---

Also, a proposal given preliminary approval in January to allow junior hunters to use their general license tag to take an antlerless deer in any county of the state was rejected.

"Of all the things that could improve our deer breeding ecology and increase the number and size of bucks in the herd, nothing would do it as quickly and dramatically - and be accepted by hunters - as changing our antler restrictions," said Dr. Gary Alt,

---

---

ORIGINAL: bluebird2

Once again you are dead wrong!!I provided two separate quotes where Alt predicted hunters would be seeing bigger buck than before ARs. He did not say hunters would see more big buck,he said hunters would see more and bigger buck. The only logical meaning of that statement is that the 2.5+ buck would be bigger than before ARs.

Here is the final nail in your coffin.

"
Since ARs do not increase the size of 1.5 buck , he was clearly referring to the 2.5+ bucks when he said ARs would increase the number and size of of bucks in the herd.

---

---

ORIGINAL: TWOWITHONE

BTBowhunter explain 1 thing to me. Why, when G.Alt was down in the Connellsville High School was he waving 2 different racks around. I was there were you, I know what he said.

---

---

As I've said before, Alt said some of it wrong. The infamous more and bigger bucks is a clear example of that. We have bigger but not more. Plain and simple.

---

---

That being said, your claim that he said that buck antler size would change within a given age group is 100% fantasy on your part. You cant prove it because he did'nt say it so now you've shifted to a strategy of concluding that it just has to be what he meant! Pathetic!

_____________________________

---

---

Then I guess that would make PGC Barack Obama? Lots of unsubstantiated claims, promises with no intent to fulfill, and we havent moved forward... Just losing hunters, slaughtering the herd widescale statewidefor little apparent reason other than audubonwants it that way...

---

---

Want us to move forward? Put more deer where they can be and should be within the acceptable habitat limits, with REASONABLE and APPROPRIATE antlerless allocations...Thats not being done.

---

---

Only thing that will moveus forward will be legislators continuing to "stay the course"continuing to keepmoremoney out ofPgcs hands.

---

---

Obama appeals to the lower IQ crowd with the tax only the rich chant while Bluebird appeals to the lower IQ crowd by chanting over and over that the habitata can support more deer

---

---

Are you now claiming the 2.5+ buck are bigger than they were before ARs?

---

---

Apparently you have a problem understanding the english language. In 3 different quotes Alt said that the bucks would be bigger, larger or increase in size. It should be obvious to everyone that he was referring to the 2.5+ buck produced by ARs.

What do you think Alt meant when he said the bucks would be bigger than ever before?

---

---

ORIGINAL: bluebird2

Do you mean the lower IQ crowd like Alsheimer who manages his 200 acres at a density so high he can harvest 8-10 doe /year?

---

---

I'll try again once. Now read this R E A L slow.... 2.5 bucks are bigger on average than 1.5 bucks... still with me? Go back and read it again and repeat the process till you understand part 1. Now lets try a little more for today... ready? If more of the bucks we harvest are 2.5+, our average buck size will be B I G G E R. I know it's a lot for one day but sleep on it and read it again tomorrow. If you still don't understand after that, you will have officially passed the USP life member IQ test.

---

---

According to you, Dr Kroll is stupid, Charlie Alsheimer is stupid, Dr Samuel is stupid, Dr Alt is stupid along with the vast majority of their peers. I can't help but wonder why someone as "intelligent" as you hasn't been snapped up by some game management agency?

---

---

ORIGINAL: bluebird2


You are reading things that aren't there. Alt said nothing about the size of the average buck harvested. Furthermore, since we had 2.5 bucks before ARs, the only way hunters would see bigger buck than ever before is if the 2.5+ buck with ARs were bigger than the 2.5 +buck before ARs. Like so many PGC supporters you see and read what you want to see ,not what is really there.

---

---

This should increase the number of
bucks living at least one more year and,
in the long term, hunters
will likely see more
-

---

---

ORIGINAL: Cornelius08

Alt doesnt belong on that list. To include him is a gross misrepresentation. Those other gentlemen are extremely noted and knowledgable whitetail deer researchers. Alt actually owned up to his huge lack of knowledge on the topic of deer management more than once. He was a BEAR biologist, and a mouthpiece/hypnotist for pgc. Nothing more when it came to the deer program, and certainly not to be confused with the same "class" as those who'd studied deer for many decades.

I also like how he stated that when he was shown the state of the forest it drove him to his knees! (LOL) Always get a good snicker when Im reminded of that one. He he he.:D

---

---

Alt doesnt belong on that list. To include him is a gross misrepresentation. Those other gentlemen are extremely noted and knowledgable whitetail deer researchers.

---

---

ORIGINAL: BTBowhunter

Not according to your hero Bluebird. He claims to know more than all of them.

---

---

Please provide the post where I made that claim. All I have done is to point out that one shouldn't take everything written by the experts as the truth. Alt out right lied,Kroll was mistaken about ARs in Miss. and Alsheimer didn't question Alt's lies and simply repeated them giving them more credence.

I never claimed to more than all of those experts, but I know enough to know when they aren't telling the truth.

