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

So far all you have produced is your opinion of the antler buck survey and you have not provided one documenetd fact. Maybe you can provide the press release where they announce the locations of the voluntary check points or a PGN article that referenced their location in each county. Maybe you can explain why they weren't mentioned in the Job Report 2001.


Then maybe you can explain how the PGC concluded that the average 1.5 had 5 pts., the average 2.5 had 7 pt. and the avg. 3.5+ had 8pts, if the antler survey did not accurately reflect the age and point distribution of the herd.

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

Another load of Doo-Doo from old DD!! [:'(][:'(][:'(][:'(][:'(][:'(][:'(]

The PGC study results clearly list the statewide deer density goal at 21 dpsm not 13 .

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

Before you make disparaging remarks about someone , you really should be sure you know what you are taliking about, in order to avoid feeling really stupid when you are proven to be wrong. Here is the link to the report that lists the new OWDD goals for each WMU , in Table 2. You will note that the highest OWDD goals are 17 DPSM in 2 F and 15 DPSM in 2 G, which are the two WMU's with the worst habitat in the state. The OWDD goal for 2 D is 14 DPSM.


http://forum.hunting.net/asppg/tm.asp?m=586122&mpage=3

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

Well DUH! Maybe my computer is stupid too! The link you listed brings us right back here. Oh wait, my apologies! Not a bad April fool joke.

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

What you just admitted is you never looked at the project Job. No. 21001 and that is why you don't know what the new OWDD are. Furthermore ,you admitted you don't know how to find it on the PGC website on your own. No wonder you don't know what you are talking about. You don't know how to access the information.

Since you can't find the report youself ,try this link.

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/p.../21001-02z.pdf

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

personally im not all that good with #'s and i sure dont claim to be a deer biologist and know whats best for all aspects of the herd,,forest,,etc. BUT I will say this,,,give me more tags each season & i'll show ya thinnin the herd,,,i can hit em runnin,,,walkin,,,,er standin on their head,,,cause i know something about shooting

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

BINGO MORE MONEY
Thats what the whole thing is about not the deer hurd or you just more money!!!!!

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

Thanks for the link. It is quite clear what direction our deer herd is heading under those goals. I said it before, many times, that public land hunting is taking the big hit.

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

BTBowhunter.Did you check out the deer density goals that deaddeer posted?Only one wmu has a goal above 15 dpsm.After seeing that,you you understand how Alt's statements about more and bigger bucks can never come true if his ultimate goals are met.I was a big Alt supporter at first.I lost faith once I started doing some research.The ultimate goal is massive herd reductions.Not many people would complain about saving more bucks and killing more doe.It's the lies and mis information that Alt is using to get to his deer density goals that ticks me off.By the way,that link was taken directly from the pgc website.How many people do think would support Alt's plan if they new what the ultimate goals were?

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

DougE, I'll admit these numbers cause me some concern. I was delaying my response to DD till I asked the PGC if this new density goal is based on the old "forested square mile" or if its now on total square miles. The reference to the old "forested square mile" is conpicuously absent in the entire report. It was almost always in the previous studies and press releases. I have had enough of DD's double talk and inserting his own interpretations as "fact" and wasn't going to answer him till I checked on that. You, however, have not played that game so I'll ask if you're sure this is simply a new density goal without any other change in parameters. If it is, I am concerned, but still not quite ready to second guess those that do this for a living.

DD gloat if you wish. You still have no credibility here even though I may have to stand corrected by you on this particluar point. Your continued editorializing and bombardment with self made or self interpereted "facts" makes your opinion worthless to most of us. I may have missed something out there but I have not made up or twisted any facts to make my point. You, sir, have done that over and over ad nauseum.