A challenge to the Alt naysayers
 

Ok guys, You have pointed out every misstep Gary Alt has made, every possible downside to AR, increased doe kills, and the PGC's management plan in general. You certainly have a self proclaimed expert on the facts and figures among you.

So, we know you dont like whats being done. Lets pretend that we all wake up tomorrow and you are the official grand poobah of deer management and your wish is our command.

What would you do with or deer herd, habitat, farmers, foresters, hunters and the non hunting public?

RE: A challenge to the Alt naysayers
 

4 pt AR state wide and ALLOW SUNDAY HUNTING;)

RE: A challenge to the Alt naysayers
 

DVD are you nuts? 4pt restriction?? Heck it's hard as heck with 3pt restrictions so why go to 4pt! In my opinion that would be the stupidest thing that they could possibly do!! I do like sunday hunting though good idea!

RE: A challenge to the Alt naysayers
 

Slayer, He did add a ;) at the end!

RE: A challenge to the Alt naysayers
 

1> Propose a 25% license fee hike.
2> Poll hunters on AR, yea or nay.
3> Shrink WMU's to at least county size, or smaller.
4> Limit tags (or seasons) on sgl's, state parks, and state forests.
5> Have independent deer survey taken.
6> Consider again, mandatory check stations. Difficult because seasons are too long and spread out. Possibly $500 fine for not reporting a deer kill or make same penalty as poaching.

RE: A challenge to the Alt naysayers
 

Ok here's my (just mine) response

1 Woul leave even fewer hunters. Bad for our cause on the political front

2 Been done, AR won!

3 I AGREE, I hope it happens with time

4 Maybe a good idea in selected spots, but how would it be accomplished with existing manpower and resources.

5 unnecessary but if it happened, you don't trust the PGC, would you trust someone they hired

6 One I totally agree with. I've hunted other states and all of them had mandatory check stations

Some problems with your solutions. They are completely one sided in terms of who they serve. Your plan seems oriented toward one thing more deer. That doesn't even serve the majortiy of hunters. Not to mention the fact that you've ignored the interests of property owners who feed the herd and provide cover.

RE: A challenge to the Alt naysayers
 

1.I'd love to see suday hunting but that's a legistature issue not a pgc issue.

2.The first thing I would do is manage each area according to the current population density and habitat.In doing so I would adjust the allocations,season length,and bag limit accordingly.The management units would be much smaller.It can be done,just look at states like Colorado.

3.I would also hand out a seperate doe tag with each muzzleloader stamp and each archery stamp.I doubt this would effect the resource much but it would increase hunting opportunities.

4.I would make it mandatory for each hunter to report how many deer they killed even if they didn't kill any.

RE: A challenge to the Alt naysayers
 

Ok, so umm, I guess you are the expert.

RE: A challenge to the Alt naysayers
 

Bt as for #2 I hardly call 750 people a true representation of hunters in PA. The better thing to do would have been hand out a survey with every license bought and make it mandatory to fill out. Place a fine if not. They would have all the info needed to do just that off the license application. But to say that 750 is a fair survey is wrong. In some areas some may not feel that way while in others they do. Was the survey a random sampling all over the state or just one gegraphic area? This all needs to be taken into consideration.

RE: A challenge to the Alt naysayers
 

Allow sunday hunting.
Separate license for each season (rifle, muzzleloader, archery, etc) $40/per
Crossbow gets to share two week season with muzzleloaders (last two weeks of Nov.)
No season overlaps (no muzzleloader during archery)

And the most important: Moratorium on bucks for 2 years. Fine for illegal buck goes to $1000. No exceptions.

RE: A challenge to the Alt naysayers
 

The first thing I would do is revise the OWDD goals to reflect the true carrying capacity of all the habitat that the deer utilize. Here are the goals Mich. uses to manage their herd.
And, here is what the deer managers in Wisc. have to say about their herd.

Then I would divide the current WMU's in to much smaller units. Wisc. currrently has 130 units and Mich. has over 118 units. If they can manage the herd with that many different units ,why does PA only have 22 units?

The next thing I would do is repeal AR in every unit that isn't at its OWDD goal. If a WMU is at its goal then a survey should be taken of the hunter and landowners and if 66% approve Ar, than AR should be implemented for a five year trial period ,just like the Mich. plan.

In any unit that is 50% above its OWDD goal ,I would implement an earn a buck program for all seasons that occur prior to the Dec. rifle season. That would be the best way to address the problem in suburban and farming areas.

