That simply is not true . The hunters did exactly what Alt told them to do . the anterless harvest increased from 184K in 1999 to 352K in 2002. We were praised for adhereing to the ntler restrictions in 2002 and we only harvested 142K buck in 2003 while harvesting 323K anterless deer.

Now can you find one state anywhere in the US where hunters harvested over twice as many anterless deer than antlered buck?

DDear....did you read all of Mr. ALt's origonal proposals? There was stuff left out!
From memory here is one example of what I can recall.
An example: Harvesting all does first...."earn a buck program" This intensifies a rut and helps to enable that all doe get harvested before an estrus cycle starts. The "I" hunter would hate this proposal and so it would too be a logistical nightmare. Great idea though. There is more......

To the PA question: During those years weren't smaller antlered bucks "off limits" or darn near close to it? That right there could explain why the antlerless harvest was so high.
You have to start somewhere.......
Here in NY we have issued more DMP's permits than the expected buck harvest. The hunters just can't do it!
We issued over 25,000 DMP's here in region 6 of NY. We harvested 1/5 of that bucks and does combined.
Just because it happened in PA doesn't make it a bad thing. In the short term, some may think so. Do you manage a herd proactively or reactively? Since a herd population is fluid it is hard to manage with complete proactive standards but to manage in a total reactive way could be irresponsible. I guess what I am asking is do you try to manage for the short term or the "long haul" Two years is not enough time to determine if the current harvest standards in PA is a good thing or if it should be modified with more of the origonal proposed changes.
If you put all these numbers through stat formulas his "total package methods" are the way to go.
If you don't care for Mr. Alt.....it's ok, we all have personal opinions of people. Ask the guy that shot his first 2.5 y/o or a 3.5 y/o and ask him if he thinks Mr. Alt is a jerk!!!

Dr Alt was put in a no win situation,The reason I point the finger at him is because he was the spokes person for this failed plan.You want to measure his success buy the few that shot nice deer & that is great,But talk to the thousands that took their sons & daughters and never saw a deer.This program is the greatest cause of posted land ever.A plan that was supposed to lower deer numbers has made some areas completly void of deer.You can not blame land owner for trying to keep some breeding stock alive.Now we have areas with no deer ,some deer & way to many deer the only thing that is the same is that we are still at a no win.

Fastfire, I'm 101 years old and killed 99 Bucks. But I sure would like to kill a 4 1/2 or 5 1/2 year old Buck someday. Bring on AR. I do my part for the food.

This post will go to Hell in a hurry if it turns into a PA PGC Finger pointing affair.

ddear is right - the hunters in PA did exactly what was asked - for two years. And pretty much they got what was promised (lower Buck take - and increased doe take) The overall effect is a substantially reduced deer herd. It will be interesting to see what the next 2 or 3 years bring to PA.

FH

Sylvan - I appreciate the point you are making, I just happen to disagree - I know you will not take it personal. Let me respond to your last couple points:

Yes - given your definition - I would agree with your interpretation, But I would argue that in the context of Deer Managment, the actual physical well being of a group - or all the deer is only one small indication of the "health of the herd".

Follow me for a second - Given a population where over 80% of males are yearling male deer :

One interesting behavior of whitetail deer is the dispersal of Yearling
bucks. Almost all bucks will relocate from where they were born to
somewhere between 5 and 50 miles away. This isn't conjecture - its
proven Whitetail behavior. These dispersing deer are the most
vulnerable section of the deer population because they are traveling
in areas unknown to them - and are therefore more susceptable to
death due to natural and unnatural causes. When a young buck does
reach its destination - it is usually 1-1/2 years old with its first hardened
antlers - and is "LOW man on the Totem pole." in the local Heirarchy of
Bucks and Does. In a naturally occuring deer population - it is another
year before it has a chance to be in the GAME as far as reproduction go.

Conversely - Does do not substantially disperse. Its common to have
4 or 5 generations of doe family groups living in close proximity. They do
know the land, and are the most likely section of the population to live
past 1-1/2 years old - and most does do in NY State. Furthermore - a
healthy doe will not just breed with any old male that comes along when
she is ready - she actively seeks a dominant Male - She determines a male's
dominance by being acutely aware of the scrapes in here range - and who's
the Dominant deer tending them.

