# PA Gary Alt retire at year end



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

NOTE:
While the restrictions did not sit well with hunters, they have been credited with increasing the buck population from 5 percent of the herd in 2002-03 to approximately one third this year, according to a joint study by Penn State University and the Game Commission.

Alt will retire at year's end 

http://www.observer-reporter.com/285283377818967.bsp

HARRISBURG  Gary Alt, the supervisor of the state Game Commission's deer management section and one of the best-known names in Pennsylvania hunting circles, will retire at the end of the year, commission officials announced Monday.

Alt, an avid deer hunter for the last 36 years, has been in charge of managing the state's deer population for the last five years. His resignation is effective Dec. 31. 

Alt's most controversial decision was the implementation of antler restrictions and a decrease in the number of antlered deer licenses issued, a measure designed to increase the number of trophy bucks while thinning the herd by forcing hunters to take more does. 

"Gary took on a difficult job trying to manage Pennsylvania's most controversial big game species," Game Commission Executive Director Vern Ross said. "It was perhaps the most challenging job in the state, and there was no way anyone in his position could please everyone. Hunters see too few deer, while landowners, such as farmers and foresters, state there are too many deer. 

"There are a lot of people out there who think that they could do this job. What they don't realize is that not many people could last more than a few months due to the competing viewpoints. Dr. Alt stood up to the challenge for more than five years." 

While the restrictions did not sit well with hunters, they have been credited with increasing the buck population from 5 percent of the herd in 2002-03 to approximately one third this year, according to a joint study by Penn State University and the Game Commission. 

Ross credited Alt's efforts to reach out to hunters and nonhunters alike for making the program a success. 

"It was because of this effort, I believe, he was able to gain the support for antler restrictions, the concurrent rifle deer season and the Deer Management Assistance Program from hunters, legislators, landowners and other wildlife enthusiasts," Ross said. 

Alt, who earned a doctorate in forest resources science from West Virginia University, began his career with the commission in 1977 as the head of the bear management program. He also leads nature and photography tours in Canada, Alaska, the western United States and Africa and has presented more than 1,000 lectures on wildlife topics.


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

I wish Michigan DNR could get the courage to hire Gary Alt for a 5-year position.


----------



## jk hillsdale (Dec 7, 2002)

Hamilton Reef said:


> I wish Michigan DNR could get the courage to hire Gary Alt for a 5-year position.


I AGREE!


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

I'm sure he will be getting paid much more in the private sector.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

On to the real big bucks $$ 

Maybe we could get him as a paid private consultant?


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

Get out your checkbook NorthJeff!


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

How about another view point, he is retiring literally right in the middle of HIS great PA whitetail management experiment!?!? Hhhmmmmm sounds like "retirement" might be another word for quitting...maybe pressured out by hunters who might be seeing poor results...maybe??? $$$ in the private sector and retire in the middle of HIS management plan that he created and started and sold to PA hunters  Weird that he is retiring at this time.......


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

How about some wishful thinking Linda...


----------



## Sib (Jan 8, 2003)

beer and nuts said:


> How about another view point, he is retiring literally right in the middle of HIS great PA whitetail management experiment!?!? Hhhmmmmm sounds like "retirement" might be another word for quitting...


Interesting you'd say that. Imo, the jury is still out on whether the move has paid off, I hear a lot from both sides. I suspect down the road the move will be viewed in a positive way and much of the grumbling we hear now is just hunter's having to deal with change.

But something in the article stuck out in my mind, this is the statement that seemed to be an indicator, _Alt, an avid deer hunter for the last 36 years, has been in charge of managing the state's deer population for the last five years. *His resignation* is effective Dec. 31._

His resignation?!? That's a bit different than retirement. Perhaps it's just poor writing?


----------



## campblujay (Jan 21, 2004)

Here is our chance to bring him to Michigan!! 

He can do for us what many espouse in regards to harvesting more antlerless deer and restricting buck harvests. 

In Pa since he took over thier buck harvests have plunged by more than 30%. He put the emphasis on increased doe harvests by creating 22 DMU's (Huge by any standard) and tossing 1,040,000 doe tags into them. With the increase of antlerless deer came more BB harvested which led sportsman in 2004 to see ridiculously low numbers of deer according to my family back in Pa. Less buck, less doe and those buck taken were no bigger than those taken before Dr. Alt. (that is not just one person opinion, there are websites available if you see it to verify that Pa's harvest has plunged and racks under 5 years of Dr. Alt are no better than before. Just less of them)

Buck harvests went from 203,000 down to 165,000 down to 142,000 down to 13X,000 this season according to those who hunted in pa this season. I did not make the trip since my family reccomended not doing so. Deer numbers were waaaaaay down.