---

---

Even you questioned Alsheimer claim about harvesting 8-10 doe/200acres,so do you know claim to know more that Alshiemer?

---

---

Does anyone in his right mind beleive that ANYONE would promote a deer density so high that it could sustain a HARVEST of 29 doe per square mile? A sustained doe harvest that large would require a pre season density of 90-100 DPSM when adult bucks, buck fawns, and non hunting mortality are also considered. He expects us to buy that fairy tale?

---

---

The proper number of deer per square mile of deer habitat will vary by region. In our farm rich area of New York State , biologists would like to see no more than 35-40 deer per square mile. Unfortunately these numbers haven’t been seen for more than two decades.

In our QDM program we typically harvest between 8 and 12 does per season on our 200 acres. This is a bit more than the normal recommended harvest of 45 does per 1,000 acres, but we harvest a few more than some might think we need to because some of our surrounding neighbors do not believe in killing does.

---

---

And yes, you've called them all liars and of course you've claimed to understand better than them what's right for PA

All that together makes what I said before valid. You think or at least you pretend that you know more than they do.

---

---

In our farm rich area of New York State , biologists would like to see no more than 35-40 deer per square mile. Unfortunately these numbers haven’t been seen for more than two decades.

---

---

Fawn recruitment (34%) was an
improvement over 2004 but still below target level. Buck:doe ratio in 2005 (1 buck:4.7 does)
was much improved over previous years and close to goal.

---

---

After reducing the herd by 48%, and implementing ARs, deClasta is still claiming that the B/D ratio is 1:4.7 which is next to impossible. The statewide average B/D ratio before herd reduction and ARs in PA was 1:2.1.

---

---

ORIGINAL: bluebird2

Are you claiming Bret Wallingford of the PGC is lying about the B/D ratio? He is the one that provided the data that shows the B/D ratio in 2001 was 1:2.1 There is also a PGN article from 1984 that shows that no county had a B/D ratio worse than 1:2.8 and many counties were at or below 1:2.0

---

---

Why did the population “estimate” of 1.5 million in March 2001 (press release # ??) change to 1.37 million in March 2002?

The March 2001 “estimate” of the deer population was not a population estimate at all. It was a PROJECTION of what we expected have in October 2001. It used the previous 5 years of survival and reproductive data to estimate what these parameters will be the NEXT year. Since it projects into the future, and bases survival and reproduction on past years, there is little chance that this year’s actual survival and reproduction estimates (because they are measured using data) will hit exactly on the 5-year average. The 5-year average is used to reduce variation, and give us the best estimate of what the parameters will be in the following year.

Survival of deer between January and October is an important parameter to measure for projecting deer populations. This parameter accounts for the difference that occurred between the 2001 projection and the 2001 estimate.

In January 2001, using the ESTIMATED preseason population (which used harvest data) and subtracting the harvest left the following deer to overwinter:

Adult bucks: 55,482
Male fawns: 282,571 (total males = 338,053)
Adult females: 412,803
Female fawns: 259,700 (total females = 672,503)

(Note: all of the overwintering deer listed above will be adults in the October 2001 preseason estimate.)

The October 2001 preseason ESTIMATE (calculated in February 2002 using the 2001 harvest data) gave the following for adult males and females:

Adult bucks: 244,220
Adult females: 532,551

---

---

Assuming for a moment that the 1984 article says what you say it does (probably numbers taken out of context again) just how relevant and reliable is data from 1984 likely to be? You yourself question every current number to come out of the PGC (when it fits your agenda) Your wishing for the good old days has caused you to quote data that was 20+ years old before to make your point. All it does is make you appear desperate.

---

---

Even considering that button bucks generally get counted as doe by hunters, how many PA hunters would agree with you based on deer sightings prior to 2001?

---

---

ORIGINAL: bluebird2

Here is the data B. Wallingford provided for our 2001 deer herd.

The data is quite relevant because it shows we haven't had a problem with the B/D ratio for over 25 years. Furthermore, since we have had an antlerless harvest every year since 1984 , it is impossible to have a B/d ratio of 1:4.
If you include fawns ,then you are talking about the antlered to antlerless ratio ,not the B/D ratio.

---

---

According to the numbers you just presented, we were harvesting 80% of our adult bucks and yet only around 22% of our adult doe in 2001. And you expect us to believe the B/D harvest was not out of whack?

---

---

ORIGINAL: bluebird2

It's funny you would post something that obviously conflicts with your personal observations in an area where the B/D ratio should be skewed due to lower that required antlerless harvests.

I have no idea where you got the 20% adult doe harvest . In 2002 we harvested 37% of our adult doe and every year more doe than buck are lost to non-hunting mortality. The only way one can get a B/D ratio of 1:4 is if there is no antlerless harvest and you have very low productivity.

---

---

Adult females: 412,803
Female fawns: 259,700 (total females = 672,503)

(Note: all of the overwintering deer listed above will be adults in the October 2001 preseason estimate.)

The October 2001 preseason ESTIMATE (calculated in February 2002 using the 2001 harvest data) gave the following for adult males and females:

Adult bucks: 244,220
Adult females: 532,551

---