alt wants 5 pt zone
 

gary alt wants the state of pa to be 5 points on each antler statewide..i dont know if that will flush to well with the hunters. you guys know its april fools. peace.

RE: alt wants 5 pt zone
 

They have that in ILL. in several areas. Funny, you don't hear the hunters crying there. But, I guess the understand the benifits and the role of QDM a lot better out there. Dofferent mind set. TGK

RE: alt wants 5 pt zone
 

Actually, Illinois statewide law allows hunters to shoot spikes just like our old regs. Whats good about Illinois is that their hunters recognize the need to let a buck mature and realize his antler potential. They also dont have that ingrained aversion to killing does that we are just starting to see fade away around here.

RE: alt wants 5 pt zone
 

The only PA hunters that have an ingrained aversion to killing doe are the archers that spend six weeks passing on doe while waiting for that big 8 pt. Alt promised and then don't harvest a doe.

RE: alt wants 5 pt zone
 

Most archers that I know look to shoot a doe or 2 during the first couple of days or weeks of the season then hold out during the pre-rut and rut for a nice buck. Archers eat doe meat too.

RE: alt wants 5 pt zone
 

That may be true for those that you know but it certainly doesn't apply to the rest of the state . Archers harvested 30.8K buck and 34K anterless for a ratio of 1:1.1. The PS antlered to anterless raio was about 1:4, so the average archer should have had more that 4 opportunities to harvest an anterless deer than an antlered deer,but that is not refected in the harvest data. That means the most of the archers are passing on anterless and waiting for a buck.

RE: alt wants 5 pt zone
 

There goes the Spin Doctor again![:'(][:'(][:'(][:'(]

RE: alt wants 5 pt zone
 

Those are the cold hard facts. If you can't handle them that is your problem not mine.
Do you have any facts to refute the spin doctor?

RE: alt wants 5 pt zone
 

Well, Oh mighty spin Doctor, how about the fact that most archers were only able to get 2 doe tags. How about the fact that many dont need or want to kill more than one doe followed by a buck. How about the fact that some archers like to save one tag for rifle or muzzleloader. What deer902 said is a very common strategy to archers. You should stick to things you know, but, once again, you have taken facts that do exist , put them into the DD blender and mixed things all up and produced yet another DD "pearl of wisdom".

But go ahead, have at it, it's getting kind of amusing.:D:D:D
I doubt anyone really takes you seriously anymore.:D:D:D

RE: alt wants 5 pt zone
 

So the poor undepriveledged archers were only able to get two doe tags. Isn't that a shame. with 300K archers and 2 doe tags /hunter that is 600K doe tags used to harvest 34K anterless deer. So archers filled one out of 17 doe tags during archery season,when they had 6 weeks to harvest a doe. To put it another way ,roughly one out of 10 archers harvested a doe in 2003, while one out of three rifle hunters harvested a doe. now who is doing the work of managing the herd while others are sitting back reaping the benefits ? Could it be those of us who are archers?

If you save a tag for ML season ,you are a rifle hunter not a bow hunter ,unless you use a bow in the late season . Don't expect archers to receive credit for killing a doe with a ML in the late season.

RE: alt wants 5 pt zone
 

Another thing to consider is that archers have more access to land that is unhuntable by a gun.

RE: alt wants 5 pt zone
 

I am a bowhunter. I also enjoy other types of deer hunting....I shot a doe with a rifle and my buck with a bow. OH MY GOD, what have I done, what have I done?;) I have always tried to take a doe in the first week of archery season so that I could focus on my buck hunting and have meat in the freezer. This is the first year that it didn't work that way....I missed a doe on the first day and didn't have any opportunities at mature animals the rest of the season. I killed a large adult doe on the first Friday of rifle season. Now, tell me why it's okay for rifle hunters to shoot only buck, but archers should be only shooting doe or at least shooting more doe. Tell me why so many nimrods in rifle season don't have a doe tag on their back? Is it because most guys that get doe tags try to get multiple doe tags and the others don't get one and don't have to 'help out'?

RE: alt wants 5 pt zone
 

DD, I do agree that all hunters need to be responsible for thier harvest of does. It really doesn't matter what season they are harvested in though. While the earlier the better in terms of each animals effect on the available food, habitat, breeding, etc it's what each hunter harvests each year that really matters. Where it does matter is when archers lobby for longer seasons, no early muzzleloader season, etc, etc. As a group they are not doing thier part. Before anyone gets in a huff, I do archery hunt and folks should know that noone loves harvesting a doe more than me!! I do think that different factors contribute to the harvest figures, many archers wait to harvest does in the other, later seasons, again with some impact on the available food source and a bunch more impact on thier validity as a lobbying group when seasons are being made, changed, etc. DD, now the archers are bad folks. Gosh your angry at everyone. Juniorpc.

RE: alt wants 5 pt zone
 

Now show me where I said or implied that it was okay for rifle hunters to shoot only buck. Rifle hunters harvestes 2.6 doe for every buck while archers harvested 1.1 doe for every buck. Are you implying rifle hunters aren't doing their part? All I am saying is that many archers intentionally delay harvesting a doe or multiple doe during archery season and as a result the archery anterless harvest is much lower than it could be . At the same time many archers support Alt's call for an early anterless season to save a few weeks worth of food.


