Dr. Gary Alt — an outdoors sinner or saint?

[wiscwhip]

Gary Alt is not a forester. He has a PhD in wildlife biology, more specifically black bears. I am not taking any sides is this fight, but fact are important when conducting a witch hunt.

Ummm, ok. I just pasted that from the article about him speaking at Moravian College. It was not my personal opinion. The text below is from another article on Dr. Alt's retirement from the PAGC, and I found many others that say this very same thing. If you want to point out inconsistencies in things I post feel free, but check it out for yourself first.

Dr. Alt earned his doctorate in Forest Resources Science from West
Virginia University. Additionally, he earned a Master of Science Degree in
Wildlife Management from Penn State University, a Bachelor's Degree in
Wildlife Science from Utah State University and an Associate's Degree in
Wildlife Technology from Penn State University's DuBois Campus.

I see NO mention whatsoever of a PhD in anything except a Forestry related field. The FACT is, I can post many other items that say this very same thing if you would like to refute it any further. I never said he worked for a Forestry Department or anything of that nature, all I said was that his primary degree was in a Forestry related field, and that is a FACT! If you could find me some type of document that points to Dr. Alt's PhD in Wildlife Biology, I would love to see it, and I would gladly stand corrected.

 

[phil@thesidehill]

Gary Alt is not a forester. He has a PhD in wildlife biology, more specifically black bears. I am not taking any sides is this fight, but fact are important when conducting a witch hunt.

Here is his educational background.

Dr. Alt earned his doctorate in Forest Resources Science from West
Virginia University. Additionally, he earned a Master of Science Degree in
Wildlife Management from Penn State University, a Bachelor's Degree in
Wildlife Science from Utah State University and an Associate's Degree in
Wildlife Technology from Penn State University's DuBois Campus.

and here is the source article.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/alt-retires-from-pennsylvania-game-commission-75914012.html

Unless he recv'd a doctorate in wildlife biology after this article was written? He is a Doctorate in Forest Resources.

 

[phil@thesidehill]

Ummm, ok. I just pasted that from the article about him speaking at Moravian College. It was not my personal opinion. The text below is from another article on Dr. Alt's retirement from the PAGC, and I found many others that say this very same thing. If you want to point out inconsistencies in things I post feel free, but check it out for yourself first.

Dr. Alt earned his doctorate in Forest Resources Science from West
Virginia University. Additionally, he earned a Master of Science Degree in
Wildlife Management from Penn State University, a Bachelor's Degree in
Wildlife Science from Utah State University and an Associate's Degree in
Wildlife Technology from Penn State University's DuBois Campus.

I see NO mention whatsoever of a PhD in anything except a Forestry related field. The FACT is, I can post many other items that say this very same thing if you would like to refute it any further. I never said he worked for a Forestry Department or anything of that nature, all I said was that his primary degree was in a Forestry related field, and that is a FACT! If you could find me some type of document that points to Dr. Alt's PhD in Wildlife Biology, I would love to see it, and I would gladly stand corrected.

Looks like you beat me to it.

 

[wiscwhip]

Yeah, but you posted the link.;)

 

[Bowsnbucks]

I agree Phil, that he was a tool in the tool box. He certainly wasn't at the top of the chain of command. But for him to say to the public that the deer were / are the reason for lack of forest regeneration is being either disingenuous or ignorant of all the facts. Did he fear for his job if he bucked the higher-ups? Who knows. I read and heard his accounts of the forest regeneration problems, but I never heard him mention acid deposition or a reduction in the buffering capacity of the soil to mitigate the effects of acid rain as contributing factors. It was always THE DEER. Deer can be part of the problem, but a much larger problem is the acid rain / reduced buffering capacity of the soil. That solution is much more complicated and calls for a change of thinking by the whole of society. What's easier - blame deer, sell more tags to a willing group of hunters - or convert all of society???

The PSU prof that Batman referenced knows what he's talking about. It isn't brand new information. The effects of acid rain have been known for about 40 years - or more. Even car manufacturers had to come up with paint / top-coats that would hold up under acid rainfall. Rainfall that reads in the 2 to 3 range in pH is NOT healthy - for anything. The proliferation of hay-scented ferns all around the state is a HUGE detriment to seedling growth. They choke out any seedlings. And ferns tolerate acid soils !!! Any forester will tell you that. Spraying to eliminate the ferns is too costly on a statewide basis. We did some fern spraying at my camp, and got some better seedling growth in those areas. The problem is NOT just deer. Note what the PSU prof says about soil liming being shown to overcome the sour soil / seedling regen. issues.

