|
Originally Posted by bluebird2
(Post 3452933)
And , as I said before, that means you don't understand the English language ,even though you admitted Alt didn't use the proper grammar. BTW, how do you know whether Alt was lying or if he just lied in the first part of his statement and used improper grammar in the second part?
News Flash!! ALT IS GONE!!! long gone!!! And no one has said what you continue to claim. It's simply your personal fantasy. |
"News Flash!! ALT IS GONE!!! long gone!!!"
But the legend lives on. lol He was very instrumental, and not to give credit where credit is due towards those who got us to where we are today simply wouldnt be fair to the man. The same promises and predictions are in play today and nothing has changed. The allocation is still huge and the failed plan is still in place. Doesnt matter if its Dr. Alt, or John Q Audubon. The econuts still run the boc and im sure much of the biology staff from all indications. each and every one of them from Alt back in the day on down deserve a good swift kick in the seat of the pants. |
He was very instrumental, and not to give credit where credit is due towards those who got us to where we are today simply wouldnt be fair to the man. |
Originally Posted by Cornelius08
(Post 3452895)
Lmao. Tell me you didnt just say "minutia". :D
|
Did you see kimbos last match? lmao. Mr. Slice lost his last match to some no-name light heavy-weight with a mediocre record fighting nobodies. Guy was like 30-40 lbs lighter and had a friggin pink stripe in his hair!... I waited anxiously to see the fight to finally see what the hyped up kimbo could do to this planned sacrificial lamb. The fighter introduction lasted longer than the fight. Kimbo got knocked out in the first 30 seconds....
|
Originally Posted by Manyspurs
"In the long term" he said. What did we harvest last year? 109K bucks was it?
Originally Posted by bluebird2
(Post 3452610)
We harvested 109,200 in 2007 and 122,000 in 2008.
|
Originally Posted by Cornelius08
(Post 3453022)
Did you see kimbos last match? lmao. Mr. Slice lost his last match to some no-name light heavy-weight with a mediocre record fighting nobodies. Guy was like 30-40 lbs lighter and had a friggin pink stripe in his hair!... I waited anxiously to see the fight to finally see what the hyped up kimbo could do. The fighter introduction lasted longer than the fight. Kimbo got knocked out in the first 30 seconds....
|
"But thank God Gary Alt is in the land of the fruits and nuts now"
My only regret is that he didnt take the rest of the staff with him. |
Originally Posted by ManySpurs
(Post 3453019)
Please don't tell me he was looking down when he was saying it.:guiness::guiness::guiness::busted:
Go ahead, you can expalin the joke to Corny. We know he wont ask about those big words:rolleye0011: |
:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:
|
Manyspurs, I dont see kimbo ever beating brock. Not that i wouldnt like to see someone do it, but brocks just too big and strong. Hes also younger and WAY quicker than kimbo. Kimbo is slower than cold molasses. He'll get better, but never be a "contender" just doesnt have the potential and getting started too late to master everything to do with mma, not a young guy.
Fight Id like to see is Brock and Fedor Emilianenko. Bad Russian dude there brother. Aint quite as big as brock but extremely strong. He got a huge contract from some other lesser known outfit and went there from pride instead of to ufc. SO that fight wont be happening anytime soon. I "got" the joke btb. We "witty" guys understand each other. Your jokes are the only ones usually in need of explanation. Or maybe its just that they arent all that funny? lol. |
Originally Posted by BTBowhunter
(Post 3452950)
News Flash!! ALT IS GONE!!! long gone!!! And no one has said what you continue to claim. It's simply your personal fantasy.
Alt is gone but the quote is still on the PGC website for everyone to read. You admitted Alt used poor grammar so you admitted that I was right and that the quote states that our buck will be larger than ever before. Alt sold ARs on the basis of improved breeding ecology, dominant breeding and better genetics ,which would all lead to bigger 2.5+ buck if the plan worked as predicted. If Alt would have taken the AR program with him when he left,we wouldn't be having this discussion. |
Why did Alt emphasize that the older superior buck would be doing the breeding? He said it to convince hunters that ARs would produce bigger 1.5,2.5 and 3.5+ buck. He also used the flawed computer models from Miss. to assure us that ARs wouldn't result in a decrease in the rack sizes of 2.5+ buck.
