1. He has continually over-estimated the size of the deer herd. At 1.6 million deer, that would be over 30 deer per square mile of forested land.
2. The WMU's are too large to properly manage "over-populated" areas; ie. private land holdings.
3. An un-realistic DPM goal. Say goodbye to public land hunting.
4. Did he have any experience managing deer before? Anywhere? Just because your a mechanic doesn't qualify you to work for NASCAR.

The previous admins of the PGC issued too many tags, in some places too, but not to the degree he has. For years, it was nearly impossible to obtain a Schuylkill County doe tag. Now, they can't sell enough of them. You Alt fans are suffering from "10 pt-itis". You think that every 10 pt deer you see in a "hunting" magazine is the norm for that state, and "gee, I want that too". Well guess what, they were here before Alt's programs, you just had to hunt for them, mostly on private or farm land. And they were there regardless of weather/regeneration issues. The only complainers about too many deer had been the forestry and the insurance companies.

Guys this has basicly turned into an anti alt, anti present management thread. With a few comments like The heard was stable back then, etc, etc,..... based on what.... the same estimationing principles Dr. Alt is using and getting hammered for???
"Back then the biologist were not trying.... " Back then the biologists were largely ignored. The bottom line is folks would rather see more deer, shoot a buck every year, even if its a spike or Y buck and don't care what effect that practice has on the herd, on the environment and had little belief that there would ever be consequences down the road. Were seeing that now and can't accept it. Allowed to continue it will only get worse and attacks from folks like foresters, Audobon Society, land owners who can't sustain thier own land because the deer are hammering it. Gosh, I hope public land hunting doesn't dissappear, that's what I hunt!
I think you folks are proving my point..... Up until change was implemented no on really gave a darn or thought about what effect hunting had on deer populations, what effect deer populations had on habitat, and what effect poor habitat had, in turn on deer numbers, deer health, and long term results. Folks only complained a bit when they thought too many deer permits or too few deer permits were issued. Not caring about the politics behind it, the biologists recommendations followed or not, effect on habitat, etc. Juniorpc.

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/v...a=465&q=151350

Sorry for the confusion. I thought you stated that 44% of the harvest was button bucks....I see my error. But to clear it up the above quote is from a letter from Dr. Rosenberry.

Again, I should have been clearer. You stated that "they(referring to the old management parctices/biologists) didn't tell hunters to pass on small anterless deer in order to protect BB." What I'm asking you to do is tell me why the change is a bad thing. Alt did ask us to identify mature doe and not shoot small deer thus saving more BB's.

They didn't do a very good job of it. Not much to explain....seeing 60-80 doe and 1 or 2 spikes the first day of rifle season isn't good management. Now in archery season I see half as many deer as I used to 5 years ago.....but close to half are bucks now and frankly the bucks I'm seeing are bigger. I imposed AR on myself starting the year pror to the statewide restrictions becasue I wanted something more than a dink....I kill plenty of doe as well. Every hunter I've talked to about AR has a different approach to their philosophy....some like it, some don't, some like it becasue of the better bucks they're seeing and some hate it becasue there isn't a deer behind every tree anymore.

The reason it is bad is because the primary goal of Alt's plan is herd reduction, not adding more buck. Passing on small deer removes 44% of the potential anterless targets and that will result in much lower anterless harvests ,since fawns are the easiest deer to harvest.

Here is a personal example of how passing on fawns would effect the harvest Our group of 6 harvested 7 anterless deer and 6 were BB. WE didn't target Bb and we didn't pass on any mature doe and we all had anterless tags left over at the end of late ML season. If we would have passed on small deer we would have harvsted 1 deer instead of 7 in an area where the OWDD tables say the herd has to be reduced from 19 DPSM to 6 DPSM.

I'm honestly not tryint to spin your words, but you blatently stated that we should kill the easiest targets. I don't agree, but to each his own. Hunting shouldn't be about easy targets. I do agree that the Alt's plan is focused on the reduction of the herd as a whole, but another part of his program is to increase the percentage of bucks in the herd. Before you on about buck:doe ratios, I'm fully aware that our ratios in this state arent' nearly as bad as everyone thinks. I do however think they are worse than 1:2.1. I have read studies that state it's basically impossible to have any worse than 1:4 ratio (I think it as 1:4). If I can dig it up I'll post it.

That is why Alt's herd reduction plan is failing. He is pointing hunters in two directions at the same time and it doesn't work. He is emphasizing more and bigger buck to promote AR, so more guys hold off on shooting doe in hopes of getting that big buck. Many pass on small deer until late in the season and then find that they can't find a mature doe so the tag goes unfilled and the herd continues to grow.

In 1990 ,with 806 K tags we harvested 245K anterless deer from a smaller herd in 3 days. Compare that with the anterless harvest for 2003 when they announce it and tell me if Alt's plan to reduce the herd is working as good as the previous plan.

You sound quite positive it's failing. I disagree....in 2002(first year for AR/second year for HR) we killed about 510k deer overall....165k bucks if memory serves. That tells me the herd is being reduced where it needs it....in the doe population. Of course the overall population will drop, but I don't see that as a bad thing. The ANF is severly overbrowsed and heavily hunted yet it still holds plenty of deer. Why is that? Timbering? Poor shooting? Lack of doe harvest? I have an idea that all apply to some degree, but logging in the ANF is what keeps the deer fed, IMO.

I will add that I am objective and will make decisions based on the numbers provided. Those numbers may be in question, but that's all we have to go by. We'll see what the 2003 harvest figures show us....they should be coming out really soon!

I guess you didn't see the annual report that stated the herd was increasing by 1.6% /yr for the past few years even with the high harvests. So it is the PGC that says the plan has failed to reduce the herd and I am just agreeing. That means we added over 16K deer /yr for the last 3 years and that would mean at least an additional 50K OW deer.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this for now. I'll have to go back and re-read the annual report. I don't dispute the 1.6% increase over the last three years. What was the annual increase in the three years prior? I don't know, but if it was greater than 1.6% then that means something's happening. I don't know where to dig up that data....I'll see if I can find it in older annual reports to asses.