Here's another "Rough Snapshot" for Joe Neville's PGC Snapshot Album. It's Garry Alt At one of his finest moments while still a PGC employee.

Actually, Dr. Alt has said some very good things. For instance, in the Pennsylvania Game News, November 1979he noted:

Thanks Mr. Neville.........I was wondering when someone was going to lower the hammer on the Rabble Rousers. How could anyone miss such an obvious point that the deadlines dates were different this year? I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that come Augusts report, the figures will be within a few percentage points of last year's.

Also, I cant help but wonder if all of the posters that claim that PA is "hemmoraging" hunters, and in their opinon deservedly, I wonder if any of them have abstained from purchasing their '06 license. In fact, I surmise that most of these Chicken Littles have even applied for an antlerless tag in their "Deer Devoid" region. The PGC utilizes hunters as a management tool. If you disagree with their approach, don't fill your tag.

The deer are smart enough to go where the food is, but often....hunter's are not smart enough to go where the deer are. I realize that this is easier said than done.....especially on private lands that hunters have owned or hunted on for decades, but its still doesn't excuse poor hunting tactics. It may not be what you want to do, but if the deer are no longer prevelant on your camp's property, go find 'em elsewhere.

As to those who whine about hunting public property, the PGC does not mangage public and private lands differently. The magnage via DMUs and Deer Density Figures. The FLIR results showed that there are sufficient deer on public property, but that they are often concentrated in the more access-difficult areas. It is every hunter's perogative as to how hard to hunt, but you should at least hunt as hard as you complain.

Just my two cents.....they are at least as worthless as alot of the other drivel that I have observed in the forums.

That's about the only truthful comment you made in that post.

It is funny to see these guys that have absolute faith in the PGC.

Everyone knows that the habitat in the NC part of the state is in bad shape. Everyone knows that it is that way now because of the deer populationbeing out of control in the 70's and 80's. The deer overbrowsed their habitat until the point that it can no longer support those great numbers of deer any more.


Now ask yourself how the NC area of PA got in such bad shape under the watchful eye of the PGC. The PGC was paid, by PA hunters, to properly manage game populations. While they sat back and only allowed one deer per year to be harvested, in the 70's and 80's, that habitat was totally wrecked.

You'd think that these experts, the PGC, would have done something about the overpopulation, way back when and prevented the problems we have today.

I call that mismanagement.

The PGC is to blame for the problem today, by not keeping deer populations in check with the land's carrying capacity. That is there job. They are the so called experts.

PA had the hunters willing to do what was needed, but the PGC held all the cards. They did it their way and now look where we are at.

Way back when Gary Alt wanted to drastically reduceantlerless numbers across the state and impose antler restrictions, many hunters voiced their concern. Many warned that there may be a backlash.

The backlash is here.

http://www.pennlive.com/columns/patriotnews/schneck/index.ssf?/base/columnists/115507682058530.xml&coll=1

Expressing their obvious glee and premature excitement over somethingthey don't yetcomprehend,has become the norm for this bunch. Suspect they've put as much thought into their currentlegal efforts, as well.

Rather than spend the time to actually learn things, they appear to favor theeasy approach of having someone "explain" itto them, thus inciting/exploiting their emotional responses to things that may be too complex for them to grasp individually.

Pavlov did well exciting lab animals with sensory stimuli. Others are having success with just playing to the worst fears and emotions of those who are easily led about and apparently will believe anything negative they can find, even if it's not provable.

Some even rant endlessly about the same issues and have done so for the past several years. Just came across a letter one wrote to our rural electricco-op magazine overfour years ago. Hasn't changed his style, subject or emphasis one iota in all this time. I'm sure he thinks he's gotter all figured out by now.

[8D]

OK, forget the 40% figure, let's go with the 5% figure just posted by the PGC lobbyist.

Who here is happy with that?

Not me. If my profit margin drops 10% one year, then 5% the next year, somebody is getting sent to the unemployment line.

I agree with WindWalker, that a lot of the LOCALIZED problems regarding deer numbers are utterly attributable to poor management in previous decades. The deer were allowed to browse themselves out of house and home and, as I previously indicated..…… the DEER are smart enough to move to where the food is more prevalent. The direction that the PGC is taking now, however, is proactive. Or am I to believe that not killing does was bad then and killing does now, is bad as well? Those who think that it is easy to control overall deer numbers by merely issuing antlerless tags, have no concept of wildlife management. Yes, more tags issued equals more deer killed. More deer killed, however, does not necessarily lead to FEWER deer the following year. Nature simply does not work that way. The more does that are killed, the more abundant food is for the remaining deer that winter. This, in turn, yields more healthy fawns that are born each spring. It’s common sense.

There is no doubt that by the PGC attempting to manage all areas of the state under the same harvest criteria (coupled with a lack of cooperation from sportsmen regarding the killing of does), we have seen habitat destruction in certain areas of the state. These areas now require much more work to find the deer. However, as the FLIR studies have shown, the deer exist in much more substantial numbers than the nay Sayers on many of these message boards would have you believe. I also hunt in the North Central tier. To be honest, deer hunting there has ALWAYS been an exercise in patience and creative tactics. Depending upon the acorn mast production, deer would often be concentrated in lower, more agriculturally diverse areas (private). Ambushing deer on their way to and from these areas was often the only possible tactic to employ, and even then, with no assurance of success. These challenging hunts occurred BEFORE concurrent buck/does seasons and BEFORE the so-called slaughter.

In regard to the overall license sales numbers declining, I personally feel that blaming a perceived lack of deer for the change is unreasonable. It is obviously much more attributable to a more socio-economic problem. This is one of the main reasons that forward thinking sportsmen are proponents of Sunday hunting. Plenty of people just don’t have the time to hunt as frequently anymore, and very few are willing to give up a Saturday of overtime. This, coupled with other social factors (lack of youth participation, ect.) are the REAL factors for the decrease in license sales. I do not know even ONE PERSON that has not or is not purchasing his hunting license this season due to PGC deer mismanagement or a perceived lack of available game. If anyone would have a legitimate gripe in that area, it would be the pheasant hunters.

I know the message boards are just for the exchange of ideas and the venting of frustrations. I realize that everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, but the overwhelming and inaccurate aspersions cast in these forums, are at the very least, factually unsound.