So Dr. Alt managed to divide the ranks of Pa hunters like never before. Hunter satisfaction has dropped. His stated DD goals are to cut thier herd in half (from 25dpsm today to 12dpsm). He has dropped buck harvests to create some of the worst hunting in 25 years. And after 5 years of his tuteledge there has been no jump start to habitat, which he said would happen "immediately". Although the heavy handed statewide restrictions made deer a little older, the rack sizes are no bigger than before he started. :tdo12: and there are less of them due to herd reduction.


Yea.........that is what we need here in Michigan. Then when the herd is cut he will run out on us and leave us holding the bag.

Lets go scoop him up so we can see less deer and harvest less.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

> maybe pressured out by hunters who might be seeing poor results...maybe???


LMAO! 

Sure hasn't worked in MI! :lol:


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Sib said:


> His resignation?!? That's a bit different than retirement. Perhaps it's just poor writing?


When I retired from teaching in '97, I was required to send a letter of my intent to retire. I had to resign the position before I could retire. I'm sure it's the same with Dr. Alt. He will make a whole bunch of $$$$ as a consultant and lecturer, that's for sure.


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

There was an article in a recent Field and Stream (beginning of hunting season-ish - Sept. or Oct.) about Pennsylvania's AR's and how well they worked. Quite a bit of evidence of the difference it made (scientific studies by Penn State U, I believe). And lots of anecdotal evidence from Penn's hunters as well, especially those who were skeptical or completely against the AR's to begin with. Most guys who are asked now are completely in favor. They didn't pull any punches, and said it was a tough pill to swallow for a good portion of the state's hunters, especially in the first year. I believe that they just completed their third deer season under the new rules...the difference in age structure of the bucks harvested is amazing. And I believe there was little-to-no drop off in the total number of bucks harvested by the second year, than there were pre-AR's. Bottom line they're shooting just as many bucks now, they're just bigger. Here's a quote from Field and Stream, "During this time, the number of yearlings in the buck harvest has gone from nearly 85 percent to less than 60 percent."

Sounds like a success story to me. 
fishinDon


----------



## jkintn (Sep 10, 2003)

This article sounds like the same crap we have going on in this State. He would fit right in here. 

http://www.lancasteronline.com/pages/news/local/4/10540

"Mohr was the lone commissioner to oppose Alt's program from the beginning.
"I knew there was no way it could ever work," Mohr said. "It didn't produce what he promised."
Instead of a healthier forest, healthier deer and bigger bucks, Mohr said Alt's program simply produced fewer deer for hunters to pursue.
"Sure, there are some areas where there are lots of deer," Mohr said, "but for the average hunter on public land, they just aren't seeing anything. The deer are gone.
"Gary's program has steadily lost support from the hunters."
According to Game Commission statistics, hunters shot 464,890 deer during the 2003-04 season; 517,529 in 2002-03; 486,014 in 2001-02; and 504,600 in 2000-01.
Mohr said Alt's program was heavily influenced by foresters, auto insurance executives, environmentalists and others who have interests other than sport hunting.
"This wasn't Gary's program," Mohr said. "He was given marching orders from other people, and he followed them."


----------



## Swamper (Apr 12, 2004)

"On to the real big bucks $$ 

Maybe we could get him as a paid private consultant?"

And to think only the DNR made money from deer hunting. Let's face it, today we have the persons selling seeds for food plots, planting food plots, lecturers, etc. Deer hunting and the businesses supporting it are big money. Something to be kept in mind..

Oh where have you gone, Mort Neff???

Swamper


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Swamper, all I know is that the hunting and hunting sales have gotten so bad by us that we're going to phase out our small couple rows of hunting items. Our hunting sales for the 2003 and 2004 seasons were only 10% of what they were 10 year ago. We're just going to carry things like scents, calls, hats and gloves and put all the rest of our money into fishing items. 
To me, it doesn't matter one bit what happens with Alt retiring. I'm sure he's wore out. To me, it doesn't matter what off season moves the NY Yankee's or Boston Red Sox make when you're a lifetime season ticket holder to the Detroit Tigers.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

From the article

"""Joe Keffer, owner of The Sportsman's Shop in New Holland, said he heard "more complaining from hunters about there being no deer this year than I've ever heard before."



And while he didn't necessarily agree with Alt's program, Keffer said he doesn't see Alt's departure as a solution to hunters' gripes.



"What's going to happen now?" Keffer asked. "I think the naive person would said 'hooray,' but the barn door's already open."



Alt could not be immediately reached for comment."""""


Mmmmmm, imagine that!!!!


