RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 

Quote:

---

and compare two states that are HUGELY different in terms of habitat.

---

But are they really that different? Wouldn't quality agricultural land in Lancaster county PA be basically as good as the habitat in Pike county Illinois? I believe this thread was started to show that the PGC is not factoring in quality ag land as being able to suport much higher DD than contigious forest land.
Yes, that seems to be the case. There has been a pronounced shift in deer hunting everywhere towards harvesting mature bucks. I think this was slowly becoming more prevalent in PA, even before the institution of the AR's. Our knowledge of deer behavior and hunting strategies has increased dramatically in the last two decades. Not to mention the phenomenal growth of bowhunting. Know that I am not opposed to the concept of AR's. I disagree with the method. It would be hard to argue that APR's are not protecting a significant portion of yearling bucks, butI have concerns for the long term effects as witnessed in several other states. After reading as much as I could about them, I still believe a spread restriction would be more effective, and possibly avoid some of the potential negatives inherent of a point based system. I'm afraid as more and more hunters toss in the towel in PA, and everywhere, that we will reach a point where those of us that remain will be left with the task of harvesting a large amount of deer/ hunter, or risk being replaced by another method.I strongly disagree with the extent of HR accomplished at the state level. There were places it just wasn't needed to that extent. I feel that the PGC is not going to intentionally allow the herd to increase significantly, but that it eventually will on it's own, due to lack of hunter participation. We already are seeing growing numbers of hunters unwilling to shoot does. When enough hunters give it up, the rest of us will have a daunting task ahead of us, to try and manage a herd with much less manpower than we had a decade or two ago, and then we will have real problems. One more reason the PGC needs to factor hunter satisfaction back into the equation. Lose enough hunters, and all of their "progress" will be for nothing anyway.

RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 

I couldn't have said it any better myself. While Alt denigrated the hunters of PA I doubt that anyone can cite any state where the hunters reduced the herd as much and in such a short time period as the PA hunters. Many states have multiple buck harvests and and as high as 5 doe/hunter antlerless harvests and still can't reduce their herd. Pa hunters have done what the PGC ask them to do and now have the worst deer hunting in over 30 years, thanks to the mismanagement of the PGC.

RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 

Fair question. I only have enough knowledge here to hit the high spots but with that qualifier, I'll do my best.It seems that the diference in mineral content and soil quality is a huge factor. The environment is far more fertilein Illinois. Crop yeilds are close to double per acre on average and the resulting quantity of high quality agricultural forage makes for a very well fed herd. I don't know much about the Lancaster area but I do know that I've heard of corn crops approaching 300 bushel per acre in the best parts of Illinois. Around where I live, 100 seems more like the norm


We agree on a lot of things here. I wholeheartedly agree that a spread restriction is a better method. I'm not sure it would have been the best way to start in a culture where almost every hunter described his buckalmost exclusivelyon point count for decades. It's how we were brought up. We were also brought up in a culture that somehow valued aharvested spike more than an adult doe. I would favor a shift to a spread restiction in a heartbeat. I'm also not completely satisfied with HR as it has been handled. I do beleive that much of the NC habitat has crashed and will take years to recover.The same scenario has played out in the ANF wher I have spentmany hunting hours over my lifetime.

If you havent read it yet, get your hands on a copy of the August issue of North American Whitetail and read Dr Kroll article on page 105. It puts a new and different perspective on the results of the AR studies in Mississippi. It points out some reasonableconcerns that could place doubt on the conclusionsfrom the study.

That being said,when HR was instituted, the PGC had a history of being very slow to adapt to any change. Caution is generally a good thing but the PGC really drew out any change to the status quo. Along came Gary Alt and his immediate sweeping changes. Most sounded good at the time but he also said that he wasn't sure they would work and we had to be willing to adapt. The sweeping changes were made, Gary Alt couldn't take the heat and ran for cover. I'm not a big Alt fan but he was the guy with the cojones to make rapid changes when something didnt work. At first, he seemed willing to admit AND correct mistkes. Remember theyear we had a last Saturday doe starter?Alt publicly declared it a disaster and it went away immediately. Now he's gone and it seems that we have a plan that definitely needs refining and the "stay the course" mentality has returned.

As for hunter satisfaction, I think we will have to agree to disagree here. I don't see the dissatisfaction you seem to see. I admit that I live in an area that still has high deer populations but my camp is in 2F where the herd has been reduced. It is there that we see a remarkable improvement in body size, antler size and in the average number of fawns per doe as well as an improvement in the habitat. The browse line is much less detectable in many of my old haunts. Hunters I encounter in 2F all acknowledge that there's less deer but they seem content with the tradeoff.

