Here's a chart I made showing the harvest for Jefferson county up until they went to WMUs....

http://drsems.tripod.com/0000jeffcoharv.html

Now maybe cut the total number in half for the lower part going to a different WMU and add areas that NEVER harvested more than Jefferson county and I can only expect the deer harvest numbers for my area to appear to drop.. regardless of how many were actaully shot... my guess.. just about the same as 2004... with the exception of maybe 1 antlerless per square mile because the herd numbers for this area has been reduced some more since 2004...

DT didn't provide the data for the last 5 years because county specific data has not been available since they switched to WMUs instead of county DMU. The switch was an obvious attempt to prevent the comparisons DT was trying to make.

What i would really like to see is the data on the rack sizes of the buck we are harvesting. In 2000 and 2001 the PGC conducted an antler buck survey to establish the criteria for ARs. But, now it appears that the PGC is not the least bit interested in determining the effects of ARs on the antler size of our 2.5+ buck.

"DT didn't provide the data for the last 5 years because county specific data has not been available since they switched to WMUs instead of county DMU."

DUH. My bad. lol. Of course thats the case. Though i didnt give much time into reading or thought, Im multitasking while posting here. I was going by the route that Dr. Has the chart as he stated, therefore he COULD have made valid comparisons going the dpsm route, but instead chose to end it at 2004.

Though I'll give the benefit of a doubt, i may have been a little quick on the trigger with ol' Doc. No harm no foul Doc. Though clearly the table presented is incomplete and no way takes into account the CURRENT deer situation, so what exactly was the purpose? Was that made by you back in 2004/05?.

Here's an alternate theory: The PGC took a hard look at how they operated, then took a look at their mission statement, or charter, or whatever and someone realized that running a deer factory wasn't the purpose of the commission and that the way they were doing things was a disservice to other wildlife and the environment of PA. So, even at the risk of angering the hunters who form their revenue stream, they decided to do what they were created to do.

Your assertion that the PGC was running a deer factory prior to 2000 is not supported by the facts. In 1998 and 1997 the PGC allocated a record 890,700 antlerless tags, which was a significant increase over the 1997 allocation of 639,900 which kept the herd stable. In 2000 Alt reduced the allocation to 830,650 in 2000 and to 780,250 in 2001.

Danes-- That is exactly why Gary Alt is no longer with us. Some folks in the know have stated the reason Alt got the job as deer supervisor was to get him some supervisory experience in order to prepare him to head up the DCNR when the expected merger was put in place. When the Merger didn't happen (I don't know the particulars of why that was)he was left without the promised promotion and the fallout from the herd reduction looming when his claims and promises didn't happen. He took the cowards way out and left the mess he created for others to clean up and headed for California to be with the rest of the tree huggers. He is still a lobbyist for the timber industry and gives speach's to the enviromentalists and conducts photo tours.

ORIGINAL: deerfly

Here's an alternate theory: The PGC took a hard look at how they operated, then took a look at their mission statement, or charter, or whatever and someone realized that running a deer factory wasn't the purpose of the commission and that the way they were doing things was a disservice to other wildlife and the environment of PA. So, even at the risk of angering the hunters who form their revenue stream, they decided to do what they were created to do.

Your assertion that the PGC was running a deer factory prior to 2000 is not supported by the facts. In 1998 and 1997 the PGC allocated a record 890,700 antlerless tags, which was a significant increase over the 1997 allocation of 639,900 which kept the herd stable. In 2000 Alt reduced the allocation to 830,650 in 2000 and to 780,250 in 2001.

With all due respect, I hunted during the 90s. It was nothing to see 40 deer on opening day. 39 does and a spike. THAT is a deer factory, no matter what the allocations were.