I personally don't care when any one harvests the deer of their choice as long as their actions are consistent with their support of Alt's plan. In other words they should practice what they preach. Those that oppose Alt's plan are also free to harvest or not harvest what they want when they want,but they too should be consistent. I favor herd reduction in the area where I hunt so we shot the first legal deer worth butchering. Since I don't support AR it didn't matter if a was a doe or a BB,as long as it was legal.

RE: alt wants 5 pt zone
 

I am all for the restrictions already in place in PA, and I only hunt it one week in October for archery!! It will take several years to see its true effect.

However, a 5 pt restriction seems a bit overboard. That means that the "small" deer would be a 9-10 ptr, come on now a bit silly if you ask me.

Leave it as is for a few years, see what happens, then up it to 4 pt statewide if you want, but 5 is going a bit far.

Just a non-resident opinion, but still....

--Bob

RE: alt wants 5 pt zone
 

You didn't say it was okay for rifle only hunters to shoot only bucks. You implied that archers only want bucks and that's not true.

I never said rifle hunters weren't doing there part. What I'm alluding to is this: there are ~1M hunters in this state. ~300k are archers. There are ~900k doe tags(2003). I see more guys in rifle season than I do in archery(statistically correct), but of the bowhunters I see most have doe tags. I haven't done any number running, but I'm willing to bet that about 1 in 5 (just an estimate from memory) has at least one doe tag. Now, I reallize that this is a very, very small portion of hunters in either case, but I think that rifle hunters need to apply for more doe doe tags. There isn't a good reason that WMU's don't sell out on the first round.....I believe those second round tags are going to the guys that already drew a first round tag. I do reallize that this isn't going to be the case for every tag, but it seems logical. What I'm saying is it seems that a small portion of rifle hunters are doing the job for the rest. I reread my post and reallized that I came off a little pi$$y for lack of a better term. I didn't mean to imply that rifle hunter aren't doing the job. I wanted to stress the fact that rifle hunters aren't doing all of the job and not all rifle hunters are diong all of the job.

RE: alt wants 5 pt zone
 

Also, there are no proposals or discussions going on relating to a 5pt restrictions at the PGC.

Next thing we'll hear is that the restrictions will be 4 pts on both sides and nothing less. Not 3x5 or 2x6 but only 4x4.

RE: alt wants 5 pt zone
 

It is alot harder to harvest a doe in archery than it is in rifle season. I didn't have the chance to harvest any doe during last archery season, but I took 3 during the gun season. I did pass on 3 buck during archery season and they were all legal. Does this mean I'm not doing my part as an archer because I didn't harvest a doe?

RE: alt wants 5 pt zone
 

T_in_PA2, re read the first post by painless. this started as an April fool.;)

Of course our year round :D fool here has managed to spin it into a rifle hunter vs archer dispute

RE: alt wants 5 pt zone
 

If you didn't have the opportunity to harvest a doe during archery,no one should hold that against you. I had the same problem so I know how you feel. But, there is no question that that archers could harvest more anterless deer if they choose to do so. Actually I don't blame the archers in the least, I blame Alt for implementing AR before we even started to reduce the herd.

RE: alt wants 5 pt zone
 

That was your response to the April foools joke. So ,who is the April fool?

RE: alt wants 5 pt zone
 

Question: Didn't herd reduction begin with concurrent seasons in '99(maybe it was '00?)? If memory serves we implemented concurrent seasons to increase opportunities to kill more doe. I remember many a fellow complaining then that we were going to wipe out all the doe and we'd have hunters laying dead all over the woods....neither happened, but I remember that taking place.

RE: alt wants 5 pt zone
 

Deaddeer, I have been reading your posts in the past weks and personally I am sick of them.[:'(] I for one think Dr. Alt is doing a very good Job. If you think you could do any better then please get a job with the Game Commission and Do what Dr. Alt is doing. All of your ramblings and spinning of existing data to suit your cause sounds just like the nonsense coming from the Idiots of the United Sportsmen of Pennsylvania. If you think you could do any better than they are doing now then you go do the job and then we'll see if you can take the criticism like the Game Commission and Dr. Alt do.

RE: alt wants 5 pt zone
 

If you believe the results from the new computer model ,there has been no herd reduction in the past five years. Acoording to the PGC ,the concurrent season had no effect, the 1 M anterless tags had no effect and the herd increased by 20% from 1998 and we had 1.6M deer in 2003,more than we have ever had in the history of PA..

RE: alt wants 5 pt zone
 

Then what the heck are you complaining about??? Since your numbers tell you the herd is increasing you shouldn't have a complaint. You got more deer and bucks in older age classes.....OOOPPS according to you you don't have any of that either. So according to you the population has increased and the age structure of bucks has remained the same because Alt hasn't been able to change that either. So tell me what is your position. ALt is or is not ruining the deer herd??? According to you he's had no effect. I'd insert a smilely face here, but I'll be damned if I can figure out how to do that!!

