guide, orientation meeting maybe even a shooting certification needed in order to take part in a controlled hunt. I mean wow to hunt deer on such hallowed ground is something that was reserved of PGC and national parks service shooters. The public would have loved to had a chance to participate in that.

Any ways be prepared to put your boots on and prepare for another year of hot air and BS. Because with out data it is all just speculation. I think Alt has a few points and there are some good points against it. It is what it is and without facts it is just theory.
They really don't want to know and there isn't much we can do to stop it so remember
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Let them go to let them grow. But the boys won't stay if there are no does! <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>