For those who don't think alt ment bigger antler bucks should take a minute and think about it. The bigger bucks would be the breeders he said. Now if you know anything about genetics you will know that the more mature and larger bucks would produce larger off springs. Now is this true or not? Now we can only conclude that alt did mean we would have bigger racked bucks than before the AR in the 2.5 and up aged deer. What deer would produce the bigger racked buck in a 2.5 old deer? A 5 year old 10 point or a 2.5 year old 5 point? So from what alt was saying is we would have bigger 2.5 old bucks than ever before and not just by letting them live that long. It was from larger bucks he was talking about doing the breeding. Also, I am seeing smaller racked bucks this year than before. My only conclusion is we shot off the larger 2.5 old bucks and left the smaller AR bucks do the breeding. We are having a reverse affect on the deer herd in return is making for a smaller class buck and a unhealthy deer herd. Our bucks are now a inferior breed of deer from the AR program. You can count on that. They destroyed the genes by targeting larger bucks and letting the small ones to walk and breed. Anyone can see this much better now. AR was a huge mistake. |
Originally Posted by razorrat
(Post 3453361)
The bigger bucks would be the breeders he said. Now if you know anything about genetics you will know that the more mature and larger bucks would produce larger off springs. Now is this true or not?
NO, this cannot be true. Makes absolutely NO difference how old a buck is when he breeds. A buck at 1.5 will pass exactly the same genetics on as he would when he is 2.5 or 3.5. Just as a human father would pass his same genetics on whether he fathers a child at 19 or at 40. Alt was making up "trophy hunter" biological theory here. |
Fight Id like to see is Brock and Fedor Emilianenko. Bad Russian dude there brother. Aint quite as big as brock but extremely strong. He got a huge contract from some other lesser known outfit and went there from pride instead of to ufc. SO that fight wont be happening anytime soon. |
Originally Posted by Steve863
(Post 3453383)
NO, this cannot be true. Makes absolutely NO difference how old a buck is when he breeds. A buck at 1.5 will pass exactly the same genetics on as he would when he is 2.5 or 3.5. Just as a human father would pass his same genetics on whether he fathers a child at 19 or at 40. Alt was making up "trophy hunter" biological theory here.
I would have to dis agree with that. Genes develop and breaks down through life. Take an 80 yr old bald crippled wrinkled old man for example. His genetics has broken down and his genes would not be the same as if he was a 22 old young man. Also if this was the case as you said, Why do breeders wait for their bucks to age before they breed them? To get bigger bucks and alter their genes with suppliments. |
NO, this cannot be true. Makes absolutely NO difference how old a buck is when he breeds. A buck at 1.5 will pass exactly the same genetics on as he would when he is 2.5 or 3.5. Just as a human father would pass his same genetics on whether he fathers a child at 19 or at 40. Alt was making up "trophy hunter" biological theory here. |
I would think that prior to 2.5 years they would have to be 1.5 years and breeding? If the big one is killed i would assume he was dominant and has bred everything on the mountain? The genes then would perpetuate? I also think we as landowners help w/that by lessening the amount of hunting/hunters that can get at that animal. Again, I don't depend on the PGC anymore, they just want to write tickets. I swear we can see traits of some old big deer in the young bucks we spotlight at night, or we see in the fields or in the woods.
|
Originally Posted by razorrat
(Post 3453400)
I would have to dis agree with that. Genes develop and breaks down through life. Take an 80 yr old bald crippled wrinkled old man for example. His genetics has broken down and his genes would not be the same as if he was a 22 old young man.