Juniorpc.

RE: alt wants 5 pt zone
 

Junior, just click on the smile on the left of the popup where you type your message.;)

Excellent point by the way!:D

RE: alt wants 5 pt zone
 

That is not true. The PGC and their new computer model says the herd is increasing. They are not my numbers. The harvests and the history of our herd says the herd is decreasing. But since the pro Alt guys get all upset when I contradict the experts I have been paying along with the computer generated increase to 1.6 M PS deer.

But here are some points you might want to think about.

1. In 1997 a total harvest of 397K , with an anterless harvest of 220K, kept the OW herd stable.

2. In 2000,when we har 1M PS deer alt said a harvest of 503 K kept the herd stable.

3. In 2001 with a OW herd of 1M a harvest of 486K reduced the OW herd by 8%.
A. Prior to the season they said a harvest of 328K anterless deer was needed to reduce the herd by 5%.

4. The 2002 harvest of 517K deer allowed the OW herd to increase by 1.6%.

5. The 2003 harvest of of 465K kept the herd stable according to Alt.


Now you tell me if you think the herd increased or decreased.

RE: alt wants 5 pt zone
 

Oh there goes the numbers again,,,,Pardon me fellows but..........

BBBBBBBBBBBBLLLLAAAAAAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCHHHHHHH!!

OH man, All over the monitor and keyboard again!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry guys gotta get a rag to clean it up......

RE: alt wants 5 pt zone
 

I'd love to see a rational explanation on dd's post.I've been asking how this could be for several weeks and no one answers.It proves Alt is the spin doctor not dd.

RE: alt wants 5 pt zone
 

Doug you wont see a response to DD because any response to DD just gets another deluge of "facts". We've all had it with trying to find anything useful in his barrages.

I admit that I have some unanswered questions about parts of Alt's master plan but it's impossible carry on a conversation with DD unless you have an hour to verify the accuracy of his posts.

I'm sure I could find it but I'd rather just ask what question you are referring to and I'll try to answer you if I can.

RE: alt wants 5 pt zone
 

Accurracy ain't quite the word I would use for DD "Facts" The way he extrapolates data, heck we won't have no trapolations left!!!
My research has shown that DD's facts that have some truth in them occurr at a 1 to 10 ratio compared to those that have no truth. What I propose is a plan by which we can reduce DD's facts without truth in them down so that they are oh, I don't know at about a 1.1 to 1 ratio with the facts that have some validity to them. Most of DD's facts are debunked by the time they are a year and a half old. What I propose is to only shoot down DD's facts with no validity. Do this unlimited times, then any facts with some kernal of truth in them we will leave alone allowing to stay out thier maybe an extra year or two. This will probably not work and DD's "facts" with no validity will continue to grow and outnumber those with some small kernal of truth in them. More and more will be produced ruining the habitat of the internet. Then it will take years to rebuild a healthy internet habitat. We could put Jim Slinsky in charge of the program!!
Junioprc.

RE: alt wants 5 pt zone
 

deadeer? are you on drugs?? if you are please stop hunting in pa. peace:D:eek::)

RE: alt wants 5 pt zone
 

Thanks JuniorPC, I needed that!;)

RE: alt wants 5 pt zone
 

Instead of just taking cheap shots,why don't you Alt supporters try engaging in a rational debate in which you support your opinions with facts. I listed five statements from the PGc regarding the alledged increase or decrease in the herd . None of you chose to voice your postion on the issue but instead resorted to personal attacks. All that shows is you don't know enough to support your opinions with facts.

RE: alt wants 5 pt zone
 

DD imagine you talking about RATIONAL[&:][&:]:eek:. Your freaking amazing.
ALT has stated that some steps that will need to be taken won't be popular, including reduction of the deer herd. He's also stated that mistakes will be made (and I've herd him admitt to several over the past bunches of years), that changes will be based on the data, and that this is a long process that requires time and patience to correct. Sound pretty underhanded and decietful to me. He's stated this from the begining. You have no rational reason to believe that his deer number goals are too low. No fact to show they are too low. The one overriding thing you fail to
point out to folks is that no matter how low deer numbers go they can rebound exceptionally quickly, unlike habitat which will take much longer. That is the cruxt of the problem. Although if Alt does expatriate the whitetail from Pennslvania I nominate you to harvest the very last one. Kinda symbolic of you being right and me being wrong. :D
Hey thanks for that face thing advice as folks can see I can now post them!
Juniorpc

RE: alt wants 5 pt zone
 

The above quote from the PGC site is just one reason I have to believe that the OWDD goals are too low. Another reason is that Alt admitted that 5 C with a goal of 6 DPSM can support more deer than than 2 G with a goal of 15 DPSM. Alt admitted the goal for 5 C was wrong and he did not claim that 6 DPSM , was the cultural OWDD goal. Furthermore, it is simply commonsense that mixed farmland and forest will have a much higher carrying capacity than the contiguous forests of 2 G.