I am really interested to hear why all of PA's surrounding states have superior deer herds and better hunter opportunity. Obviously it must be Alts fault that the deer herd is in such disarray. After all 80 years of incompetent game management couldn't have caused the problem in the first place .You know this anti Alt thing is really out of hand and I am really tired of the whining. I really hope they roll back the old game commission so you people that are dissatisfied with Alt can get to shoot your annual spike buck and occasional doe on doe day.

If we shouldn't be shooting at running deer with a rifle,should we be shooting at walking deer? Should archers be prohibited from taking a shot at over 30 yds .which would be the max. effective range for the average archer? What do you think our current OWDD would be if every hunter passed on all shots at deer that are moving?

You won't get an answer to your other questions ,because there are no rational answers. The PGC just keeps moving the goalposts and changing the regulations so no one can keep up with all the changes.

The rational answer is don't shoot at a deer you can't identify, period.

Every deer I shot at in 48 years of hunting was identified as a legal deer whether it was it was bedded ,standing, walking or running. I never mistook a deer for a bear,turkey ,grouse or another hunter. AR makes it more difficult to identify a legal deer,but once you identify it as a legal deer,there is nothing unethical in taking a moving shot if you feel you are capable of making a clean kill. If you doubt your abilities than pass.

DD your a peach. It ain't that hard to follow the regulations. They must also change based on the data collected. If they didn't change you'd moan and groan about that. Mistake kills were less than expected initially and have reduced even further. ARs make us more responsible hunters. But why point out something positive about ARs?! Your ship is sinking. Juniorpc.

Can you back that statement up with a link. Recent articles on the antler buck study showed illegal kills accounted for 9% of the buck being tracked. In 2002 the PGC said mistake kills accounted for only .001% of the harvest.

Before Alt implemented concurrent seasons ,hunters had to check every deer to make sure it had at least 3 " spikes if they were buck hunting, and they had to be sure it didn't have 3" spikes if they were doe hunting. AR did not make us more responsible, it simply made it more difficult to harvest a buck. Those that respect the law do so now just as they did before, the slobs still shoot first and check it when it is on the ground.

false, PGC has stated just what I said. Folks running the Sat tracking program have also reiterated the same. Other states that have implemented AR's in the past also found the same results. It does make folks more responsible. Yes, it does make it more difficult, but worth it. It does make you more responsible, and certainly more mindful of your role as a sportsman in making hunting the managment tool it can be to ward off detractors of hunting from all sides. Juniorpc.

Now that is pretty funny and a prime example of the AR spin machine. One of the main thing anti -hunters point to is those hunters that hunt for big racked bucks to hang on their wall. AR makes controling the herd more difficult as proven by the increase in our herd to 1.6M. We are even protecting buck in SRA counties so they can be killed by cars.

The hunters that are showing that hunting can be used as a management tool are the 323 K hunters that took anterless deer. The ones that were forced to pass on spikes and Y's did nothing to improve the herd.

Well DD, we found at least one point we can agree on. You are absolutely correct that we need to kill does to be an effective manangement tool. You are also somewhat correct in saying that the the most vocal of anti-hunting hates trophy hunting. Usually they try to imply that trophy hunters take the head and waste the rest, another myth. I think most here will agree that the nuetral, non hunting public would be more offended by the massive harvesting of immature deer than the taking of mature adults. Yes, doe seasons take a bit of toll on the young does and button bucks but not nearly as much as you have implied. As a matter pf fact, the PGC fawn mortality study results put hunting way down the list of causes of fawn deaths. of 218 fawns in the study only 7 were killed by hunters.

Passing those spikes and y bucks is allowing SOME of our young deer to age to 2 1/2. Some of those will now be educated enough to live to 3 1/2, 4 1/2 and older. Gary Alts stated goal was to balance the buck/doe ratio
(and if you really believe our B/D ratio is 1:2 then maybe you should hire Santa Claus to manage our deer) and to manage for an older breeding class of adult males. AR, coupled with higher doe kills, will do that. It's not going to be perfect but the average age of our bucks will increase over time. Gary Alt was very clear when he repeatedly said that bigger racks would be a BY-PRODUCT of a sound scientific management program.

You and your "it aint broke! don't fix it!" buddies are the anti hunting crowds best ally. Here on one hand we have an experienced, well educated, wildlife management professional attempting to manage the herd for all interests, other wildlife, the forest, hunters, and non hunters and then we have the short sighted hunter that gripes because he might not get a shot because he now has to take a bit more care to see if thats a legal buck before he shoots. Worse yet, he might not have that set of spikes or y's to saw off and admire for a day or two before the dogs drag em off!

The non-hunting public that want the herd controled doesn't care whether we harvest mature deer or fawns since they will never know the age composition of the harvest. they don't care if we harvest cub bears and they don't care if we harvest fawns,unless 60 MInutes does a report.

The ten year avg. BB harvest prior to 2000 was 44K. In 2002 we harvested 77K,which is the main reason our 2003 buck harvest was only 142K.

You can't provide one bit of data to support your claim that the B/D ratio wasn't 1:2.1 but I can provide the statas from Bret Wallingford for 2001 when we had 244K adult buck and 533 K adult doe ,for a B/D ratio of 1: 2.18. remember ,we harvested 203K buck in 2001 and we only had 1 M OWD. So what do you have to refute that.

What has Alt done to solve the problem of too many der in the last 4 years. Absolutely nothing. Instaed the herd increased and the problem is worse than when Alt took over. your hero is a dud and AR is another dud. No other deer biologists has been able to reduce the buck harvest by 61K while increasing the OW herd by 100k ,in the history of deer management.