1.You still didn't answer my first question.Alt is the one using the pgc's numbers.Whether or not they're the exact number's isn't the point.Alt is trying to show a trend by using them.How can we possibly have not decreased the herd if there was an 8% decrease in 2001 followed by two record antlerless harvests?This alone proves that he lied somewhere along the line.

2.You still haven't answerd how his claim of" more and bigger bucks" can come true when the deer density is reduced to les than 15 dpsm.I'm living through that right now and it cant happen.

3.The quality of the average buck will not improve when we rech his deer density goals.A higher percentage of bucks will be 2.5 year older but they won't be any bigger than the 2.5 year olds before ar.Remember,I support ar.I just know it won't make near the difference he claims it would.I belong to a 15000 acre lease that's been practicingit for over 6 year now.The results were good the first few years.hen,the timber company made us let more people in.There used to be about 150 members.Now there's over 600.Due to the increased pressure most bucks that were big enough to shoot,got killed.There hasn't been anything exceptional taken off that lease in two years.That will be the story with most of Pa.Regardless,I still think the benefits of ar are worth it.The results will not be as great as Alt led everyone to believe.

4.Even Kip Adams from the qdm association agree's that the worst the b/d ratio could ever get is 1/3.That's with every adult buck getting killed.Take a harvest of 250000 bucks.If approximately 50000 additional bucks were carried over,that would leave 300000 preseason bucks.A 1/5 ratio would give us 1.5 million doe.Those doe would recruit 1.1 fawns each on average giving us 1.65 million fawns.The total preseason deer population would be 3.45 million deer.That's impossible.Your confusing the b/d ratio with the antlered to antlerless ratio.The adult breeding age deer are the only ones that are factored into the b/d ratio.

5.The only thing the bigger wmu's did was concentrate more tags in areas where hunters had the most access.It did nothing to address area where the deer herd was too large.Most of these areas have limited access.As a result,an overharvest occured in many areas and an underharvest ocured in many places where access was restricted.It's interesting to note tha tmost of the overharvests have occured where the most state timber is.

6.What would I do in the sra's?For staters,I'd issue unlimited tags and a much longer seasons.

7.I'm primarily an archer myself and I have no problem sharing the woods with others.This is one area where I commend Alt.I think killing more does before the rut is agood idea and I welcome increased opportunities for hunters.I give him a thumbs up for this one.

8.I also give him credit for the concurrent seasons.I wasn't sure how they would pan out at forst but I now agree that it was the best approach.

9.Don't get me started on how great he did with the bears.I agree he did alot of good research.However,he was trying to increase the population.That's a stark contrast to what he's doing with the deer.Alt was put in charge of the deer team because of his ability to speak not because of his knowledge of deer.He even admitted that.

I'm not a biologist or a forester either.However,there's a great deal of information out there on regeneration,especially oak.You can do a search yourself but I'll say this,it's alot more complex than just the deer.

I'm not against everything Alt has done.I agree with herd reductions in most areas and I like ar.I just can't stand the way he's misrepresented the facts in order to achieve ridiculously low deer densities.It's not about the deer,it's about forest certifcation.I have all the documentation and I'd be glad to fax it to you if you have a fax machine.