MeatHunter2

Bowfanatic, I would say both. But let's say that we didn't change to scientific or quality management, Gary Alt was still playing with bears, and the restriction stayed the same. The deer herd was still going to be reduced. What Alt did was combine it into a foward thinking plan so that once reduced we'd be in better shape. No lopsided buck to doe makeup, no more large overwinter herds doing damage to future food sources, and many more 2.5 year olds to hunt and have larger antler growth, which by the way IS something the vast majority of hunters would rather have when given the choice. If it isn't about antlers then a doe should be fine. The meat tastes the same.

Too many people do not understand why the herd had to be reduced, and that's about the only place they "failed"... education. Hunters think (those that understand herd reduction means -to reduce) that once their down everything is magically fixed and that's just not so. Or some even think this is new policy set in stone; to always continually reduce each year. PA's herd initially grew with an increasing food source. Once that changed, deer moved on to greener pastures and the ones that stayed got smaller. Hence the increase in the SE & SW. Couple that with no hunting signs and the herd explodes. Meanwhile back in the forests, those deer are just getting by and the food sources aren't improving, thanks in large part to the DCNR's forestry practices. So to let the food catch up and get by the deer, their numbers must remain low for a couple of years so that someday I can have good hunting with my son and grand kids. If you want alot of deer, you need alot of food, nutritional food that is.

And that's just the forest habitat reason, then there's the social issues of auto damage and death; and economic losses to various types of farming.
Alot of Hunters in PA are short sighted and selfish and groups like the USP exploit that in their own actions. They've done nothing but stir discontent, and that divides us.