The funny thing is that Pa's herd is not your herd, my herd or Joe Blows herd. It is every hunter who buys a license therefor it must be managed as such. There are planty of rules in place that restrict what you can and can't do as a hunter, hence the hunters manual. You say that there was nothing in place to tell me what I can and can't shoot, but on the contrary. Every year they tell me when I can shoot a buck and when I can shoot a doe. They tell me how many of each animal I am allowed and whet I must do with each animal after it has been shot. So if you are saying that you don't have the freedom to choose any more than you missed that boat a long time ago. Rules are in place to manage the herd wether you like them or not. If you want to shoot whatever the heck you want then move to.....oh wait, there is no state where you can shoot what you want, when you want.

No crap the harvest numbers are going to drop. You just told millions of hunters not to shoot spikes and forks! This is the point. Less yearling harvested = the more bigger bucks there are.It's like telling half the country they aren't allowed to drive anymore and then standing there shocked when yearly accidents go down.

Once again I refer back to my statement earlier. Since when did you actually have complete freedom of choice when it came to hunting. If this was the case every Tom,Dick and Harry would be out with a spotlight at midnight knocking off every deer in their neighbors cornfield. Now why shouldn't that be allowed? I mean, if you are REALLY concerned about our freedom of choice then this sounds like a much more blatant disregard for our rights than antler restrictions. I'll tell you why it's not allowed. It's because of game management and conservation which is the same reason AR's are in place.

It's funny how this works. I'm no math genius but if our herd was staying stable when we were harvesting over 200,000 bucks/year. Then how are we losing Bucks if we hervest around 60,000 less Bucks/year. This is Physically impossible. Without AR's in place there would be roughly 150,000 less bucks in the woods. But then again there would be 150,000 hunters who would have a beautifull set of spikes to hang on their wall (or make a keychain out of).

What you are saying Chickory is a nice soundbite, but it doesn't stand up after srutiny. Yea, we could have let the spikes walk so we could have bigger deer next year...but...oh wait. He wouldn't have made it because some weekend warrior would have blasted 20 holes in him as soon as he crested the next ridge. Once again proving that without AR's the few hunters who would practice quality management would be wasting their time.

Now Pa has less deer and more bucks which reduses the herd and improves the ratio so we can slice, dice, chop, cut, or puree that any way you want and the bottom line is that Alt is doing what he said he would. And to take it a step further in one breath you are telling us that the deer population is way down and the next breath you are saying that if we don't reduce our herd then their won't be any habitat for our bigger bucks. So which one is it, you can't change your stance on an issue just so it supports the point you are currently trying to make because it will only nullify your previous argument.

Looks like win - win in my book.

Chick,
That may be true early on, when there is an overabundance of deer per hunter per mile, but as the herd is reduced a reciprocity factor kicks in.
Meaning that as the herd numbers fall, there is a falling hunter success rate (heaven forbid!) As this happens, the holdover sub AR bucks from previous years become legal once again, and a large buck harvest is expected. (I think it will be this year, bud) When DD numbers reach a target goal, expect a reduction in antlerless allocations. (again, heaven forbid!) Alt knows his stuff. What he goofs on will be corrected. Adjustments will be made on a constant basis.

You PA. guys crack me up


Teaching wildlife management to ya'll is like teaching College Algebra to 1st graders. You've got to give Alt credit for taking on such a pain in the butt job.

Unstead of Antler Restrictions, they should pass a law where only mature bucks are taken, which is ALOT better for the herd. LOL, you guys would really freak out...........

Then change the channel!!!!!!!!

You are entitled to your opinion and you can expect whatever you want , but the facts prove you are wrong. WMU 2G is already 3 DPSM below its OWDD goal and anterless allocations did not decrease and in fact ,they allocated more DMAP tags.

If the number of hunters decrease significantly ,buck harvests may in fact increase , but it will be due to an increasing herd ,which is the exact opposite of what Alt was hired to accomplish and that is herd reduction. So far the only thing Alt has reduced is the buck harvest and hunters satisfaction with his plan. As yet Alt has not corrected any mistake he has made and there is no indication that will change in the future.

This tells me that the OWDD estimates were too conservative in the first place. DMAP is for overpopulated pockets of private property are they not?
Are you saying that property owners should endure damage to their real estate so thousands of "1 day a year" hunters can shoot their dink and be back to the truck by 10:00 am? I have always believed DD estimates to be conservative anyway.

If the OWDD were too conservative they would have been more 50% below the max. carrying capacity. however, they are set at 50% of the max. CC for forested habitat ,so there is no way you can claim they are too conservative.

The vast majority of DMAP tags have to allocated to DCNR or Allegheny Nat'l Forest Land and very few in comparison are allocated to private land. When I called a private land DMAP landowner he said all the tags were allotted to the hunters that normally hunt his land and he was not interested in having any more hunters.

I was not referring to the OWDD goal being conservative, But the estimates of the actual OWDD herd. ....I.E. actual deer on the hoof, being conservative.

Just what evidence or stats can you provide to support that claim? The harvest rate in 2 G correlates directly with the number of fawns a herd of 12 DPSM can support.

Deer don't fill out census cards. hunters frequently fail to fill out harvest cards. The DD numbers are guesses only. My opinion, from my own observation in my hunting areas, is that the DD figures are conservative. This opinion I base on what I see harvested, and the deer numbers that still remain after seasons, and the high numbers of deer in place for the next hunting year. I don't have a phone book of stats to quote for you, just my own experience.