In any unit that is double or triple its OWDD goal ,based on the true carrying capacity of the habitat, I would allow hunters to use any legal weapon to harvest any deer from Oct.1 to Jan.31. They would be allowed 1 antlered buck with spikes greater than 3" and 1 antlerless deer for each tag they were issued. If that failed to reach the goals then I would issue an additional tag for every anterless deer harvested.

If you believe in herd reduction ,as I do, that is the way to achieve the goal ,instead of sending conflicting messages by implementing AR before the herd is reduced.

RE: A challenge to the Alt naysayers
 

DVD don't let deerslayer get to you I love the 4 pt restriction too.
No sunday hunting. Reason there are people who like to use the woods who don't want to get shot at. And yes it does happen and if you don't think so YOUR NUTS. I mean people who ride horses or whatever. I know right now thier is no sunday hunting I mean just keep it that way.
No buck hunting for one year. HMMM [:-]
Change seasons around like start date for specific weapons. Get doe harvest done before the rut not during the rut or after it. We don't need bucks to waste there energy breeding a doe only to get shot 3 hours later.


Maybe all are not really serious but some are you just have to figure it out or maybe I am but don't want to get raked over the coals


Brian

Great topic BTB

RE: A challenge to the Alt naysayers
 

These wishes only apply to Deer Hunting Seasons:

1. Include Sunday Hunting, especially during Rifle and Muzzleloading seasons
2. Extended Rifle Season, 2 weeks to 3 weeks before or after Dec. 1st
3. Early Muzzleloader season includes doe and buck, could be 1 week after Archery ends
4. Late Muzzleloader season includes in-lines, start 1 week prior to XMAS instead of after
5. Smaller WMU's
6. Expanded DMAP's, doe and buck instead of doe only
7. OK with antler restrictions
8. Start Archery in mid-September, end Oct. 31st

If you notice, I am eally only interested in including Sunday Hunting during Rifle and ML seasons, not Archery.

T

RE: A challenge to the Alt naysayers
 

I have to admit that I like Mike's suggestions based on the area that I hunt. However, I realize other areas of the state offer different hunting opportunities than the little corner I hunt in. My suggestions though I do not consider myself an Alt-naysayer are....


1. Sunday Hunting for deer.
2. Smaller DMU/WMU with appropriate adjustment for hunter density in relation to public versus private land.
3. No overlapping seasons during the month of October. Move muzzeloader-Junior/Senior rifle to November.
4. I would support a small license increase.
5. Expand archery season from mid-September through the usual mid-November but then also extend it to the end of January.

I think that would satisfy my personal wants, needs and desires though I have no idea how it would impact the deer herd. ;)

RE: A challenge to the Alt naysayers
 

Some quite interesting perspectives. [&:]

Although not an Alt-naysayer, I would like to toss in my thoughts:
1. Institute sunday hunting, regardless of season or quarry.
2. Start archery sept 15, even if its just a doe only time.
3. Archery doe season in SRA runs sept 15 to jan 31, it never goes out.
4. Remove the jr/sr rifles from october. Although I don't like it, I'd let the ML season stay during that time.
5. Smaller DMU's and mandated reporting with stiff fines for violations.
6. Expand the after christmas season to include flintlocks, inlines, Xbows, regular archery, pistols of straight walled caliber, and shotguns. (basically an anything but rifle season.
7. Make pistols of straight walled caliber legal in SRA during deeer season.

RE: A challenge to the Alt naysayers
 

DD, Mike, now give us ideas with real world pressures, considerations, politics, mistrust, tradition, small but organized resistence, etc. etc. etc. etc figured in.
Myself- I would hire as many more biologists as I could garner support, funding and political backing for. With one leading to the other; ie- policital backing leading to funding, support leading to political backing etc. etc. I would then divide the managment units into as many as I could based on the biologists available to cover those areas. I would continue the studies in place, create a comprehensive list of areas in need of study, create a timeline outline of the order and time frames I'd like to get these studies off the ground and give the public an idea of where we are heading and how we will get there. Most of all I would let the biology, the studies dictate the direction I go in, the results from the direction I go in guide further study, changing and fine tuning my direction as we went, and oh yeah I'd do all that without ruffling any feathers, bowing to politics, tradition, small groups of discontent, personal and professional jealousy of those against me, financial/budgeting contraints, etc. I WOULDN"T WANT TO MANAGE PA's DEER PROGRAM FROM A COZY OFFICE IN CALIFORNIA LET ALONE MICHAGEN OR WISCONSON. Watch out for CWD out thier DD. DD, Mike, where's your statements about constraining what you would like to do with what you can in reality do, when you would like to do something and when you can in reality implement some change. Let's keep hammering the person who has to put up with the real pressures of running the deer management program shall we. Do tell us more. Man, PAB, I love bowhunting too, how do we get Gary to go for that longer season?!! Juniorpc

RE: A challenge to the Alt naysayers
 

Lets deal in reality. The question asked was a fantasy one, like "what would you do if you were president for a day" or as in "Bruce Almighty". I have as much chance of seeing what I'd like done as you have in longer seasons and Sunday hunting. I offered my views.

