I don't miss you in the least. You can't support your position with facts ,just like all the AR supporters who don't support herd reduction. My goal is to prevent guys like you from posting false and misleading info about Alt's plan and apparently ,in your case I have succeeded.

Awww now...That just plain hurts.
I wish you luck this year, maybe you'll go 6 for 6 on BB.
Imagine that!

DD, this is a quote of yours from back in July. I really do rest my case about you and hipocrasy on the BB subject.

There is no hypocrisy in my statement or my position on the issue. I said from day one that implementing AR while trying to reduce the herd by 50% ,would mean that AR would be viewed by hunters as a failure, because in order to reduce the herd it would be neccessary to harvest more BB ,which is exactly what happened. But, the buck harvest declined by 61K in just two years without any herd reduction. Now ,just imagine what the buck harvest would be this year if we had reduced the herd by 5% per year for the last four years. Accounting for the compounding effect of continuos HR, our herd would be 25% smaller than it was in 1999 and this years buck harvest would be around 110K. That is what we have to look forward to if Alt gets the HR reduction he wants and saving BB will not solve that problem because you can't save BB that aren't born.

You simply have to learn to face reality. There are no silver bullets or magical tricks to keep the buck harvest from declining as OWDD's are reduced to closer to the goals in each and every WMU,except 2 G ,which is already 3 DPSM below it's goal.

When you say that saving BB will do nothing to help buck numbers, I take your words literally and by face value. When you say things like this:

I also take the words literally and at face value. If I discount the "inflection of your voice" or the "real intended meaning" or the "inuendo that maybe you implied", your remarks fully contradict each other, no credible argument can be made otherwise, but you will give it a shot, I'm sure.

I have never once complained of fewer deer. I try to help guys like you learn to accept the inevitable. Other states and places that manage deer in a QDM related way usually always ask folks to pass on BB. I didn't make the concept up on my own. DUH!

Please also note that I stated "ask". I don't advocate making it a requirement. That would alienate too many and cause infighting among hunters. If you want one, by all means have one. Since when is it illegal to "ask"?

No, my remarks do not contradict themselves when they are viewed in the context of the PA deer management plan ,where the goal is to reduce the herd by 50%. Due to HR , passing on BB means harvesting more adult doe,which means saving BB is counterproductive to having more buck in the future. We harvested more adult doe in 2003 than the total anterless harvest in 1999 and the 2003 harvest showed that the recruitment rate has already decreased significantly due to the anterless harvest.

Passing on BB is a valid concept on QDM leases where the herd is stable and HR is not the primary goal. Ark. asked hunters to pass on BB,, but it didn't work . Therefore Ark. hunters have to tag BB as antlered deer. Where HR is the primary goal,as in PA,saving BB is counterproductive to herd reduction and will at the same time result in fewer future BB and fewer legal buck.