O K whatever you say...... Silly me!

uh-oh, I think the light bulb has just come on for BTB.

you have run out of wisdom when you have to reply 'whatever'.

Its Dr. Alt who is hiding and not talking, not any other group. Its Dr. Alt who cannot explain away three years of declining buck harvests. (btw you better hope this years first day there is a hurricane to try and explain away a fourth year of buck harvests lower that when we started the deerscam).

According to alties, this season there SHOULD be a huge leap in buck harvests if there is decent weather on the first day. They claimed that is what kept the harvest down last year, so accordingly if its nice....there should be a big increase. But i wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that increase. []

They said that they would give you a smaller herd, and they are. The part where some hunters as sheepishly fading into the dark of message boards is where the PGC said it would result in an instant improvement in habitat and 'more and bigger bucks'. Whooooooooho.... that was a good one!

But thanks to some sharp hunters like dead deer and others...the scam was pretty quickly pointed out and explained.

Now we are all just left with the smaller herd, less opportunity, declining buck harvests and mediocre deer management.

But on the bright side, there is a LOT less rhetoric coming out of Harrisburg these days...now its just a LOT of lowered expectations.

Not exactly...

I once heard a statement that has relevance here:

Don't try to teach a pig to sing. It'll just frutrate you and annoy the pig!

DD will never concede that anything other than the numbers he chooses to use and the number crunching method he uses means anything. So my response to him is...... WHATEVER

And now for the good news...

Alt IS in control, deer management IS taking the right general direction, and the majority of Pa's hunters seem to be in support of what's happening here!

#1 - The buck harvest is lower because alot of marginal bucks get away because conscientious hunters cannot assess them in time to make a shot, And as a consequence would rather just shoot a doe and go home.

#2 - The same guys who claimed they shot 15 does in their household only for "the good of the herd" and no other reason, are now outraged when the herd is reduced effectively and hunting becomes hunting again and not "shooting".

#3 - Everywhere I go I see alot more bucks and bigger bucks, and quite a few doe too.

#4 - Anyone remember the good old days of one deer per hunter per year? Was deer hunting a waste of time then?

#5 - What does the hunting public want? I don't think they (we) even know. When deer hunting becomes the equivalent of "reach in the water and take a couple of trout home" day, hunting is doomed.

where did you pull that from? Have you done a survey? Want to post it?

Oh, I see you just have the 'perception' that most hunters like it.

Well...most proponents do. Have the perception that is....

Again, Whatever, I believe that my "perception" that Alt is calling the shots is correct and my "perception" is thats a good thing. It's also my "perception" that we still have AR here in spite of your "perception" that the majority doesnt want it.

Allow my perception:
1> I perceive I don't give a fig about antler restriction. Let's make it four points a side, for all I care.
2> I perceive I would like to see, and to have a reasonable chance to harvest a deer.
3> I perceive I don't want to drive four hours across state to the southwest, where deer density charts show the most deer/sq mile, and where I perceive most of Alt's supporters reside or hunt (on leased land).
4> I perceive that doe licenses are given out willy-nilly by the PGC, giving us the perception that we are overrun with deer everywhere in this state.
5> I perceive that three years (or 4?) of data compilation is long enough, coupled with PGC warden observations, to accurately determine deer numbers, and to (pick one or more answers) 1. Compress the WMU's to at least county size, or smaller; 2. Limit the number of hunters on sgl's and state forests through a lottery; 3. Limit the doe tags in overhunted areas.
6> I perceive I would like to know, finally, just who paid for this state's "deer survey", upon which Dr Alt bases his claims.

hey if you don't care about AR, then you are pretty easy to please. But a lot of guys aren't just worried about what they want they worry about what is good for ALL hunters in pa. And of course as you already know when you combine herd reduction with AR as the carrot, then tens of thousands of hunters go home with no antlered deer and they get a doe as a consolation prize. But how long will that last before populations drop. (You won't know though because according to the state they will be saying we have more deer than ever and we are up to 1.9million)

Look to Arkansas this season. Bowhunter magazine says the DNR now estimates thier herd at 700,000 deer down from 1 million two years ago. They have shortened thier seasons and reigned in thier bag limits. Not making everyone happy in a state that has AR/HR for OVER 5 years. So you can say that just a few years is not enough, but when other states demonstrate what AR/HR will do to bring you a smaller herd...then your just not paying attention! And they don't have junior hunters undermining thier AR either, so in pa it will be worse than in Ark. because we allow sub AR bucks to be taken. Did you notice though that Pa does not readily report those stats on thier web site??

And it seems you are at odds with the current deer program if you are trying to limit hunters in SGL's and state forests. The PGC and DCNR are giving incentives for hunters to hunt on public lands. Plenty of tags and easy access, for SGL and SF and on SF they have given you DMAP to boot!

You probably did not realize that according to the PGC, DMAP "focuses hunting where it is needed most" and 90% of dmap enrolled lands are PUBLIC. So ther you go we needed to get deer off public lands most!?!

Big WMU's give the locusts the best ability to roam the country side and eliminate the brown menace. Gots' to have BIG wmu's if you want to 'balance the herd with the habitat'.

and remember the 'survey' that the PGC did thru a university (Cornell?) never mentioned AR. AR was not even on the table when that study was done.

According to talking heads, hunters want a smaller herd.

Well, they are getting it.

We MUST have a smaller herd. That is the reality. We can't have deer season being the equivalent of "reach in the water and take a couple trout home" day. The public (drivers), agriculture, forestry and insurance companies, not to mention the herd itself (carrying capacity for health) have a price to pay for "a deer behind every tree" mentality. I remember when I was young, there was a one deer per year limit. The success rate was something like one deer per seven hunters. Today, anyone that wants to shoot one bad enough, could, really. If you balance the herd with the habitat, success rates WILL decline. Its only logical.

Well, Chicory,

I'm sure you didn't realize it but you've made our point! Most hunters (IMHO) are worried about what's good for their sport, their quarry and its habitat and their fellow hunters. Thats wht most (IMHO) of us are willing to accept that the deer numbers need to be reduced. I dont have a study to back up my opinion but the only complainers at the quarterly meetings are the Unified idiots that have been whining the same tune for around 15+ years. The outdoor writers other than Slinsky and Karl Power seem to be supportive. If the majority agrees with you anti Alt guys as you claim, how come we don't hear it anywhere