RE: Did PA's deer managment need to change?
 

I'm done tracking down your "facts" I just did that with the "50% pike harvest of 2/5 yr olds". You either lie or arn't smart enough to interpret data. Me, I think your smart enough to interpret the data. That only leaves the alternative. Juniorpc

RE: Did PA's deer managment need to change?
 

Since you insist ,here is the data for Pike Co. from the natler survey of 2001. The survey team checled a total of 228 buck in Pike Co, 113 1.5 buck and 115 ,2.5+ buck. Now divide 115/228 = 50.4 %.


You really should read the reports before accussing someone of lying.;)

RE: Did PA's deer managment need to change?
 

I'm still going with lier, but maybe you can't read tables and interpret data. Of the sample of bucks surveyed 50.4% were indeed 2.5 years old in Pike (I'm going out on a limb and trusting you can divide). BUUTTT you can't make the leap from that to the entire population of bucks harvested in Pike from that data. That data is not a representative sample of the age of bucks killed in Pike county in that year. It is simply the number of bucks that were 1.5 and 2.5 years old used in the study to determine the percentage of bucks in each age class with x amount of points. They did not make the interpretation you did because they Know it's wrong, not valid, untrue, and in your case a known lie. These bucks came from voluntary check stations(a dissproportionate amount of hunters who shoot a big buck represented becuase they want to show it to people and they are curious about it's age), meat lockers, taxidermy shops, etc. etc. Taxidermy shops are loaded with bucks 2.5 years old and older. The numbers are not representative of the age class of all bucks shot in Pike, were not intended to be used for that purpose, nor were they, by anyone else but you. Trouble is you keep saying it and folks will believe it. Like I said, I do think your smarter than that, so that only leaves the alternative. Fondly, Juniorpc

RE: Did PA's deer managment need to change?
 

Contrary to what we learned from old Slick Willie, it is a lie when you twist partial facts into your own meaning. It's a lie when you make a statement citing statistics or figures that ignore other facts that would change the meaning of that statement. Partial truth out of context is no truth at all.

I agree with Juniorpc. DD is not stupid. He's actually quite clever.

There's an old cliche that seems appropriate here: Figures don't lie, but liars can figure.

By the way DD, what credentials do you have that would convince us that you should be the recognized expert instead of a man who has spent his entire career studying and managing wildlife.

RE: Did PA's deer managment need to change?
 

Just because your fantasyland version of AR is crumbling around that's no reason to throw a hissy fit. You may not think the survey is a representative of the buck killed in Pike Co. ,but Alt and the PGC did. They calculated the number of 1.5 buck that would be saved by AR dtermining the percentage of the 1.5 buck that would not be AR legal and applied that to the preseason population of 1.5 buck. If the survey did not represent the harvest, then the percentage they used would be wrong ,so oce again you have demonstarted you simply do not know what you are talking about.


The PGC did not use voluntary check stations as you claim and they didn't survey taxidermists because they knew that would skew the results. They really aren't as dumb as you seem to think they are.

If you had actually looked at the report you would see that it shows 58% of the 1.5 buck weren't AR legal in the 3 pt. zone. Alt referred to the study quite often while selling Ar ,but I guess you were dreaming about big racks when he explained it. Alt claimed AR would save 50-75% of the 1.5 buck based on the results from this survey.

RE: Did PA's deer managment need to change?
 

What makes you think I am trying to convince you about anything. To the contrary, I realize you are incapable of facing the truth so I am simply debunking some of the common misconceptions reagarding AR. One doesn't need any credentials to read PGC studies and to compare what Alt claims versus what the actual statistics show. All you need is basice reading comprehension skills and the ability to reason logically.

Give it a try sometime.:)

RE: Did PA's deer managment need to change?
 

I'm still waiting for someone to answer my last three questions.

BTBowhunter,be honest now.Are you willing to take the herd down to below 15 dpsm in your hunting area?If so, how will that improve the number and size of the bucks?

RE: Did PA's deer managment need to change?
 

Ok Doug, first I'll admit that I don't have the study in hand and I dont feel like printing it again but I don't recall any particular area where the goal is 15 der pfsm. I'm sure you'll point it out for me. I will say that I know the area around my camp is currently estimated at 29 deer pfsm with a target of 23. I personally don't like it that my traditional beloved hunting ground has substantially less deer than it used to and the PGC wants there to be even fewer than there is now but I am adult enough and care enough about the long term health of the herd AND the forest AND the other competing wildlife to recognize that it just cant be the way it was for awhile and maybe forever.

I personally think that most arguements against AR and the higher doe kills originate out of emotional attachment to "the way things were" If most opponents to the entire deer managemnet plan were honest with themselves they would see that the overall plan is good for the long term health of the herd and their selfish attachments to old ways are clouding their judgement.

RE: Did PA's deer managment need to change?
 

While that description may apply to some who oppose Alt's plan,there are many others that realize that Alt's plan amounts to gross mismanagement of the resource at a scale that overshadows any mismanagement by previous biologists. The new OWDD goal for the state is now 13 DPSM. and if we use 40K SM of habitat that results in an OW herd of 520K. and with a 40% recruitment rate our total harvest would be 208K deer and the buck harvest would be around 80K.

If you look at Butler County ,the portion in 2 D has a goal of 14 DPSM and the portion in 1A has a goal of 9 DPSM. At 9 DPSM and a recruitment rate of 40 % that means that the max. harvest would be 4 DPSM, or 1 antlered buck and 3 anterless ,2 females and one BB. If that is the type of management you support , then continue to support Alt's plan. If you think a county like Butler can support ,say 20 DPSM, then you might want to recosider your position.

RE: Did PA's deer managment need to change?
 

DD I'm done with you! Your like the kid the parent catches doing something but still denies doing it thinking as long as they keep denying it it's not true. Voluntary checks stations were used. Anyone who hunted Pike county and went into Milford could see the check station on RT. 6 at the head of Schoccopee road(SP). Thank you Peter Pinchot for all your hard work. Why do you think the PGC arranged to have interested folks certified in aging deer by their teeth. So they could give the hunters valid info about the age of their deer immeadiately (which was then backed up in the lab with results sent to the hunters). The other places I mentioned were of course also used. You have twisted things pretzleman!!! The only thing that has crumbled is your CREDIBILITY! Man at the heart of every anti alt person. The kernel it boils down to is emotion, retoric, and untruths. Sincerly ole Juniorpc.