----------



## lostmale (Dec 28, 2003)

I like this quote from the article


> "Hunters see too few deer while landowners, such as farmers and foresters, state there are too many deer."
> 
> East Hempfield Township's Charles Bolgiano, legislative director of Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania, called Alt's retirement "absolutely a good thing."
> Bolgiano said his organization has opposed Alt's deer management program from its inception because it is geared toward drastically reducing the state's deer population
> ...


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

Pretty one-sided articles so far, I am sure it will come out in the wash.

The votes supporting Alt's plan were 7-1, so don't hold your breath for changes in the program.

Some of these guys sound like they are from MI!


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Also read on another site that says Alt is taking a position as Head Bear Biologist in California-not sure if thats 100% but thats a far cry from turning into the private sector of deer management....maybe he realized he wasn't that good at deer management and wants to go back to bear management


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

All I know is, after not seeing a single deer in the entire 2004 gun season, the deer situation in at least my section, from MDNR's rules, is as bad as anywhere in the country. And that's without anything Alt did with antler regs. I would have seen as many deer on 8 mile road. I think the biggest problem with all these programs is that you cannot allow hunters to shoot every single "antlerless" deer they see. That's about what both states have now. All you end up with is far less to almost no deer in many area's and even fewer bucks because half the males now never make it past button buck. This is the case in much of the NLP when you get off the pavement and the unemployment rate is 30% and some of the people have no plans of looking for work. But they will take full advantage of the almost free (a mere $7) and unlimited deer policy. And just as MDNR was 25-30% off on the herd estimate, they're 25% low on their estimate of how many buttons are really killed with antlerless permits. Just go to the meat processors. It isn't 20% button bucks, it's 40% button bucks. What needs to be done is a reduction in antlerless permits to keep the deer at about carry capacity, bring back the tax ID number so all the people without land aren't getting private land tags and using them on public land (about 30% are being used on public land up here from off record conversations) and bring back minimum acreage requirements in the NLP and UP. The problem you have now is, you can have 80% of the land owners in a section doing the right thing by trying to manage the herd and you can have 10-20% of the hunters in a section shooting 5-10 deer each and anything that moves, thus undoing all the good work done by everyone else. So you end up with few deer, fewer bucks and an application for an out of state permit. I don't think a person with 2 acres and a trailer should be able to shoot essentially unlimited deer, to the detriment of virtually everyone around them. All this has done is allow people that used to be violaters to move around in broad daylight. Those who used to sneek around and maybe poach a couple deer but always have to look over their shoulder can now shoot 25 a year and put a $7 tag on each one, as several guys in town now do and brag about. We need to cut the quota's to match what the antlerless goal is. If a county should have 3000 does killed a year, the quota needs to be 3000-4000, not 10,000-15,000. And to make up the revenue difference with less tags, make an antlerless tag $14. A deer is a deer. And that way, for $14, a guy will use it and you match the quota with the kill goal. And also set a limit of 2 antlerless tags per hunter in the NLP and UP. 
What both states have proved is that you cannot allow 700,000 hunters to make up the management plan as they go along and shoot whatever they see fit. All you get then is the lunatics running the asylum and a LA riot like atmosphere. Much of our woods as been looted by fellow "hunters" being allowed to buy as many tags as they want and to shoot until they run out of ammo. Didn't we already try this in the 1800's with the buffalo? Can you imagine if MDNR did this with any other species? Even bluegills have a limit for God's sake! Our deer are being treated with far less regulations than our small game species. A large number of locals in this economically depressed area have no thought of management when they buy their fist full of tags. They see a smashed in window at the electronic store and they're going to grab their TV like everyone else while there's still a few TV's left. Add all the guys that only come up for a day or 2 from downstate, who think there's still lots of deer left, are told that shooting every doe is great and they do shoot the only doe deer they saw and we end up right where we're at.
I think passing 1.5 year old bucks is still what we need to see far more of. But you won't see any improvement as long as you shoot 40% of males while still buttons and slash the herd by 70-80%. 
We're still the customers. We have the final say. When the Detroit auto industry made crap cars in the late 1970's and early 1980's, they thought that'd we'd still buy them because they thought they controlled the market and they told us what to buy. No, it's the other way around. Hunters aren't robots. Sure, we do want to keep the herd in decent shape, but not to the point where you can go weeks without seeing a tail. We won't buy this poor product anymore, we'll go somewhere else that wants our business. And this is from a sport shop owner. Trust me, I hear it all day long. And if you think that these wildlife agencies only care about the deer first you have another thing coming. Revenue is still priority #1 in Lansing. Life is too short. We still want the thrill of seeing an animal and the concept of "hunting" vs "wilderness viewing". If you go out into the woods and don't see a single deer for 3 weeks, and the prospects of seeing one seem like zero, are you even deer hunting anymore? 
Remember the line from the movie "Network"? We're as mad as hell, and we're not gonna take this anymore!