Also if this was the case as you said, Why do breeders wait for their bucks to age before they breed them? To get bigger bucks and alter their genes with suppliments. I would agree that in more advanced age some mutations could occur. Even in humans there have been theories that older parents can contribute to downs syndrome, autism and various other things in their offsprings. However, I think mighty little will be different in a 1.5 year old buck compared to a 3.5 year old. The point you try to make about breeders waiting for bucks to age does not apply in a wild herd. I don't think too many wild deer are effected by the relatively few food plots out there with any of these deer supplement concoctions some landowners put out in hopes of getting deer to grow bigger antlers. As others have mentioned, if anything the genetically inferior bucks are given the chance to live and procreate for another year or more with AR's. The small 6 or 8 point 1.5 to 2.5 year old will surely be shot at first sight so his better genetics in actuality will be procreating for a shorter period of time. |
[QUOTE] As others have mentioned, if anything the genetically inferior bucks are given the chance to live and procreate for another year or more with AR's. The small 6 or 8 point 1.5 to 2.5 year old will surely be shot at first sight so his better genetics in actuality will be procreating for a shorter period of time.
[/QUOTE That is the problem with ARs in a nutshell and it explains why ARs will never produce bigger 2.5+ buck than we had before ARs. Then if you factor in the effects of high grading, it is clear that ARs won't produce bigger racks in our 2.5+ buck. |
Originally Posted by razorrat
(Post 3453400)
i would have to dis agree with that. Genes develop and breaks down through life. Take an 80 yr old bald crippled wrinkled old man for example. His genetics has broken down and his genes would not be the same as if he was a 22 old young man.
Also if this was the case as you said, why do breeders wait for their bucks to age before they breed them? To get bigger bucks and alter their genes with suppliments. |
I could make the same response to your claim that Alt never said that the bucks produced by ARs would be larger than the pre -AR bucks. Alt did everything he could to convince hunters that dominant breeding by 2.5+ buck would produce bigger racks.
|
Originally Posted by Steve863
(Post 3453461)
I would agree that in more advanced age some mutations could occur. Even in humans there have been theories that older parents can contribute to downs syndrome, autism and various other things in their offsprings.
However, I think mighty little will be different in a 1.5 year old buck compared to a 3.5 year old. The point you try to make about breeders waiting for bucks to age does not apply in a wild herd. I don't think too many wild deer are effected by the relatively few food plots out there with any of these deer supplement concoctions some landowners put out in hopes of getting deer to grow bigger antlers. As others have mentioned, if anything the genetically inferior bucks are given the chance to live and procreate for another year or more with AR's. The small 6 or 8 point 1.5 to 2.5 year old will surely be shot at first sight so his better genetics in actuality will be procreating for a shorter period of time. I also think that if a 2.5 yr old that had only a 6 up on his head would only have a six osprey at 2.5. Now if that 6 could mature to a 4.5 and become a 10 point, his 2.5 osprey would be an 8 and not a 6 I believe. If your skinny and breed and have a child,that child will most likely be skinny. Now if you worked out and ate alot,that changes your DNA. Now if you had another child,the child would have your new DNA and be more like you are now.Not skinny but more athletic built as he matured faster at a younger age. That make sense? |
Here is the PGC's explanation for why they don't think ARs will negatively effect the genetics of our herd. Also ,note that applying the same reasoning means that ARs will not improve the genetics of the herd, so the reasons Alt gave for implementing ARs were bogus at best.
