Isn't it kind of funny to be going backwards and looking at the habitat issue after we have been moving foward for 5 years on Dr. Alts version of scientific deer management without a habitat study. Not very scientific is it?

No habitat study was done in Pa by the PGC at all prior to making its rule changes, so there may be some merit to saying taht the "Pa forests are on the verge of collapse" theory of Dr. Alt was a bit of hype. I remember when he said in harrisburg at the Conference on deer overabundance that "there has not been a tree regenerate north of rt 80 in the last 80 years..." ??? Now that was one of his worst exagerations since he took over.

Pa took the word of US Forestry Service personell out of hte NE station Like Susan Stoudt, and the foresters of DCNR to justify the move from our deer population of approx. 30 deer per sq mile that we had in pa when AR/HR started - to our current 'goal' of 12dpsm in pa.

Habitat, according to Dr. Alt is the measuring stick to say when have too many deer in pa, yet he never launched a study for Pa... ?

Dcnr is now saying they will 'partner' with the PGC and begin to study the habitat. So if the PGC does agree to start, we will now be faced with having the eco-extrmemists of DCNR telling the PGC what is too many deer for the habitat. Why does that not make me feel better ?? It makes me a bit queasy to think that DCNR's partnership is going to dictate what is sufficient habitat and what is not.

Anyone else feel a bit of trepidation about that one.....???


Dr. Alt said at the beginning "it is far better to overharvest than to underharvest...." and that is true if you own a timber company, but if you are a hunter and you have to go 4-6 years with no success then its not so hot. It shows where Dr. Alts motivations are though. Err on the side of big business, not traditional hunters and their families.

Maybe the important questions on habitat should have been answered at the beginning of the process, and not 5 years after the changes started...?