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

We've lost license sales in MI for the past several years in a row, and the average age of hunter is climbing to near 50....

"If you always do what you have always done, you always get what you've always had."


----------



## Guest (Dec 22, 2004)

[email protected] said:


> ...I think the biggest problem with all these programs is that you cannot allow hunters to shoot every single "antlerless" deer they see....
> 
> ...But they will take full advantage of the almost free (a mere $7) and unlimited deer policy...
> 
> ...


Just for the record, Newaygo county antlerless permits were sold out before October 1st. Many of the guys from my group were not even able to buy one. Did they hand out a lot of antlerless permits? Yes. Did they hand out unlimited antlerless permits? Not even close.

Bob, I understand your frustration. I would be extremely ticked if there were no deer on the property that I spent a lot of time and money on. But I'm just not convinced that the antlerless quota is the culprit. I actually believe that there are several thing happening at once that are causing this problem. I think you would agree that poaching is a huge problem in our area. In fact, I heard rumers that sometime in the past 1-2 weeks there was a large bust of a poaching ring somewhere SE of Baldwin. I am not positive that this is true, and I'm still trying to verify. But I would argue that heavy poaching will do much more damage than the antlerless quota. Also, one of the farms near 12 mile and Oak has had block permits for the past several years and I have personally heard them brag about taking 20-30 deer during the first few days of firearm season. This could also be a problem. Add to that the degredation of the habitat in the federal land by us.

I do agree that limiting individual hunters to X number of antlerless permits will probably be a good thing (probably not 2 but some number). I also agree with bringing back the tax ID numbers. But I just don't think that the overall antlerless quota is that far off.

Brad


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

I believe Newaygo sold out in late October, maybe even early November. The machines often have problems where other clerks at other stores say they're sold out, but in reality they are not or the clerk enters the wrong number. Therein lies the problem. Lots of people already bought their bunch before your buddies came up. By October 1, a guy could have 60 tags while your firiends have none. That's why we should limit it to 2 tags per person around here. And that's exactly why we need to go back to the tax ID #'s. Do you know what many guys do when they find out Newaygo county has no more tags? They ask where the closest county is with tags left and then just buy one of those. A tax # will stop guys from doing that. 
I don't think there's need to worry. A liitle bird has told me to expect changes in 2005.


----------



## BDL (Dec 17, 2004)

As NJ said, the average hunter's age is increasing. This is why, though controversial, the youth hunt is a good idea. When I introduced my five year old daughter to fishing, it wasn't for steelhead, but rather the guarented sunfish. When my son is old enough to fish, again, it will be for sunfish, not steelhead. Someday, if their interest continues, I'll take them out for the elusive steelhead. Bottom line, we need more success for kids in the outdoors to maintain their interest. The youth hunt provides one avenue for this.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

[email protected]
You and I have disagreed before on this forum, but after reading your long post I have to say that I think you're pretty much on the mark. Although where I do most of my hunting (Montcalm Co.) deer numbers remain high, and we have a pretty decent buck/doe ratio, I certainly understand your frustration if you're going all season without SEEING a deer, and I would be po'd too. So yes, much of what you says makes perfect sense, and I will agree that drastic changes should take place. HOWEVER, I need to reiterate what I've said many times before....I continue to oppose STATEWIDE changes. During the gun season we saw more deer, and more bucks, than I can recall in many years. Conditions just aren't the same as where you are. My thought is you don't make changes unless changes are necessary. Where I hunt, it just isn't necessary. Is there a logical argument for blanket policies statewide, or are we not pushing for that any longer?


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Just Ducky, I think we agree on a lot of stuff. Just as Buckbass and I do. I'm not saying we eliminate antlerless permits. But we need to change how they are allocated, that's all. Otherwise, you end up with places that have almost no deer and you go 10 miles and there's 10 seen a day and the buck population is good. As I said, I would expect the needed changes to come in 2005.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

BDL,

I really like the youth hunt, but question whether a youth really has to shoot a buck or not. I've always felt if they have to shoot a buck to feel successful, instead of a doe, they probably have the wrong intentions for hunting. I had a really good experience with a youth this year on my property and it was lots of fun.


----------



## AltRules (Nov 17, 2004)

The solution is simple and has little to do with the DNR: It's the hunters. Or should I say "hunters"


Ohio, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas. All have liberal doe permits. All have gun seasons (yes, some much shorter than others). But not much of that makes a difference.

It's the hunter attitude and inteligence level that's different. Those states have incredible hunting for mature bucks and balanced ratios because the hunters don't shoot small bucks (or not nearly as many), they are more selective when it comes to doe shooting and make certain it's not a button buck. Yes, the regs help some. But, by and large, the product we harvest is the product we grow.