Antler restrictions are killing our best genetics by harvesting 6 & 8 pointers 1.5 year olds. What do you think? Antler restrictions have been a positive for Pennsylvania’s deer management program. Since antler restrictions started in 2002, yearling buck survival has increased (from 15% to 52%), harvest of adult bucks has increased (from ~20% to ~50% of total buck harvest), and hunter support has increased (from 57% to 63%). However, there are still criticisms, many of which center around genetics. The argument that we are removing our “best” yearling bucks from the population, which in turn is affecting population genetics, is common. However, when we take a closer look, with the help of new technology and research, the genetics concern is unfounded. First, deer are wild animals in an uncontrolled environment. Unlike a bull in a pasture full of cows that can’t run away, a buck’s world is full of competition. Bucks compete with each other and must compete for receptive does. Genetics research has shown that yearling males are participating in breeding even in populations with 50% of males being 3.5 years old and older. Since most of Pennsylvania’s bucks are harvested during the gun season and AFTER the breeding season, a yearling buck that is removed has likely already had the opportunity to breed and pass on his genes. Second, recent research has shown that the amount of growth in the first set of antlers in white-tailed males is a poor predictor of antler growth at maturity. A study conducted over 10 years which followed hundreds of wild, free-ranging white-tailed bucks from their first set of antlers found that by the time bucks reached maturity (4.5 years old), there was no difference in antler measurements between those that had spikes or 3 points as yearlings compared to those that had 4 or more points as yearlings. This suggests that spike and 3-point yearlings can grow the same size antlers as yearling bucks with 4 or more points. All have the capability to produce large antlers at maturity. Third, let us not forget that all deer receive genes from both their parents. To date, no one has classified the genetic contribution of a doe to her male fawn’s antler growth. And in Pennsylvania, there is no harvest selection on adult does. Their removal is “genetically” random. Even if we wanted to alter the genetics of Pennsylvania’s deer herd, it would be extremely difficult to do |
Originally Posted by razorrat
(Post 3454129)
I would think there was a perfect age for breeding to produce the best genetics possible.
I also think that if a 2.5 yr old that had only a 6 up on his head would only have a six osprey at 2.5. Now if that 6 could mature to a 4.5 and become a 10 point, his 2.5 osprey would be an 8 and not a 6 I believe. If your skinny and breed and have a child,that child will most likely be skinny. Now if you worked out and ate alot,that changes your DNA. Now if you had another child,the child would have your new DNA and be more like you are now.Not skinny but more athletic built as he matured faster at a younger age. That make sense? I apologize, it appears there are those out there that are like minded with you!:rolleye0011: |
Wrong again. Razorrat is expressing rather extreme opinions that are in direct conflict with what I have been saying about ARs and I have no idea what ospreys have to do with the genetics of our deer herd.
|
Originally Posted by bluebird2
(Post 3454490)
Wrong again. Razorrat is expressing rather extreme opinions that are in direct conflict with what I have been saying about ARs and I have no idea what ospreys have to do with the genetics of our deer herd.
|
Originally Posted by BTBowhunter
(Post 3454415)
Well Bluebird, I guess I have to admit that I was wrong about something. It appears that there is one other person out there who seems to think the way you do about what AR's might to to our bucks after all.
I apologize, it appears there are those out there that are like minded with you!:rolleye0011: Yes, my writting skills are not that great, But I don't care and they are not needed for my job that pays more than mosts on here. |
Originally Posted by razorrat
(Post 3454621)
I agree with bluebird about our deer herds and the AR. I also agree with him that you and Douge are illeterate when it came to what alt was saying about bigger bucks as in rack size and not just by ageing.
Yes, my writting skills are not that great, But I don't care and they are not needed for my job that pays more than mosts on here. I'm sure we all understand that you can relate to Bluebirds way of thinking:s4:. I could even believe you two could be related. |
Then , maybe you are related to Alt since you claim to know what he meant when he said that hunters would likely see"more and larger buck than ever before". Alt has been documented to be a proven liar,so maybe it runs in the family and you are just continuing the tradition.
|
:barmy:LMAO!!!:barmy:
|
I think Gary Alt is the bastard child of George Herbert Walker Bush and that makes him a blood relative Wya's, and with that in mind I've heard said that he had more to do with the 9/11 attacks than those at the P.G.C. are willing to talk about. :confused0024:
|
Originally Posted by bawanajim
(Post 3454874)
I think Gary Alt is the bastard child of George Herbert Walker Bush and that makes him a blood relative Wya's, and with that in mind I've heard said that he had more to do with the 9/11 attacks than those at the P.G.C. are willing to talk about. :confused0024:
I heard he was workin nights at AIG and weekends at ACORN:rolleye0011: |
There you go again btb, twisting up the facts.