The SE and SW parts of Pa. have good numbers of deer, but it's mostly due to private, no-access land & ag that provides good food. And there are pockets of decent deer numbers around the state where conditions are favorable ( adequate food / cover, lack of hunting pressure ), but for the state forest and Game lands in many areas - deer are pretty scarce. Again - snow cover doesn't lie. No/few tracks = very few deer. Areas that I hunted for years where it was common to see 30 to 60 deer in an all-day hunt, now I see no deer to maybe 4 or 5 deer. And I think (?) I'm a better, smarter hunter than years ago. So it's not inexperience. Various regions have varying numbers of deer, due to a number of factors.

 

[wildfire]

I have not had an in ground pool since 1999, every time it rained, we had to add ph raise, The more intense the rain, the more was needed. so acid rain has been around for more that the last few years. if you doubt it use a ph meter, ph is usually 5.0, with 7.0 being neutral. To raise the ph from 5.0 to 6.0 takes 10 times of the ph raise, to go from 5.0 to 7.0, takes 100 times of the ph raise. The ideal ph for a pool is 7.2.

 

[wiscwhip]

And what are the cumulative affects of that acid rain on forest soils where the duff layer just acts to catch and hold a portion of that acid only to be released even more slowly into the forest soils as the leaf litter breaks down over time. This problem will take a long time to remedy.

 

[EOB]

Not sure why I am responding to this. I have nothing to gain and will likely be ridiculed.

"He is a forestry guy first(his PhD) and a wildlife guy second(his Masters degree). He is Forestry and not just for the sake of studying the forests, his degree is Forest Resource Science, which I take to mean he specializes in the study of forest resources for the purpose of harvesting them. No wonder he jumped on board when the Certification train came to town. His real job is how to best exploit forest resources for a profit."

Gary Alt has a Doctorate - Forest Resources Science from West Virginia. I concede that fact.

This does not mean he is "forestry guy first". It is the name for the PhD program at West Virginia. Jumping to the conclusion that he is a forester or forestry guy was not accurate. My wording as wildlife biologist was not the best choice either.

http://forestry.wvu.edu/students/graduates

Ph.D. Program
Field of Study

A student seeking admission to work toward the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Forest Resources Science in the College of Agriculture and Forestry may choose as the major field of study Forest Resources Management; Wood Science; Recreation, Parks and Tourism Resources; or Wildlife and Fisheries Resources. Within these major fields of study, specialization is limited only by the range of competencies in the graduate faculty.
​

His PhD dissertation from 1989 is "Reproductive biology of female black bears and early growth and development of cubs in northeastern Pennsylvania"

 

[phil@thesidehill]

I agree Phil, that he was a tool in the tool box. He certainly wasn't at the top of the chain of command. But for him to say to the public that the deer were / are the reason for lack of forest regeneration is being either disingenuous or ignorant of all the facts. Did he fear for his job if he bucked the higher-ups? Who knows. I read and heard his accounts of the forest regeneration problems, but I never heard him mention acid deposition or a reduction in the buffering capacity of the soil to mitigate the effects of acid rain as contributing factors. It was always THE DEER. Deer can be part of the problem, but a much larger problem is the acid rain / reduced buffering capacity of the soil. That solution is much more complicated and calls for a change of thinking by the whole of society. What's easier - blame deer, sell more tags to a willing group of hunters - or convert all of society???

The PSU prof that Batman referenced knows what he's talking about. It isn't brand new information. The effects of acid rain have been known for about 40 years - or more. Even car manufacturers had to come up with paint / top-coats that would hold up under acid rainfall. Rainfall that reads in the 2 to 3 range in pH is NOT healthy - for anything. The proliferation of hay-scented ferns all around the state is a HUGE detriment to seedling growth. They choke out any seedlings. And ferns tolerate acid soils !!! Any forester will tell you that. Spraying to eliminate the ferns is too costly on a statewide basis. We did some fern spraying at my camp, and got some better seedling growth in those areas. The problem is NOT just deer. Note what the PSU prof says about soil liming being shown to overcome the sour soil / seedling regen. issues.

