ORIGINAL: bluebird2
Should hunters believe Dr. Alt, Dr. Rosenberry, Dr, Alsheimer or Dr. Demarasis? Dr. Alt and Dr. Rosenberry agreed we had too many deer and had to reduce the herd by around 50% which would result in an average DD of 12 DPSM. But here is what Dr. Alshieimer has to say about the carrying capacity of most of our state.
"The proper number of deer per square mile of deer habitat will vary by region. In our farm rich area of New York State , biologists would like to see no more than 35-40 deer per square mile. Unfortunately these numbers haven’t been seen for more than two decades."
He goes onto say this about the doe harvests that are recommeded.
"In our QDM program we typically harvest between 8 and 12 does per season on our 200 acres. This is a bit more than the normal recommended harvest of 45 does per 1,000 acres, but we harvest a few more than some might think we need to because some of our surrounding neighbors do not believe in killing does."
A harvest rate of 10 doe /200 acres equals a harvest of 32 doe/SM. A harvest rate of 45 does/1000 acres equals 29 doe PSM. So Dr. Al recommends a doe harvest which is over twice what Dr. Alt and Dr. Rosenberry recommends as the over wintering carrying capacity of the habitat. So who should the average hunter believe?
First, you have no idea who you're talking about. Charles Alsheimer is an outdoor writer, photographer and editor. He is a well respected member of the outdoor press but he is not a Doctor of anything. As always, you fail to get the real facts before you post.
BTW here is his website biography page.Maybe he just forgot to mention that PHD huh?
http://charliealsheimer.com/ca/bio.html
Second,those numbers you quoted regarding Dr Alt and Dr Rosenberry are your interperetations and not the goals as stated by them. You can provide no link where either Alt or Rosenberry stated that a 50% reduction was the goal
Third, you obviously failed to mention Dr Kroll AKA Dr Deer. Funny how you left out the man who is probably the most respected wildlife biologist out there today. Of course we all know that you've accused him of being biased because his findings refute all your theories.
With every post you do inadvertently shed some light on who hunters ought to trust.
Hunters would be better served by believing the professionals rather than a self appointed and vocal internet hack who takes bits of data collected by those professionals out of context and twists it to his own conclusions.
Just as it makes no sense to choose a stock reccomended by the landscaper or letting an auto mechanic take out your appendix, it makes no sense to accept conclusions drawn by one or two internet "experts" who won't even offer their real names let alone their qualifications that give them some basisfor constantly criticizing the professionals