I do NOT mourn the loss of the one day (now more like half day) nimrods from the big woods. A slightly smaller punkin army in the woods on "buck Monday" as many of us geezers still call it isn't a bad thing IMHO.;) It is interesting to note though, that PA's decline in hunting license sales is squarely in line with national average acrossthe nation that includes all the states that arent experiencingsimilar changes to their deer herd.

As I first said in this post SS, we seem to have some common ground after all:)

RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 

That is absolutely not true. Kroll exposed his total ignorance of what caused the decreased rack size in Miss. The study Kroll referred to were computer models and the results from the kerr study in Texas. Kroll did not review or consider the actual results from harvest studies that were conducted after ARs were in place for 4 or more years which showed that high grading was responsible for the decrease.
That is a flat out lie. Pa license sales were increasing until hunters experienced the effects of HR. then resident adult license sales began to decline along with junior and out of state license sales. You simply say whatever supports your agenda even if it is a flat out lie.

RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 

Reminds me of a line an old timer used to use at the gun club when someone spouted a tall tale.

It's yer story son, tell it like ya want to!


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


http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages...year_trend.htm

http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/200...ational-trend/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23860020/

http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/h...ory?id=2749871

http://jimbuie.blogs.com/journal/200...e_dramati.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0927/p01s02-ussc.html

http://www.alliedsportsmen.org/Jax090405a.PDF

http://www.savingourhunting.com/why.html

http://newsok.com/article/3103063

http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Inside_FandG/funding_materials/AP_Fosters_new_funds_050107.pdf

That makes you either delusional or a liar. I personally don't think you're delusional but maybe.....

RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 

Screaming Steel,

You posted some fair observations and questions. I tried to answer the same way. You can see for yourself what BB did with it. I do my best to respond to any arguement reasonably and respectfully. That courtesy went away when sparring directly with Bluebird years ago. Trying to be civil where he's involved only seems to furher encourage him to attack and distort.

If you have a bit of time, look at some archives posted by Deaddeer, ddeer and deerfly.You mightfind theminteresting. I will note however that you won't find much under deerfly. At the time he was banned as deerfly, his posts were so ioutrageous that a mod felt compelled to delete a hundred or so of his posts along with several entire threads that he hijacked.

RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/v...a=511&q=159015

It only took me a few seconds to find the only link that matters and that is the official license sales from the PGC. Anyone can see that junior license sales were increasing until the effects of herd reduction became evident. Adult sales increased slightly and then declined at a much faster rate than before the plan was implemented.

RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 

[/size]I see you are continuing with your deceptive methods and ways of using out of context snippets selected from various reports and articles in your attempt to deceive people into supporting your misguided agenda.[/size]

I will help point out of the ways you do that.

You claim that Alsheimer said this:

Alsheimers article recommended a doe harvest of 29 DPSM while in the same article stating that most habitats can support 35-40 DPSM.


That really is not what he said at all. Even though you wish his comments supported your goofy agenda it just isn’t being truthful with the factual context of what he was saying.

Here is what he really said and where you pulled your deceptive snippet:

Quote:

---

“The proper number of deer per square mile of deer habitat will vary by region.

---

Quote:

---

In our farm rich area of New York State ,biologists would like to see no more than 35-40 deer per square mile.”

---

[/size]


As everyone can see he most certainly never said that most habitat can support the number of deer you want believe to believe he said. In fact when using the entire context of the article what he said does not support your conjectures in the least.

Then you post this comment:
[/color]
Kroll also claimed PA had shown,"some amazing results" which is also laughable when you consider their is no data that shows ARs increased the rack sizes of 2.5+ buck


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. The rack size for any particular age class is based on three factors. Those three factors are age, but since we are talking about bucks of the same age that is a mute factor. Then comes nutrition and that will affect the rack size of bucks of the same age from one year to the next, especially in the 1 ½ and 2 ½ year old age classes. Genetics is the third factor to affect the antlers and that will have little bearing on the antlers of 1 ½ and 2 ½ year old bucks unless they can be compared to bucks of the same age within about a week and living in the same habitats.

The fact is I never heard any of the professional deer managers claim there would be any difference in the antler development of bucks of the same age. If you have anything that suggest otherwise such please provide a link to it so we can see it.

You also made this comment which I beleive needs some further clarificationbefore it would be anything other then another misleading misrepresentaiton of the truth.

[color=#0000ff]and that we are harvesting fewer 2.5+ buck than we did in 2002.


Though that particular comment is true for last year, and onlythat one year, it is still very deceptivein that itdoesn’t really tell the whole truth of the historical facts.