He wasnt working FOR "acorn". He was working to SAVE the acorns. Them damn woodswreckers were eating them all, and we now have no trees. :violin: |
Jim says;
"I think Gary Alt is the bastard child of George Herbert Walker Bush." Dont know about all that, but Ive often heard that statement made without the "child of george herbert walker bush attached. |
I'm not a member of the Gary Alt fan club, and I'm pretty sure he feels the same anguish that many members of PA's hunting community do about the P.G.C.
I do believe Dr Alt pisses away more knowledge about wildlife than a high % of this states hunters. A fool he is not, a glass half full sort of guy, yes, a little gullible I believe so. AR was a great idea and I feel would be overwhelmingly supported if HR wold have been reviewed and adjusted to the varying terrains and food sources available to the states wildlife. I just don't believe that game management when performed as a government entity has the speed or adaptability to function at levels we expect or deserve. |
"I'm not a member of the Gary Alt fan club, and I'm pretty sure he feels the same anguish that many members of PA's hunting community do about the P.G.C."
I think you are mistaken. The man wanted MORE deer killed, not less. He also has "godlike" status among the audubon/ecoextremist crew. "I do believe Dr Alt pisses away more knowledge about wildlife than a high % of this states hunters." Absolutely. I dont think is "specialty" was deer though. He proved that time and again with statements made etc. On a comparative basis with other states deer management leaders, he knew NOTHING. I dont mean that to be smart, I honestly believe that. He had guys who knew more, but had alternate agendas guiding him. He was a recognizable charismatic speaker and known for the bear program, thats why he was picked, not because of his vast knowledge on deer management. "A fool he is not, a glass half full sort of guy, yes, a little gullible I believe so." Kinda hard to argue when he spent his life in the forests of Pa, managed our bear, Im sure at least conversed with our previous deer management.... Yet only upon his taking the head of the team did he "get driven to his knees upon seeing the thousands and thousands of square miles of devastated forest" lmao. I mean c'mon. :rolleye0011: "AR was a great idea and I feel would be overwhelmingly supported if HR wold have been reviewed and adjusted to the varying terrains and food sources available to the states wildlife." I agree. But the fact that didnt and isnt going to happen is PLENTY of reason to protest this nonsense. And all indications of pgc's intent show things are gonna be getting WORSE not better. "I just don't believe that game management when performed as a government entity has the speed or adaptability to function at levels we expect or deserve" And your solution is? |
Like everything the goober man does its gonna be a lot late and very much over priced. :bash:
George Bushes fascination with third world cave dweller cultures and and total abandoning of the American working family cost the G.O.P. the three houses of government that that clearly should of held for untold years, he was replaced by a man that has show a clear indifference for not only our constitution, but our well being and our wishes. In return the dummy craps will be replaced by voters searching for some one that will vote in a way that most Americans would be happier with. Until that happens or if it ever happens will be when enough of our states voters have had enough, myself I don't see it on the horizon. As hunters we are a very small % of the states population, thats why I have posted for years that this problem is in the hands of hunters, your friends and neighbors ,because legislators frankly don't care.:s5: |
As hunters we are a very small % of the states population, thats why I have posted for years that this problem is in the hands of hunters, your friends and neighbors ,because legislators frankly don't care. __________________ The UBP support the HR plan, the PFSC support the HR plan the QDMA supports the HR plan and only the USP opposes the HR plan. |
Originally Posted by bluebird2
(Post 3454979)
Wrong again sport. The PGC determines the max. number of deer than can be harvested and the individual hunter has no control over that number.
The UBP support the HR plan, the PFSC support the HR plan the QDMA supports the HR plan and only the USP opposes the HR plan. And I am righter than rain about how like minded neighbors will have far more success in obtaining hunt able populations of deer within parameters that all can live with. Sport. :wave: |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:17 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.