Getting real tired seeing just about everything argued of out of context.

Thanks for jumping in here Jason, I was beginning to feel like the lone ranger here. I suspect that most here that still are trying to keep an open mind have just become weary of the out of context number spewing and are ignoring this thread.

Kinda sound like a good idea.........

Nope,that's not it at all.It's just that nobody can support facts to rebut the fact that this plan will not make hunting better if Alt succeeds with his ultimate goals.You're one of the few guys that make a reasonable attempt without personal bashing.I'd still like you to explain why 3c(overloaded with deer and more than twice the dd goal)is getting 3000 less doe tags while 2g(the only unit below the dd goal)is getting more than 1000 tags over last years allocation.

The only argument I've heard from the pro Alt guys is that they're still seeing tons of deer.Well if that's the case,Alt's paln is failing and they're not deeing the true results of this experiment.

I wont respond about 3c because I dont know the area!
My whole point all along here is that THIS IS ALTS JOB! He is the professional here and his history deserves an honest try.

Cmon Doug, you guys claim there are too few deer some places and say the plan aint working then you turn around say there's too many somewhere else and it still aint working. I say its not working 100% yet!

ALT SAID IT WASN"T GOING TO HAPPEN INSTANTLY!!!

I'm also not saying I don't have reservations about some of the low OWDD goals. I do recognize that there are areas, 2F for instance, that have had too many deer for far too long and probably need to be knocked down a bit more to let the habitat begin to recover.

We live in a fast food world. Everyone expects instant results these days.
Give the profram a chance to work and then criticize where it doesn't. I still maintain that that is exactly what other professional wildlife managers are doing. I'm just happy that we have a guy with the nads big enough to institute a plan that his peers support but don't themselves have the courage to implement.

I used to be fairly involved in this 'debate' over on Huntingpa, but I finally got sick of going in circles. I agreed to disagree so to speak. I do read this thread every day and I'm quite familiar with DD and his antics. Between you, Doug and DD there is pretty much equal representation of both sides....DD is just against the whole program no mater what. You and Doug aren't much different, but Doug's more on the fence about the program as a whole. This has gone rounds and rounds for a few years now and there is no end in sight. Guys aren't fighting it that hard anymore on the other board either....I think every one is sick of fighting and just waiting for something to happen.

Your problem is ,the only way you can defend your position is to misrepresent my position. I have always been in favor of reducing the herd to the true carrying capacity of the habitat and in developed areas it may be necessary to reduce it even more. The problem is Alt's plan is based on the outdated OWDD goals that only account for forested habitat. That is why the WMU's with the worst habitat have the highest OWDD goals and the counties with the best habitat have the lowest goals. Personally I don't understand how any rational person can support Alt's plan when the entire plan is based on the flawed premise that deer only use forested habitat.

I don't see how I was wrong in my assesment of you! Do you agree with current HR? AR? OWDD goals? No, for all. I haven't ever seen you describe any part of this plan that you like. Tell me what part of this management plan you agree with and I'll gladly retract my statements and edit my assertations!

Jason your just not being objective at all. I cannot speak for DD. But I have seen in several of his posts that he does know that there are areas in need of reduction in pa. Yet he opposes the onesize fits all shotgun appraoch with statewide hr.

Or his pointing out that it will help recover some areas that are over browsed if they are reduced, but he points out THE COST of that success of getting some habiatat back is sending a lot of hunters home with less deer in the smaller herd.

I could go on and on but mostly DD is able to show the cost of the plan. What you have to give up in order to get. He also points out when statistics do not match the rhetoric thrown out by many proponents. Nothing wrong with that. Just trying to keep things straight. I have seen him 90% of the time back up what he is sayng with references to PGC web pages and PGC numbers.

Your just bitter because he says what a lot of people just want to block out and ignore. He much more of a realist than many of us, but that is no reason for you be so high and mighty.

I get the impression that some are just jealous of DD's insight and intellect, and t hye show it with low road comments like Jasons.

Alt repeatedly says he wants to balance the herd with the habitat and I agree with that. But, then he uses the OWDD goals that only account for forest habitat ,and I disagree with that. Forested habitat mixed with farmland has a much higher carrying capacity than large blocks of contiguous forest. I agree with reducing the herd in developed areas to te level which the residents of those areas will tolerate , but that woudln't be 5 -6 DPSM. Deer would practically be unnoticable at those levels and for all practical prposes hunting would cease in those areas.

Oh come on BT. By not including the wink and smile I pasted at the end of the statement, you are excluding proper content as well. Lighten up, I was poking fun at the common usage mistake, (as pointed out by someone else, which by the way wasn't in my dictionary so I did give you the whole story, as it was printed) you made with "anxious". I thought it was funny because your misuse of the word stated exactly the opposite of what you intended, which in reality, is a more accurate portrayal of what other biologist are doing.

It's obvious you are extremely senstive to any and all questioning of your beliefs regarding Alts policies. Lighten up, go have a beer and glass some fields for big bucks (not necessarily in that order ) Life is too short, and too much fun to get yourself all tied up in knots over a computer message board discussion.

OK, NJB, It wasnt quite right to leave the wink and smile out. Ya got me
As far as Lightening up, I apologize if I've given you the impression that I am angry or upset over this forum. Naaaawwww I think we all get a bit wound up once in awhile (me included) but my feelings aint hurt and I still regard all ethical hunters as brothers in our hunting fraternity. That even includes you guys that don't understand good deer management!!
Just some thoughts while Im glassin some deer and poppin a beer (in that order!)