And right now there's a huge sector of this state that has ZERO tact or intelect when it comes to deer management. They don't want to know, don't try to know and will likely never know.

As long as they have Nov. 15, a box full of buckshot and some land to push, they'll be satisfied. Sorry to be blunt but I think that's what we're dealing with.

In areas where guys have tried to implement change it has worked. Look at Jackson County, read about the Eaton County buck Joel Malcuit took. Check out Ohio, Illinois, Kansas, Iowa. It works.

And it's working in Pennsylvania. The data shows that. Anyone can write a one-sided article and talk with the half-dozen people who have been and always will be outspoken about the changes. Didn't half the sources in that story start off by saying "I never thought it would work from the start" Not exactly an unbiased source to cite in my opinion.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Altrules, the regs between us and Illinois are light years apart. It's because of their rules that they have better deer hunting and ONLY then, does the hunter attitude change because they know they have better hunting to work with. Like I said, our regs cause a ghetto/riot like attitude in many places. And they are doing things like Illinois are all changes that I'd be for, but would be very new for many hunters here. The regs are tightly controlled in Illinois. There, you only can hunt in the county where your tag is for. So if you want to buck hunt Newaygo county, you get a Newaygo county either sex tag and that's the only county it's good for. You know, just like MDNR does with our bear and turkey tags here, you simply can't take off and go shoot a buck where ever you want. Then you have to physically check your deer in and the DNR there then adjusts the number of both buck and doe tags to reflect how many doe, bucks and button bucks were killed. You may not get to shoot 2 bucks in a year, if the DNR decides too many males were killed the year before. The antlerless tags are the same. The quota's go up as much as they go down because they use the check numbers for each specific county. They know roughly how many deer are in the county, how many should be there and the ratio and how many have been killed in each county. They don't count deer on a highway where they have no idea where it came from. No baiting is allowed. No rifles are allowed. The gun season opens later in the rut and is half as long as here. 
Basically, if you want hunting like we have here, leave the major decisions up to hunters. If you want hunting like other states, the state wildlife agency sets very tight and specific regulations.
Of course, in Illinois, hunters pay more too. You just don't buy a deer tag. You must also buy a $5 habitat tag and then a general hunting license BEFORE you buy a deer tag. I think it's around $30 to be able to shoot at one buck and then like $15 extra if you are allowed to shoot 2 bucks. But I think everyone would pay $30-40 for a buck tag if we had to in order to get better regs. And for meat hunters, you can always buy a cheaper antlerless only tag. But buck tags should be a premium. Our $14 tag is about the cheapest in that nation. I think the national average is around $28 bucks for 1 buck tag. Maybe we do get what we pay for afterall?


----------



## Buddy Lee (Dec 17, 2003)

Don't mean to interrupt, but can somebody tell me if Gary Alt is related to Carol Alt? Thanks. 


P.S. You guys take yourselves too seriously. Get out and have some fun, and Merry Christmas.


----------



## GrizzlyBear (Apr 27, 2003)

> Maybe we do get what we pay for afterall?


I think you may be on to something Bob. Imagine if they doubled the license fees, which I think many hunters would gladly pay. Then maybe the MDNR would have the budget to actually do some independent decison making.


----------



## Swamper (Apr 12, 2004)

Back in my early years of hunting (6-7 year dry spell without ever seeing a buck), my brother would ask me "how bad do you want a deer" before he put on the knee boots and went way back in the swamp, or dressed extra warm and sat in the cold til noon. He always brought home a buck or doe while I was empty. Later, I began practicing his methods and my deer hunting success changed dramatically. I think the deer are out there...we just have to ask ourselves are we looking hard enough?

Like in a bull stock market rally, everyone is making money. Only the wise ones make money in a bear market.

Swamper


----------



## bucko12pt (Dec 9, 2004)

I've hunted PA over 20 times going back to 1976. Have not hunted there in the past several years, although my son and friend have. We hunt Clearfield county which is usually either number one or two in total kill for the year, Bradford County being the other. This year, opening week, my son saw NO deer all week and my friend one spike and two does. They hunted all day every day, except Wed afternoon when it rained. 
I'm a QDM advocate, but Gary Alt had one program for the entire state. Consequently, they still have large numbers of deer in some areas and no deer in others, that is part of the reason why some are giving him rave reviews and 
others would like to kill him literally.
My friends in PA told me that he has received death threats and had been wearing a bulletproof vest to public meetings. There is a PA game commisssion meeting coming up at the end of January and the hunters groups have been organizing to get as many people there to testify as possible. It will be interesting how the game commission supports him after he is gone, or they use him as the scapegoat.
Deer hunting is like a religion in PA, but it's a sad state when an official has to worry about his life and his familys lives. 
I have also heard that he may be taking a position out west.
I don't think we will see him in Michigan. I think he is smarter than that after what he has been thru.