So when most of the male deer population is young - and relocating
due to normal dispersion - the Rut becomes a very confusing time for the
population as a whole. You end up with a very few deer doing most of the breeding -
and unpredictable results and variability in the make-up of the herd. When
you are trying to manage a herd for stability (not increase the population) -
this becomes a big problem. You end up with highly variable populations that
are unpredictable in makeup.

Normal, "healthy" populations are far more predictable - and manageable.

I can explain this further if you would like - but I already feel - that what I've
written will bore most people.

You assume that there hasn't been any problems - and that the management goals have remained the same over the last 60 years.
During the last 50 years - We have tried to manage the herd by INCREASING the population. Only in the last 10 years (approximate) in NY (and the northeast) have we been concerned with maintaining or reducing the population.

I don't think you can make these assumptions. I'll plan on spending a little time researching the topic to show that there is evidence to show that an unhealthy herd can, and has resulted in managing for deer numbers - not quality.

Do I think some people use this argument for ARs so they might be able to havest larger bucks?

Maybe.

But that doesn't mean its not true.

Summerflower wrote: AR is absolutely not the "the only way to to it here in NY". Do the research. There are many other states that have age structures in line with even the most optimistic predictions of where AR would take us and they don't have AR. Some of the websites referenced in this thread are a good place to get some fresh ideas. Right now everybody is ready to jump on the AR band wagon simply because it promises a better chance for a monster. I doubt that too many have really thought much passed that.

You don't have to think about for very long to realize there are alternatives to AR that would raise the average age of the bucks in the herd and that would have nothing to do with antlers. I offered one in this thread. Here's a simple and quick way to do it although I'm not recommending it. Limit the the taking of any antlered deer for each individual hunter to every other year and adjust the doe harvest (up) to compensate for the reduced buck harvest. Simple to administer, if the year you were born is even then you only get a buck tag on even years if its odd then on odd years. Bingo, far fewer buck are taken so EVERY age class (not just 1 1/2 year olds) get a better chance of getting another year older. Doe to buck ratio is reduced and little Joey gets to shoot a 4 point and be thrilled with it. The "nature argument" guys should be completely satisfied with this.

O.K. so I'm being facetious about this but the point is there ARE alternatives to AR that would accomplish the same goals the "nature argument" guys say they want but without the need to focus on antlers.

farm hunter wrote: Well you are not boring me and it shouldn't bore anybody that is concerned and cares about deer management here in NY.

You make some good points as well and in fact I don't disagree with most of what you say. We'll just have to agree to disagree on the definition of how you determine if a herd is healthy or not.

farmhunter wrote: Actually I don't assume there haven't been any problems, I said that I don't see any evidence of problems and that the people who claim there is a problem don't provide any evidence to back up their claim. My personal observation is that the deer I see and take are/were healthy and strong.

I agree that the management goals have changed in the last 10 years but AR advocates still argue for example that we still have high doe:buck ratios for example and that this is "unhealthy". Well that, without a controlled study demonstrating it, is only speculation. I simply don't believe you can say "the doe:buck ratio is X therefore the herd is not healthy" or "the average age of buck in the herd is X therefore the herd is not healthy. I believe the health of the herd is determined by what I have said before... Again, I am primarily against AR because IMO it promotes a trophy hunting mentality that is in the long run is unhealthy for the sport. I believe it would indeed result in more trophies taken but when I look at the big picture I believe it would net out as a negative.

I have to agree with Sylvan on AR not being effective in the area in the Finger Lakes where I hunt. A very large % of the 6 and 8 points I see are 1 1/2 bucks wih racks that would score under 100. AR won't protect these and I doubt that many supporters of AR would make a case for them being "trophies". They are simply immature deer that should be passed if your goal is to take a "trophy". If that is your goal and you take these deer, then you might as well be shooting BB.

I think a majority of hunters hunt a few days per season. They like to see some deer and maybe get the chance to take one - buck or doe. If we lose these people because that goal becomes unrealistic because of HR or AR, our numbers will shrink and our ability to fend off attacks on hunting will lessen also.

The only way to see bigger bucks is to let the small ones walk - especially the 6 and 8 pts - that is where the true "trophy" potential lays. The best way to acheive this is thru education and example. And always remember that what is a "trophy" is defined by the individual.

Steve