RE: A challenge to the Alt naysayers
 

Here's an easy idea as far as I'm concerned.......not as thorough as a check station for sure, but better than what we have now.
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. if we went to a computer generated license like many other states, this information would pop up on a screen informing the clerk that a report card was not handed in.........pay the fee right there or no new license.
They are already printing these cards, postage paid so why not actually MAKE the hunters use them. Won't cost anything accept the postage paid for each one.

Leave AR's alone........settle down a bit on the doe harvest, maybe actually plant some real food plots on all the game lands. Sunday hunting instead of screwing around with new seasons, moving start dates blah blah blah. What good are extra WEEKDAYS to hunt? For me they mean NOTHING.

RE: A challenge to the Alt naysayers
 

The original point here was to put a few folks on the spot for simply criticizing without any reasonable solutions. We still have a few of those out there but this thread has also pointed out there's a lot of common ground here. I think almost everyone mentioned smaller management units and true deer harvest reporting. The reporting could happen tomorrow if the pgc wants it and smaller dmu's could happen very quickly too but thats would be a tougher task. Maybe we'd all be better off to concentrate together on the things we all know will help.

JMHO

RE: A challenge to the Alt naysayers
 

1. make BT the head of the PGC:D
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!!

RE: A challenge to the Alt naysayers
 

Weren't you one of the posters who railed against the Amish killing every deer in site, on their property?

RE: A challenge to the Alt naysayers
 

Darn good idea!

RE: A challenge to the Alt naysayers
 

I agree with all of this. except #2 we should have Sunday hunting for all game.

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.

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.

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.

RE: A challenge to the Alt naysayers
 

Illbback, I like all of em:D ........... 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!

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.

RE: A challenge to the Alt naysayers
 

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.

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.

RE: A challenge to the Alt naysayers
 

I agree , but it is a fact. The reason is because they assign no habitat value to any land but the 3 classes of forest types and assigns no value to fringe areas,farm land swamps or brush patches.

RE: A challenge to the Alt naysayers
 

At least the experts admit this is a complex problem and that they have made and will make mistakes while finding the solutions.

So why not give em a chance to get it right? This thing has just gotten started.

Sometimes they are, the difference is that they will keep trying till they get it right. That, to me , is better than sticking your head in the sand and not making any long term changes cause some of those changes may hurt a bit in the short term.

RE: A challenge to the Alt naysayers
 

Because they demonstrated no intention that they want to get it right They implemented AR before there was any herd reduction and they implemented AR in SRA counties ,where is no logical reason to have AR.

Anybody with a sixth grade education would know that 5C can support more DPSM that 2G. The OWDD tables are not a mistake. They reflect the OWDD that were established in 1980 and Alt and the current management team is simply unwilling to revise the goals so that they reflect the true carrying capacity of the habitat.

RE: A challenge to the Alt naysayers
 

Got it! Alt admitted to a mistake...... Didn't I just say that?

"They're wrong" , "they're not a mistake".... which is it?

Ahhh the world according to DD

Go ahead, toss some more numbers out to distract us from this one.

RE: A challenge to the Alt naysayers
 

Alt knows that mixed farmland and forests can support more deer than the habitat in 2G. Despite that, he released OWDD tables that show 2G can support more deer PSM than 5 C. That was not a mistake, it was obviously intentional. Therefore, they are wrong and it was not a mistake. The PGC has been managing the herd based on the same criteria since the formula was adopted in 1980.

RE: A challenge to the Alt naysayers
 

MikE..............Ouch!! Never posted on that one about the amish????????
As a landowner who wants to reduce the doe population drastically I cant do it now without letting every tom/dick and harry have free run of the estate......NOT

Plus its tough for me to reduce the doe population when the hunting club with 3000 acres next to me does not shoot doe[:@]

RE: A challenge to the Alt naysayers
 

Illback,have you ever tried talking to these guys next door?That's a tough situation.I don't know what you could possibly do.