----------



## AltRules (Nov 17, 2004)

Bob

Good points on the Illinois regs. I probably shouldn't have lumped them in with the others. But, at their core, the regs are essentially the same in the fact that they don't have antler restrictions, doe permits are liberal and there is no "earn-a-buck" or buck license lottery. See what I'm saying? For example, the guys in Pike County (or insert county here) have the ability to kill ANY buck they want and AS MANY does as they want. Not much different than, say, any county in Michigan. But do they? Nope. It's a hunter's choice issue in my opinion. I have hunted Illinois and the difference in opinions there are amazing. No one shoots small bucks. And it doesn't have anything to do with the rules. It's simply the way they think. That's all I'm getting at here.

I don't think the regs are as great a factor as are the hunter attitudes. That said, serious regulation changes ARE needed here. How can I say they don't matter as much in Illinois but are needed here? For the very reasons you cited Bob. Because people won't let go of that riot/ghetto attitude in Michigan voluntarily. I agree they do so in Illinois because they understand what they have. Most people here don't.

Just for the record, I think your posts are always fair and informative and don't want to sound like I'm trying to fight or disagree with you here. Just trying to restate what my point was because I think we're on the same page.


----------



## GVDocHoliday (Sep 5, 2003)

Heck if you shoot anything smaller than a Booner or P&Y class buck in Illinoise the natives will chastise you and you will not be welcomed back. Plain and simple...why can't we have that mindset here?


----------



## Swamper (Apr 12, 2004)

"Heck if you shoot anything smaller than a Booner or P&Y class buck in Illinoise the natives will chastise you and you will not be welcomed back. Plain and simple...why can't we have that mindset here?"

We don't because the majority do not. Too many hunters in MI are of the common man thread, not the big money cloth. US of A is a land of choice...for those with interests in the big bucks, there is IL, IA, and Nebraska, or Canada. For the rest, there is IN, MI, PA, WI, and OH.

780K hunters voted with their pockets this year by purchasing a license for the opener.

If I wanted to live an area where an auto is not needed, I would move to NY. Not try to bring a subway and buses to Wyoming.

Swamper


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Keep in mind that in Pike County, IL, as in Buffalo County, WI and other "trophy deer" areas, that you dealing with all private property and very limited hunter access. The "mindset" of the hunters who have either the connections to hunt those places, or the money to do so, is not easily transferred to the general deer hunting public that we have here in MI. Simply put, not everyone things that way. Trying to get other people to think like I (or you) do is a long, difficult, and usually futile task. They have to come to those conclusions on their own.

What a person thinks is THE right way for themselves, may not be THE right way for everyone else.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

You guys are something else, comparing Illinois hunting to Michigan is just plain apples to oranges and here is the reasons. Ill-1.incredible statewide habitat in growing large antlers. 2. Huge private tracts with alot of that already secured by outifitters and guides that limit the number of hunters and have strict TDM guidelines. 3. Zip for public lands(as compared to MI). 4. If not secured by guides and outfitters in pretty close family ties that hunt there, either way limited amount of hunters. 4. Guys that go to Ill for the most part are PAYING for their deer and its in the thousands$$$. 5. One can not go to ILL and just hunt without paying for a lease, a guide, a outfitter and if they do they have family or close friend ties. 6. """Heck if you shoot anything smaller than a Booner or P&Y class buck in Illinoise the natives will chastise you and you will not be welcomed back. Plain and simple...why can't we have that mindset here?"--You WANT that mind set? Wow!! 7. Ill has liberal doe season because of the limited number of hunters hunting large tracts of land, its pretty simple reason, comon sense to undestand. I mean MI has liberal doe season in southern MI and most areas still have huge popualtion of deer down there every year.


----------



## AltRules (Nov 17, 2004)

WHit and beer and nuts, I agree to a point about the land issue.

But you definitely don't want to take a look at the Joel Malcuit buck from Eaton County or read the story behind it if you're convinced that what Illinois has to offer in terms of land is so different from ours here. With a little bit of cooperation and restraint by fellow neighbors and landowners we have what Illinois has. And maybe EVEN BETTER.

It's not that much different in terms of land here in southern Michigan. It's VERY different in terms of mindset.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

""if there's any state with an even more out-of-whack doe:buck ratio, poor buck age structure, socially stressed deer with small body sizes, habitat destruction, etc."