The SE and SW parts of Pa. have good numbers of deer, but it's mostly due to private, no-access land & ag that provides good food. And there are pockets of decent deer numbers around the state where conditions are favorable ( adequate food / cover, lack of hunting pressure ), but for the state forest and Game lands in many areas - deer are pretty scarce. Again - snow cover doesn't lie. No/few tracks = very few deer. Areas that I hunted for years where it was common to see 30 to 60 deer in an all-day hunt, now I see no deer to maybe 4 or 5 deer. And I think (?) I'm a better, smarter hunter than years ago. So it's not inexperience. Various regions have varying numbers of deer, due to a number of factors.

I'm right there with you BnB. I dont think any of us can fairly say what he was or wasnt thinking during all of this....but it doesnt make any sense to try to boil this all down to Gary Alt's bones...there is a larger "conspiracy' that goes way beyond him. I'm not defending him or saying he goes with out guilt in the matter....but again making him the boogey man is fool hardy. He got to be the poster boy and then when people got p!ssed he was easily scape goated and eventually cast aside (retired)...and people felt like they got their pound of flesh and will eventually become complacent again (or so they hope anyway). Just because Alt is now gone doesnt mean that the same actors further up the food chain and money trail are as well.

Im very well aware of the acid rain issue, i used to run a trout habitat improvement stewardship program....pH is a major limiting factor not just in the aquatic environment, but the terrestial environment as you have noted. I think of it this way....acid rain point source solutions are a MAJOR issue to tackle, mitigating the acid rain impact on forest soils is a MAJOR issue to tackle......reducing deer numbers to 'increase' forest regeneration was the path of least resistance. Not to mention many of the sources for acid rain fall well outside the jurisdiction of these agencies. These Forest Certification programs started out with caveats that expressly called out deer as a major threat and made an aggressive reduction in deer numbers a condition of the certification. without being able to meaningfully reduce the sources of acid rain, and without being able to effectively amend the forest soils pH levels, and with these forest certification programs calling for reduction in deer numbers we had a perfect storm that made landfall on our deer herd. They were the easiest targets and the certifications the agencies (the state) wanted required it.....BANG....dramatic reduction of deer in our forested lands...specifically the publicly owned lands.

 

[wiscwhip]

Not sure why I am responding to this. I have nothing to gain and will likely be ridiculed.

I for one would never ridicule a post like the one you made. I see where I may have jumped to the conclusion that he was out to exploit the forest. That was a stretch, but my personal experience tells me it is entirely possible. That said, I personally know quite a few people who have went to school for natural resource related degrees, both in the private sector and on the public payroll, and every single one of them is a "forestry first guy", including a couple of my best friends from high school, one of which has a Masters in Wildlife Ecology, not forestry and he is a "forestry first guy". He just so happens to be in charge of the wildlife management at Fort McCoy. I will even post a quote from him off of his facebook page, and remember he is educated as a "wildlife guy" not a "tree guy", speaking on deer at the fort:
"Yep, we all know that there are too many around here, so we manage them. The browse line should not be as it has been, nor should we be seeing 20+ deer a day. We need to get back to the lower numbers so our farmers don't lose as much and the roads would be a tad bit safer."
That sounds like a tree guy to me, but I guess in general, you have to be a forestry first guy no matter what, without the forests their would be no deer or bears or anything else for that matter.

 

[Buckly]

Alt was the bear guy in PA. If he did a good job or not with that I don't know, but it was perceived by many that he did. Who knows that much about bears anyways, and bear are such a novelty. So they made him the deer guy. There were others also of course but he was the guy. His ideas were so hated by some I'm surprised he's still walking around. Once that happened, he now assumes the role of a character actor. There is only one role to play and he can't change it, ever. It's either play the role or don't play at all. The question is: If he had to do it over again would he have accepted his role as the deer guy. That would an answer I would like to hear and would be the telling of his true intentions.

 

[wiscwhip]

You really want to know, in his own words from an Audubon Society interview in 2005:

So I asked Alt what he intended to do with the remainder of his life. I liked his answer: “I quit the commission because I could do more to solve this deer crisis by working on the outside. I promised the game commissioners that I would spend the rest of my career trying to change the system, that I would become their worst nightmare. That's where I'm headed.”

I think that pretty much sums up "his intentions".

 

[Maya]

http://www.pottsmerc.com/article/MP/20031019/SPORTS/310199992

Wind em up and let em go!