Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Regional Forums > Northeast
 A challenge to the Alt naysayers >

A challenge to the Alt naysayers

Northeast ME, NH, VT, NY, CT, RI, MA, PA, DE, WV, MD, NJ Remember, the Regional forums are for hunting topics only.

A challenge to the Alt naysayers

Old 04-14-2004, 04:31 AM
  #21  
 
MikeE51848's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Jim Thorpe, PA
Posts: 536
Default RE: A challenge to the Alt naysayers

7. Private landowners get as many doe tags as we want.
Weren't you one of the posters who railed against the Amish killing every deer in site, on their property?
MikeE51848 is offline  
Old 04-14-2004, 06:10 AM
  #22  
Boone & Crockett
 
PABowhntr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Lehigh County PA USA
Posts: 12,157
Default RE: A challenge to the Alt naysayers

Make it mandatory that all Harvest Report Cards are sent back regardless of success Cross reference each card via a number against the license sold (general or Antlerless) and make it a fine of some sort for each one not sent back.
Darn good idea!
PABowhntr is offline  
Old 04-14-2004, 07:40 AM
  #23  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Raven Creek, PA
Posts: 304
Default RE: A challenge to the Alt naysayers

2. Sunday Hunting for BOW ONLY. (that way you wont tick the farmers off)
3. Extend Archery till the saturday B4 thanksgiving.
4. Issue a doe tag with your hunting license.
5. Start rifle deer season the saturday after Thanksgiving (DOE ONLY on that saturday)
6. Concurrent Bear/buck/Doe rifle season statewide
7. Private landowners get as many doe tags as we want.
8. Require a turkey stamp and be able to harvest 2 Gobblers
9. License fee increase to Out of state hunters (Doubled at least!)
10. Keep refining the DMU's
11. Keep the AR restrictions as IS
12. and finally throw some kind of computer virus into DD's puter to stop
making me sick with all the #'s crap!!!!
13. Life inprisonment for poachers!!!!!!!! (we need stronger fines)
14. Anyone caught littering anywhere gets there you know whats cut off!!
I agree with all of this. except #2 we should have Sunday hunting for all game.
timberjack82 is offline  
Old 04-14-2004, 07:42 AM
  #24  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Default RE: A challenge to the Alt naysayers

There is alot of common ground and that's good.I think most of the suggestions would be feasible and well received by most hunters.Smaller management units and better management in those units seems to be an idea shared by many. It's also clear that most hunters support AR and reasonable herd reductions.Undoubtedly,most of us want to see a better system put in place to monitor the harvest.The dividing force seems to rely heavily on the amount of herd reductions taking place.Some areas are getting overharvested and some are getting underharvested.The point everyone has to understand is that those areas where hunters are complaining so much are the only areas to have reached Alt's ridiculous deer density goals.Those areas show the true reality of this plan.Most people don't have a problem with the general concepts putin place.It's the end result that concerns them.There is no way our hunting will improve if we stay on the track we're heading.Many people came up with good ideas that seem like simple common sense solutions.Most will never get implemented because huge herd reductions are the true goal to keep our forest certified.Don't make the mistake of thinking we need to reduce the herd for a while and then it will be allowed to rebound when the forests are supposedly fixed.Cameron county has been below it's deer density goals for well over a decade and no signs of a healthier forest are showing up.The area around my house has been below it's density goals for over five years now.It's regenerating any better now than it was ten years ago.So how long do we have to wait?It's a complex situation and deer are only a small part of the equation.Our enclosures look just as bad on the inside as the outside.The forest composition has been changed from years of acid rain and forest fire suppresion.The reason we have so many oaks from the turn of the century is because of all the wildfires back then.The lack of these fires today is why so many other species out compete the oaks.Are the deer a factor?Yes,but they're only a part of the equation and it's been proven that in the right conditions oaks can regenerate at deer densities that are much higher than Alt's goals.
DougE is offline  
Old 04-14-2004, 08:23 AM
  #25  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: milford Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 140
Default RE: A challenge to the Alt naysayers

Doug thank you for your unbiased reflection on the responses, not. PA's state foresters would wish to contest your thoeries. In fact several folks, Mike or DD included talked about limiting permits on state forest. DCNR would take the PGC to court if that occurred. They realize the impact deer have on the forest and the need to bring the forest ecosystem back into balance.

Mike, I have no problem with PAB or others throwing out what they would wish happen, but folks like you and DD can't hammer ALt's work and then throw out ideas that don't take into account the real life constraints affecting deer management. I expected more from you and DD, then again after thinking about it.... you gave me just what I thought you would. Juniorpc.
juniorpc is offline  
Old 04-14-2004, 09:17 AM
  #26  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Default RE: A challenge to the Alt naysayers

Nope.I'm sorry but your wrong.There are ton's of studies about the regeneration of oaks that clearly state that oak can regenerate at much higher deer densities.Now I'm not talking about having 60+ dpsm.However,having less than 15 dpsm isn't the answer either.I don't claim to be anexpert but I've done alot of research on this.I'm also working on a project that includes foresters from dcnr and professors from Penn state.Everyone including myself agree that too many deer is detrimental.However,there are many other things to consider.Come up here and look at the enclosures.Even the dcnr forester admit that in order to get adequate regeneration insude the fences,they need to spread lime and spray herbasides.You are wrong if you think the forests will magically recover if the herd is reduced to below 15 dpsm.You'r also wrong if you think there will be more and bigger bucks once that goals is reached. ,I've asked you several times how you expect that to happen but you've still never answered.
DougE is offline  
Old 04-14-2004, 10:19 AM
  #27  
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
 
BTBowhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
Default RE: A challenge to the Alt naysayers

Illbback, I like all of em ........... except # 1, no way!

A far as the deer density goals, first of all the lower numbers ARE using new criteria, (DPSM vs DPFSM). DPFSM is something I think we all agree needed to go. The big issue seems to be how many deer should there be under DPSM? I'll be happy to let the trained professionals decide that. They may need to adjust, maybe not. The point is that this is what they do for a living and us amatuers are not likely to do a better job!
BTBowhunter is offline  
Old 04-14-2004, 10:47 AM
  #28  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 491
Default RE: A challenge to the Alt naysayers

Alt already admitted the OWDD tables are wrong, therefore your alledged experts are wrong. You don't have to be an expert to know that a SM of habitat in 5 C can support more deer than in 2G, but the goal for 2 G is 15 DPSM and in 5C it is 6 DPSM, and that is just plain silly.
deaddeer is offline  
Old 04-14-2004, 10:50 AM
  #29  
Boone & Crockett
 
PABowhntr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Lehigh County PA USA
Posts: 12,157
Default RE: A challenge to the Alt naysayers

and in 5C it is 6 DPSM, and that is just plain silly.
6 deer per square mile? That has to be absurd. 5C encompasses quite a bit of farmland as well as many affluent suburban areas. I cannot imagine why they would be pushing for 6 dpsm.
PABowhntr is offline  
Old 04-14-2004, 11:20 AM
  #30  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Default RE: A challenge to the Alt naysayers

You have to understand that the pgc puts no value on farmland or edge type habitat.They base the deer densities solely on forested habitat.Now do you understand why people are upset about the present deer density goals?The goals are ridiculous and once they're reached none of Alt's claims can come true.So far one one has been able to dispute that.They just fire back with personal insults that add nothing to the conversation.
DougE is offline  

Quick Reply: A challenge to the Alt naysayers


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.