I didn't fly off the handle. I QUESTIONED something DougE said cause I havent seen these numbers officially. Could someone please let us know where we can find these PGC statistics.

As for your statement about the insurance industry, MikeE, I didnt fly off the handle either, I merely pointed out that you made an completely unfounded bogus statement that is patently untrue. Nothing personal, but you should stick to what you know, what you said just aint so.

BTW I was at a few Alt meetings and while I won't attempt to give exact quotes, what I heard is that it was important to fix the buck/doe ratio and allow more bucks to age past 1 1/2 years so that natural breeding competition returns to the herd. He said we will have more big racks (I don't remeber him promising an exact number) as a by product to sound management. We are getting what I heard him promise!

Anyone out there who can help me find the PGC numbers Doug quoted?

Here is the link to the 2001 antler buck survey.

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/p.../21001-01z.pdf

In 1999 we had 552,200 adult doe and 245,900 adult buck with a B/Dratio of 2:2.2 The adult buck total correlates with the buck harvest in 1999 of 196K.

You can find the results from the old computer model versus the new model if you log on to the ,Management plan 6--.03pdf file ,on th PGC website.

Mike,every figure that I posted cane directly fron the pgc website.I'd post the exact link but I'm computer illiterate.About the only thing I can do is a google search.The density goals are on the website but you have to click on a side bar to find them.I would be more than happy to fax them to anyone.The harvest report claiming there was an 8 percent decrease in 2001,can be found on pgc release 22-02.It was from march 15,2002.*

BTBOWHUNTER is 100% correct about the insurance industry not being involved.Deer collissions are very predictable,allowing the companies to adjust their premiums to still make a profit.The cost simply gets passed back to the consumer.I've been in the insurance industry since I graduated from college in 1991.I hear about lowering exposure on different risks every day.Not once has the subject of deer ever come up.It's all about timber fellas.All my links about forest certification are in my desk at my office.I'll try and post the addresses next week.It's very obvious once you do the research.The audubon was one of the biggest contibuters to the studies being done.The other parties have remained anonymous.

Thanks deaddeer. I think I had your stats and DougE's confused when I asked where could find this stuff. Fact is I've seen it too. I think we all have to agree that results are really still sketchy and based more on a collection of bit and pieces than on good scientific study. Its just too soon to tell.
That being said, I'll enter my personal experience (extensive for one guy but I am just one guy). Spent parts or all of 38 days in the deer woods.
Saw some but not many older bucks. Saw plenty of deer on private ground open only to a few. Saw similar numbers on private ground open to anyone. Also hunted ANF several days. didnt see quite as many deer but saw enough deer and enough sign to believe that there are still way too many deer there. We've let it go too far for too long. Now we're going to have to cut the deer number even further there if we ever want the forest to come back. Yes, the timber industry is applying pressure! What some folks need to understand is that what the timber companies want, a healthy self sustaining constant crop of hardwoods, is what the wildlife there needs too for the long term.

Did the number of "8pts" double? Maybe not. But no one can deny that the average age of our bucks is going up and thats what Dr Alt truly promised from AR.

Smaller management units are the one HUGE disagreement I have with him but just listen to the guys in the sports stores and at the clubs whine about it being too complicated now and you begin to understand why that wont happen for a while.

No, Alt said AR would double the number of 8+ pt buck and we would have more and bigger buck than we ever seen before in PA. Both statements are untrue if we reduce the herd by 50%

While the average age of our buck may have increased ,the question is , is that increase sgnificant and the answer is no. Alt claims AR saved 38K buck,and if 80% survived there would be 30 K additional 2.5 bucks. Those 30K buck would be spread out over 41 K SM,so there would be less than 1 additional 2.5 buck PSM. That is a totally insignificant and meaningless change that will have no impact on dominant breeding or the breeding ecology.

Then accept my apology.

Doug, Oh, Doug, This thread was not about Alt... It was about management the previous 100 odd years or so, or at the the last 20 to 40 years folks have been hunting. Anyway..... I do believe their are reasons we won't as many larger numbers of larger bucks in the begining years of the managment change that some folks would like or they can twist around. But we certainly do have more bucks in larger age classes. If you've spent any time in the field, or viewed deer from the truck while spotlighting you can see that. It's plainly obvious. Thier are more rack bucks out thier. OOOPS there I go...using heresay to prove my point. Wow, I'd make a good canidate to join the anti alt crowd! Deer numbers do need to come down, habitat does need to improve... which does not happen over night or over year for that matter. Deer will get bigger, healthier, and bucks will have larger antlers and then low and behold the habitat will be able to hold...... a bit more deer.. Imagine hunting being used as a management tool. Not much the antihunters could then argue about at that point, huh. Call me crazy.
The first buck I ever shot was in a group of about 25 to thirty deer, I stopped counting looking for the buck I saw as they came down the hill. I then watched as they all made a turn and filed by me. At least twenty five does and fawns followed by the buck I shot . What a great memory from years gone by....BUT that's not how things should be!! Too many deer, too many does compared to bucks, not enough older age class bucks, all on habitat steadily declining. A lifetime of hunting without discussing, realizing or careing about what we were doing to the habitat, to the deer, to the resource as a whole.... My son begins hunting in 11 years... maybe we can correct our mistakes by then. Juniorpc.

Do you realize that in 2001 ,before AR, 51% of the buck harvested in Pike Co. were 2.5 + buck. Were you bragging about all the older, bigger buck you were seeing in 2001? Or don't you hunt Pike Co.? If not, tell us in what county you are seeing all these older ,big bucks.

Deaddear, I hunt pike, wayne, monroe, wayne, center, union, and lackawanna. If you don't think thier are more rack bucks out there this past year than the before and previous years your kidding yourself, but no one else. That's just what I and others have seen. Also noticable at the butcher shops. Will also be reflected in the data collected. Pike county has a poor habitat problem. If you don't think go for a walk in the woods thier and see for yourself. Juniorpc.

There may be more big bucks in some areas and there may be less in others , but AR only saved 38 K buck and that is less than 1 additional buck PSM. If you are good enough to notice that one additional buck ,you must have calibrated eyeballs.

I know of a private hunting club in Monroe Co. that wns 2 FSM and has 40 memebers .They harvested less buck than in 2002 and the racks were no bigger this year.

We will see what happens when they release the harvest data. However , I will guarantee that even though we had 1.6 M PS deer the buck harvest will be much less than the 203 K harvested in 2001.