Let's stick to 2B, 5B & 5C for now. So possibly there is more to the deer density goals than simply carrying capacity for each WMU. 2B, 5B & 5C would have major problems with deer if the deer density goals were higher and tag allotments were less.

I certainly have. I live and hunt in 5B. Public land hunting here on what little public land there is consists of a ridiculously high number of hunters, almost literally behind every tree, pursuing a handful of very pressured deer, and usually running them onto neigboring private properties. If 1 sq mile of land is 640 acres, and we have a game land roughly that size...then the PGC was advocating 5 deer on that entire game lands, that probably has 100 hunters on it or more. I'd have to say in that context that hunting is definitely a competitive sport! When you have odds like that, the only recipe for success is to use the hunters to your advantage. Forget feeding areas, bedding areas, or anything to do with normal deer behavior. The only way to kill deer in that situation is to out compete the other guy. I've seen it as bad as double parking in game lands parking areas to keep other guys from being able to park there. (An old trout opener tactic that still works!) Just far enough apart to take up max space without allowing another vehiclein between. There are still deer to be had here, but odds on public land are pretty weak. If you have access to quality private land here, you are fortunate. Even the co-op land gets hammered. Not exactly the big secrets that the PGC advertises them to be. Every one I know of is as crowded as the game lands.

For the record, I don't think they ever came close to reducing the herd to those goals in 5B. The only places where it could be anywhere near that low would be the SGL and a few other public areas. I would estimate it based on only my own observations in the 20-25 range as an average. Certainly huntable, but is further reduction really warranted? The number of roadkills I've seen has really declined in the last few years, and I don't know of any active red tag farms in the area at this point. I would have to say that the human conflict is in an acceptable range given those indicators.

I agree with you SS, if all you have to hunt is public land it is difficult in 5B and 5C because public land in less than 2% of the area. However the deer have to be managed as an overall herd in this area and not the 2%.

When the DD goals were established as DPSM, deer/human conflicts were not a limiting factor. The goal of 6 DPSM for 5C was based solely on the carrying capacity of the forested habitat in 5C.

"Oh really? Well here's just a few links to folks who disagree. It took about 2 minutes to find hundreds of articles and studies documenting a nationwide decline in both hunting and fishing license sales. Here's just a few "

Declining at OVER TWICE the national average isnt something to just shrug off as "the norm". Lost voice against antis and currently more important, against the ecofreaks, lost income to manage our wildlife, all thanks to our "fine" deer program.

Rsb says: "I think it might also be of some interest to point out that many of the bucks that should have been available for harvest since 2005 died within days of being born following the harsh winters that limited the survival rate of fawns born in the spring of 2003 and 2004."

Completely unfounded theory of yoursand actually rediculous imho. Obviously grasping for excuses where no legitimate onesexist.

"Certainly no data shows that the rack size didn’t increase for 2 ½ year old bucks. No one ever said the rack size would increase for the same age bucks."

No.. Many have stated it would DECREASE as occurred in Miss. and in the Texas Kerr studies.Pgc has had plenty of time to refute these concerns, but as of yet seems to be unable to do so. Seems quite probable the maleffects may be the case, but at the very least the possibility exists. That much is irrefutable until shown otherwise. This isnt a new issue and PGC Im sure must be monitoring it to some extent with measurements. Funny that they havent released any findings when they know many are concerned. Im guessing the results arent any more favorable than the other reproduction data etc. that countered their predictions in that area already.

When Alt was selling his plan he emphasized the beneficial effects of having more ,older dominant buck doing more of the breeding. If it worked the way he claimed 2.5+ rack sizes would have increased do to improvements in the gene pool. Also there is this Alt quote that clearly states that the bucks will be BIGGER due to ARs. Since we had 2.5+ bucks before ARs ,the only way we would have bigger racks due to ARs.

And where does that Alt quote say that 2 ½ year old bucks were going to be bigger, as you claimed he said?

It doesn’t say that because Alt never said it. That is just more of your deceptive flim-flam to discredit him and the deer management program.

You are one seriously misguided individual of a very misguided mission.

Dick Bodenhorn

Now that is about as low as it gets on the MB. You accuse me of lying while at the same time you falsify a quote of something I didn't post. But then again, that is about the level of dishonesty I would expect from a QDM ,PGC supporter.

What did you expect bluebird2.

And where does that Alt quote say that 2 ½ year old bucks were going to be bigger, as you claimed he said?

It doesn’t say that because Alt never said it. That is just more of your deceptive flim-flam to discredit him and the deer management program.

Dick I guess if you would have been at the circus down in Connellsville, Fayette Co. when Alt made his presentation you would have heard Alt say these words while waving 2 racks above his head. Ive talked too a lot of different hunters down that way that right now would spit Beechnut in his eye, few even called him the medicine man.