ORIGINAL: S-10

Danes-- That is exactly why Gary Alt is no longer with us. Some folks in the know have stated the reason Alt got the job as deer supervisor was to get him some supervisory experience in order to prepare him to head up the DCNR when the expected merger was put in place. When the Merger didn't happen (I don't know the particulars of why that was)he was left without the promised promotion and the fallout from the herd reduction looming when his claims and promises didn't happen. He took the cowards way out and left the mess he created for others to clean up and headed for California to be with the rest of the tree huggers. He is still a lobbyist for the timber industry and gives speach's to the enviromentalists and conducts photo tours.

Perhaps Gary Alt took the deer job to build his resume, I dont know. But if what you say is true, and Alt fled for greener pastures, wouldn't that suggest that no merger is gonna take place? If there was gonna be a merger, even if it took a couple years, wouldn't he have stayed?

None of you have given a valid, believable, explanation of why the PGC would alienate it's revenue base in order to get a place at the public trough. The reason for that, as far as I can see is there is no SENSIBLE reason that would happen. There is no reasonable correlation between ****ing off hunters and getting support from the general public. I understand your dissatisfaction with recent actions and policies of the PGC. Hell, I'm not all that thrilled with them either. Why is it harder to believe that they are just following their stated mandate more closely than they have in the past and easier to believe in cockamamie conspiracy theories? That's what I dont get.

I always and will always think they should combine the PGC with the PFBC and have one agency for hunting and fishing.....

Danes--Type in Audubon Incite on the net and read their articles and game plan for the deer herd and pushing hunters out of the picture. Then compare it with what the PGC is doing and maybe you can understand. It's about who controls the PGC and it's land and minerals. The enviromentalists control what happens on the ANF through their lawsuits, we gave them control of the state forests under the guise of forest certification, and they are gaining control of the PGC and state game lands by political moves and causing the hunters to give up their sport. Hunting used to be called a legimiate sporting activity. Now we are merely considered necessary to keep the deer herd under control until the herd is reduced to where predators and gonocon can do the job. As far as I have heard the merger is on the back burner for now. They never expected the outcry from hunters and other wildlife watchers to have lasted this long or be this strong. The original thought was it would last a year or so and then die down. They mis-calculated and had to back off the timing of their plans somewhat. They haven't forgot them but the condition is not right at the present. Most of the backing for this post can be found on the net if your willing to spend the time searching.

ORIGINAL: S-10

Danes--Type in Audubon Incite on the net and read their articles and game plan for the deer herd and pushing hunters out of the picture. Then compare it with what the PGC is doing and maybe you can understand. It's about who controls the PGC and it's land and minerals. The enviromentalists control what happens on the ANF through their lawsuits, we gave them control of the state forests under the guise of forest certification, and they are gaining control of the PGC and state game lands by political moves and causing the hunters to give up their sport. Hunting used to be called a legimiate sporting activity. Now we are merely considered necessary to keep the deer herd under control until the herd is reduced to where predators and gonocon can do the job. As far as I have heard the merger is on the back burner for now. They never expected the outcry from hunters and other wildlife watchers to have lasted this long or be this strong. The original thought was it would last a year or so and then die down. They mis-calculated and had to back off the timing of their plans somewhat. They haven't forgot them but the condition is not right at the present. Most of the backing for this post can be found on the net if your willing to spend the time searching.

Is the CIA involved?

According to Dr. Trout, the folks he knows in the PGC are against a merger. The PGC takes in a TON of money, even with the license fees remaining static as long as they have. And, since they are self supporting, they dont have to answer to any other government agencies or groups. They control their own destiny. Again, WHY WOULD THEY WANT TO GIVE THIS UP??? They have the goose that laid the golden egg. They know a merger would be killing that goose. Who (in the PGC) in their right mind would do this?

"How could the upper PGC crew be sure that they would even HAVE jobs if that merger took place? What if DCNR already had a guy doing Carl Rowes job? Were they gonna carry two (good sized) salaries to have two guys doing essentially the same thing? I doubt it. "

SInce Dcnr does NOT manage the states wildlife, (at least not directly themselves) they DO NOT have the staff to take on the job. Everything is already in place at pgc. Considering the Governor would be in charge of the "new" agency, just as he already is the current dcnr and pgc, i see little reason to believe why there would be any changes of any significance.. Redo the whole she-bang?? doubtful at best.