Since Doctor Alt had been advocating the need of protecting more of the 1 ½ year old bucks since 2000 it appears that the state had started to experience some voluntary movement in that direction from the hunters.

I will post the number of 2 ½ year old bucks in the Pennsylvania deer harvests for the past fifteen years to show that point. Remember while viewing this that many people were pushing the QDMA message in the mid 1990’s, Doctor Alt started advocating the protection of younger bucks in 2000 and antler restrictions did not begin until 2002.

Years……………….2 ½ and older bucks harvests
1993.……………………….34442
1994.……………………….27460
1995.……………………….31732
1996.……………………….24883
1997.……………………….32836
1998.……………………….34749
1999.……………………….38942
2000.……………………….37261
2001.……………………….43855
2002.……………………….52607
2003.……………………….61994
2004.……………………….62399
2005.……………………….57961
2006.……………………….59528
2007.……………………….48048

Now to help even more people see the way the number of 2 ½ and older bucks in five year averages over the past twenty-five years. This data is in harvests per square mile of land mass.

Years……………….2 ½ and older bucks harvests
83-87.…………………….0.65
88-92.…………………….0.68
93-97.…………………….0.68
98-02.…………………….1.07
03-07.…………………….1.29

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.

[size=2]R.S.Bodenhorn

RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 

And there you have it folks! The only facts that matter are the ones that Bluebird posts !

Aint it funny how he launchedanother tiradeabout Dr Kroll's article in North American whitetail when all I did was suggest that another member read it andconsider Dr Krolls perspective on the Mississippi antler study. I guess we are all supposed to simply accept what BB posts without question:eek:

RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 

RSB

I have to commend you for your patience in posting factual material in the face of Bluebirds agenda.

Seeking out the real story and the real context of the quotes he provides can be an exhaustive task. Weeding out the distortions is simply tiresome. I tried to keep up when he was on here in the past under his many aliases and have since run short of patience with the constant onslaught. That has caused the quality of some of my responses lately to decline and I regret that. It has become difficult to resist the short way out when I know that a well thought out, well documented post will simply lead to another twist.

I thank you again for your patience and professionalism. It's an example worth trying to folow.

RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 

That is an interesting theory , but it isn't a valid theory. The increase in the 2.5 + buck harvest from 1999 to 2002 can be explained by the increase in the herd due to the low antlerless harvests in 1998 and 1999 which increased the herd by at least 20%.
Thanks a million for pointing out that ARs only increased the 2.5+ buck harvest by only 0.21 2.5+ buck PSM . That is what I have been saying for years and you disagreed. You just proved that Alt was full of beans when he claimed ARs would triple the number of 8 pts.

RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 

So what did our illustrious biologists recommend for our farm rich areas? Did you forget they recommended 6 DPSM for 5C and 5 DPSM for 5 B . Maybe you forgot that they assigned the highest DD goal of 17 DPSM to 2F which has the worst regeneration rate in the state. Then we can look at 2A and 2B where the habitat is so good they needed a 4pt. restriction to save enough buck, but the goal for 2B was 10 DPSM and 2A was 13 DPSM. Therefore, IMHO it is quite clear that the PGC is attempting to manage our herd at much lower densities than the true MSY carrying capacity of the habitat.

RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 

BB2 what percentage of land in 5C and 5B is private land?

RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 

In 5C it is 99.5% and in 5B it is 98.6% ,but that has absolutely no effect on the carrying capacity of the habitat. That is, unless you want to claim that private land has a much higher carrying capacity than land managed by the state.

RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 

I agree, that has no effect on carrying capacity. Have you seen a decrease of deer in 5B and 5C with all the doe tags that have been issued with the 5 & 6 DPSM goals?

RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 

Hope you don't mind WTD but letsinclude 2Bin that question.

RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 

I don't mind at all!

RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 

I can only address my area of 5C,where the vast majority of land is hunted hard even though a lot of the land is posted. Although I have no stats to support it ,I would say the herd is down by 30-40%. But,at the same time it would not surprise me if the herd was increasing in other areas of 5c where the herd is protected by city or borough ordinances that prohibit hunting,

But, in any case, if the herd was being managed based on the true carrying capacity of the habitat ,then we should have at least 35-40 DPSM,but we don't.

RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 

PGC data shows that the herd in 2B, 5B and 5C are as follows from 2004, 2005 & 2006. Table 8 Change in herd size and Table 5 doe tag allocation in parenthesis from the year before: http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/pgc/reports/2007_wildlife/21001-06Z.pdf

2004 2005 2006
2B1.07 (45,000)1.15(68,000) 1.29 (68,000)
5B 0.91(60,000) 1.01(64,000) 1.09(56,000)
5C 0.97(66,000) 1.00(71,000) 1.06 (71,000)

So BB2 what would you conclude from the relationship between that tags that were alloted and the change on herd size for these three WMU's?

RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 

Without a doubt the data shows the herd was increasing in all 3 WMU;s. But the data also shows the herd in 2G increased by 42% from 2005 to 2006 and the herd in 4a increased by 74%. can you explain how those increases were possible?

RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 

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.

RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 

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.

RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 

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.

RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 

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%.

RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 

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.

RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 

"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.

RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 

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.

RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 

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

RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 

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.

RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 

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.

RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 

I remember it as well. He would rant on and on about how the more natural breeding ecology and balancing the b/d ratio would cause so much competition for breeding rights, that only the superior deer would do all the breeding, and as a result the racks would get noticeably bigger over time. Interestingly enough, all of these direct quotes seem to have disappeared or been edited.Is someonepracticing damage control? I'll have to see if I can dig it up in a published article somewhere in my old magazine cllections.I am 100% positive he said those exact words, and its frustrating not to be able to find a link to it. They may have deleted those quotes from the PGC web site, but it still should be in published form somewhere, where they cannot delete it. I'll say $50 to anyone who can find it. There seem to be many who recall him saying those words at the onset of his deer plan.

RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 

They also seem to have edited his quotes on the b/d ratio being 1/10, after the PGC's own data showed how far fetched that claim was.

RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 

Here is the link to," Getting the POint on Antler Restrictions".
http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/p...f/getPoint.pdf

It clearly states that in the long term hunters will likely see more and larger buck than ever before. The only way for hunters to see larger buck than ever before is for the 2.5+ buck to be bigger than they were in the past.

RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 

Simply not true. This is justone of your more feeble attempts to put words in someones mouth. No matter how many times you twist it Alt did not say that the anlers of any age class would be bigger or better in that same age class.

Much like your claim that PAstands alone in a decline in hunting license sales, the real evidence proves otherwise.

RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 

Can you explain how we will have bigger bucks than ever before if the 2.5+ bucks aren't bigger that than the per-AR bucks,

I never claimed PA stands alone in a decline in license sales. What I said was junior license sales were increasing before the effects of HR were noticeable and then began to decline. Adult license sales were stable or increasing slightly before the HR and then declined at a faster rate then the national average.

RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 

Clearly part of the goal was that some of those bucks that were saved by AR would live beyond 2.5 years. Results have not been quite as good as it was hoped but clearly, a larger percentage of bucks are living beyond 2.5 than there were before AR. All research indicates that antler quality depends on three factors. They are, in order of importance: Age, nutrition and genetics. Obviously, the only componenet that can bemanaged with any degree of effectiveness on a statewide basis is age. With PA being mostly private property, a widespread improvement in nutrition would be a far more daunting task. Lastly, managing genetics in a wild population with 900,000 huntesr would be the hardest (virtually impossible) component to manage



Uh, yes you did. Just a few pages back. I then provided ten links supporting my position. You have not provided any documentation and now you back away from what you claimed previously.

RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 

I most certainly did document what I posted. I posted the link for the license sales records from 1999 ,from the PGC and they show junior license sales were increasing.

You provided nothing to refute the claim that Alt said our 2.5+ buck would be bigger than they were before ARs.

RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 

"Much like your claim that PAstands alone in a decline in hunting license sales, the real evidence proves otherwise"

The national license sales dropped 4% from 2001 to 2006.

According to PGC's license sales record, the license sales during that same period dropped 10%, going from 1,047,820 down to 945,892.

The fact our license sales are decreasing at OVER TWICE THE NATIONAL AVERAGE....shows something going on here, that isnt going on in other states.... A miserably failed deer program. And judgingby thegovernment interventions, audits, lawsuits, petitioning,arguing, and hemmorhaging of hunters, Id say a "punctuation mark" would be appropriate at the end of "miserably failed program"...!

RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 

"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."

Ive heard the term "medicine man" used, but thats about the nicest comment that Id heard. I dont think that Dr. Alt will be referred to as the "patron saint" of deer hunting in Pennsylvania anytime in the too near future. LOL

RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 

When one claims that another has said something, the burden of proof does not lie with those who question the claim. the burden of proof is on you for stating that Alt made that claim and you have produced no such evidence.

Common sense tells us that such a claim would have caused an immediate challenge and rightfully so. Alt made no claim that antler size would increase within any given age class. Alt was guilty of being overly optimistic in his predictions of the numbers of bucks that AR would save but he admitted that as soon as it became evident with the next years harvest numbers.

You kind of remind me of Barack Obama. Very free and easy with criticisms of the satus quo but very short on constructive ideas going forward.