That is nothing more than an urban legend that was true 40 years ago when the herd was concentrated in the northern tier counties . Now the herd is distributed across the entire state and our herd is as healthy as any herd in the US. It is so healthy that with a B/D ratio of 1:2,1 ,91% of our adult doe are being bred and in the best habitat 50% of female fawns are bred. You can't cite one study or report from the PGC that shows there was a problem with the B/D , recruitment rate or breeding ecology before Alt was appointed.


----------



## campblujay (Jan 21, 2004)

farmlegend said:


> Linda, cut me a major break, will you? Before Alt took over, about 5 years ago, PA had, by most folks familiar with such issues both within that state and around the country, THE most mis-managed deer herd in the whole USA.
> 
> Regardless of who now steps in to fill the yacht-sized boots of Mr. Alt, there will be no going back to the way things used to be in PA.



Thats a rather humorous statement. The buck to doe ratio was 1:2.1 before Alt. Dr. Rosenberry the biometrician said that "90% of the adult doe were bred, and 25% of the fawns, a very good breeding rate". We have enough bucks in Pa. to get the job done". And thats on thier website. The herd was growing, not collapsing due to a lack of habitat. Pennsylvania hunters had taken more ANTLERLESS, than antlered deer in pa for 10 year before Alt came to town, which showed they already were agressively harvesting does PRE-Alt, a feat we cannot say we do. 

But somewhere you read a hunting myth article in D&D H or a QDM article attributing mismanagment to pa's herd, just because it was not managed for Quality over quanitity????????? Whoooooaaaa now we know we are not talking about scientific management on this site anymore. Just rumor, hyperbole, rhetoric and urban myths.


----------



## Guest (Dec 28, 2004)

B&N,

I believe that you are not looking for answers.

All one needs to do is have a yearly browse survey if other data is dificult to acquire. This alone will suffice for accurate decisions in number of deer one should harvest. Having data to a good guess on the number of deer adds to the accuracy, it is not mandatory. Remenber this is a yearly browse survey and if the next years survey shows excess browsing hit em harder next fall. Trial and error works very well and one must work with the tools on hand, not give up and say "First in the NLP, one cannot go out and find an open forage field and count deer". Whatever happened to the American CAN DO spirit? Guess that depends on whether one is looking for answers or not.

B&N, you are probably refering to flora not fauna, when you said "Second, if ones carrying capacity had beeen very high, the fauna that had been completly destroyed takes a long time to re-establish itself and one must know what kind of fauna can grow in certain soil, etc". B&N, where you at? You are shooting from the hip, your statements make little sense. 

We are not replanting a decimated woods due to excessive browsing, we are preventing that very thing from ever happening! 

As far as your assumption that it takes a ton of effort and knowledge for an accurate browse survey, WOW! It is obvious that you have no experience in this B&N. 

It does not take long to know what deer prefer and what is their second and third choice. This info is available to everyone. A simple check with the DNR or Join the QDMA will suffice.

A ton of effort you say B&N, I'm 69 years of age and hit pretty hard with arthritis. I expect to cover that same one square mile in Clare County that I have been surveying for the last 12 years around the end of March and do it in one day. All of it walking on frozen ground or sliding on ice.

In the year of 1993 on my 160 acres and surronding property I made my first browse survey and the data showed excessive browsing with no birch or maple seedlings (first choice) seen period. There was a little oak (Second Choice) but browsed like severly pruned apple trees. The white ash (second choice) was just below 50% browsed (not a good sign). Tag alder (third choice) was primarily left untouched. Sweet fern (fourth and last choice) showed virtually no browsing. This is a critical plant type to watch and easy to identify B&N. This plant grows in every state forest and in large quantities that I have ever been in. If you see browsing of any magnitude here you have problems. Rasberries and there is plenty of it there (somewhere between first and second choice) was not hit more than10 %, (good sign). Wild apple trees (first choice plus) as far as the deer could reach last years growth and then some was gone. I did some pruning in February of a few of these trees and every twig and even arm sized branches were stripped of bark, with the smaller twigs to a wooden pencil size not visible. The data obviously showed deer density stress and one does not need to know the number of deer per square mile to make an informed decision B&N. We pounded on those does the next fall and didn't worry about taking too many. The next several years the data showed acceptably deer density until the spring of 1997, too many deer. Since then the deer numbers and flora browsing data showed more than acceptable figures.

It really is easy and fun, especially when you made a deer harvesting decision and the next springs browse survey data showed good numbers. B&N I advise you to try it. You will like it, for when you start looking for answers you will have finally arrived as a deer manager


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"A ton of effort you say B&N, I'm 69 years of age and hit pretty hard with arthritis. I expect to cover that same one square mile in Clare County that I have been surveying for the last 12 years around the end of March and do it in one day. All of it walking on frozen ground or sliding on ice."