Besides, noone said going under dcnr was the only option as you suggest. Alternate funding source doesnt put them under the dcnr umbrella. Its no secret that everyone from Alt, to Carl Roe have spoken out and supported alternate funding. With alternate funding sources, they dont need us or the deer herd at levels that meet our satisfaction.

"And, since they are self supporting, they dont have to answer to any other government agencies or groups. They control their own destiny. Again, WHY WOULD THEY WANT TO GIVE THIS UP???"

What? Give up groveling for fee increases, only to be denied, because many of us think they dont deserve one? Give up having to pretend to listen to hunters? Continually being checked by legislators? Not being able to further their and their partners agendas and cut the herd even further for fear of invoking the FULL fury of the hunter backed legislators? Push too hard, and the furor will definately have Mr. Roe and/or others looking for other jobs. And they will lose those jobs if it were known they were trying to undermine the system as it had been set up many years ago. And thats a conspiracy theory you can take to the bank.

"You guys should have been on the X files. The truth is out there, right?"

And I guess if we want to make light of each others positions on the issue, I guess yours would make you a 'good boy'. Always listening to what youre told from all- knowing athority figures?

"Nobody is against alternate funding."

Hunters of Pa come to mind. lol. Might have a bit of a problem with that being as pgc is supposed to be an "independant" puppet...or i mean agency. A hunter, who doesnt work for pgc but would support alternate funding has no idea what they are talking about.

"I think the PGC would totally be down for alternate funding,"

Yeah. I guarantee you they are. Its been stated more than enough to know this without guessing.

"if they didn't have to give up control of their operations, as S-10 seems to suggest that they were more than willing to do. I cant believe that. I cant believe that they are sabotaging deer hunting to insure alternate funding. That's like shooting your foot off to become a better runner. It makes no sense."

Its not exactly my position that they are destroying the herd to get alternate funding..(though it wouldnt surprise me in the least from some of what ive heard through the years). But Im saying they dont care about what they are doing to the herd as it pertains to hunting, and they arent gonna consider hunter satisfaction at all, because they dont have to! And it doesnt make one darn bit of difference why its occurring the end results are the same. Inept agency. Disgruntled hunters.

Also, as ive said they arent in imminent danger now anyway far from it, and 2nd if worse came to worse, they believe funding would be gotten from general funding. They dont have to take us or how we feel about the deer herd into account at all, and they dont. That needs to be addressed by legislators. PGc needs to be restructured, or at the least have a few of the problem staff retire early.

If you are going to quote me, you should quote me all the way. Cutting out bits and pieces (taking them out of context) and cutting up those bits and pieces isn't defeating my argument. It's defeating what you want people to THINK my argument is.
I dont know if I'm a good boy or not but I do know this....If there are two possible explanations for something, the correct explanation tends to be the simplist. So one explanation (mine) is that the PGC recognized it had been doing things wrong for a long time and are now acting to correct that wrong and another explanation (yours) is they are sabotaging themselves in order to get funding and preserve jobs for a few high ranking guys (granted that seems to be S-10s reasoning more than Waynes).
If they dont care what they are doing as it pertains to the herd and they dont consider hunter satisfaction, as you say, WHY they are doing it makes ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD. Because if my reason is right, then we can expect things to change as the herd and the environment are brought into line. But if YOUR (and S-10s)reason is right, it is clear that those in power at the PGC are insane and must be stopped.

They simply have different values & priorities than we do

They certainly do. If by "we" you mean deer hunters -- you have to keep in mind that providing lots deer for us to see or shoot is not a priority of the PGC nor should it be..

their duty is to manage ALL wildlife for all Pennsylvanians not just hunters... but you knew that ?????

Danes.. as I wrote not even the politicians I talked to back then or the local ones I talk to now want a merger, so I am not sure who even started talking about the idea ???? probably DCNR..??

So as long as it would take legislation.. I do not look for it to happen period...