How far do you walk in one day to survey 1 SM? What is the interval between the grid pattern you walk? Since a SM is 1760 yds per side , if you used a grid with 100Yds between sample areas , you would have to walk 17.6 miles in one day!!! Are you really capable of doing that in one day?

"Everthing in the deers invironment enters into the carrying capacity equation. Yet you can get the picture in enough detail and accuracy with just browsing data. Now couple that data with the estimated number of deer on your land with last summers count, which as you noted can be used as the year round population numbers. These are tools that are used in making judgement calls in number off deer to be harvested per location. ".

That is not true in PA. The PGC only considers forest habitat to be suitable deer habitat. According to Alt, 1 SM of saw timber ,surrounded by 8 SM of pole timber, has the same carrying capacity of a SM of saw timber surrounded by 8 SM of corn,alfalfa , winter wheat oats and abandoned farmland. That is why PA assigns the highest deer densities goals to the areas with the worst habitat, and you think Alt knows how to manage a deer herd!!!


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

campblujay said:


> But somewhere you read a hunting myth article in D&D H or a QDM article attributing mismanagment to pa's herd, just because it was not managed for Quality over quanitity????????? Whoooooaaaa now we know we are not talking about scientific management on this site anymore. Just rumor, hyperbole, rhetoric and urban myths.


Now that is what I would call a rather huge presumption. I don't recall such articles in D&DH or the Whitetail Journal(QDMA's mag). Speaking of urban myths, in just what part of Livonia do you live? :lol: Or do you really hail from Livonia, NY?


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"QDMA Articles :
QDM in Pennsylvania - One Year Later	Back to List

By: Kip Adams

Pennsylvania is widely known for its high deer densities, skewed sex ratios, poor buck age structure, and history of human/deer conflicts. However, with the implementation of a comprehensive statewide QDM program in 2002, this has started to change.
Will the Keystone State soon be considered one of the nations leading states for quality whitetails? While its too early to say, the results of the first year of the statewide QDM program are very encouraging. Lets look at Pennsylvania pre- and 1-year post-QDM."

There is an example of the urban legend. Even Kip didn't know our B/D ratio was 1:2.1 or that the deer densities had already been reduced in the northern tier. He didn't even know what the deer density goals were for PA until I showed him a copy of the new deer densities tables and then he couldn't belive the goals were so low. he even thinks the plan is related to QDM, even though Alt's plan assigns the highest goals to areas with the worst habita and totally discounts the habitat value of farmland.


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

PA - Hunters vent anger
Game Commission deer policies lambasted at hearing

HARRISBURG  Controversy over deer management policies caused hunters to pack the auditorium at state Game Commission headquarters Sunday.
The Board of Game Commissioners sat patiently as one speaker after another stepped to the microphone to register observations and opinions about the states deer herd. Most of the more than 70 speakers complained that the agencies deer management policies must be overhauled, or scrapped.

http://www.sungazette.com/articles.asp?articleID=13298


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

In 2003 the PGC make the mistake of trying to convince hunters that we had more deer than ever by adding the deer from 7 special regulation counties that weren't previously counted in the statewide herd . They also switched to a new computer model which reported the deer in DPSM instead of DPF( forested) SM. It is fairly obvious that they did this to convince hunters that more anterless deer needed to be harvested.


But,when hunters hit the woods last fall it was obvious that there had been a significant reduction in the herd and that was confirmed by confirmed by the lower harvests. Now the PGC has no credibility with hunters and they created a whole new generation of hunters that want to save the doe So it appears they may have taken 1 step forward and 3 steps backward.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

*My grandsons and I saw three deer and my grandson got one. We dont have the deer there,*

Typical, saw 3 deer, shot one. But it is the PGC`s fault the deer numbers are down.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

I had to laugh when I saw the same quote.


The ulimate form of micro-management is *self control.*


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"If Gary Alt left for the reasons you have suggested "show me the Data" Your dissent on QDM related issues on this forum is a single quest to keep hunters below the learning curve and is a poignant attempt to maintain hunters perceptions confused and prone from rationale imformation"

The fact is that the commissioners approved almost everything Alt ask for from 1999 to Dec. 2004 . Alt make promises about the results of his plan that he couldn't keep and when the hunters found out the truth and expressed their concerns ,Alt quit and here is what he said,

" This is a resignation," Alt said . " I never would have left if I would have had a chance of making this work."

But he left before any changes were made to his plan ,so I can't see why he made that statement.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Hey Perry, thanks for the compliment...I think!? I'm sure thats the type of posts that got this forum shut right down.....I know exactly who I represent and its closer to a true sportsman than...ahh never mind....


----------

