logo
 

Go Back   HuntingNet.com Forums > Regional Forums > Northeast

Northeast ME, NH, VT, NY, CT, RI, MA, PA, DE, WV, MD, NJ Remember, the Regional forums are for hunting topics only.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-11-2009, 04:52 AM   #11
Typical Buck
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: PA
Posts: 522
Default

Pretty sure WCO's are capable of readin' the print on the new tags, no matter how fine it is? Most of the ones I've met, seemed to be fairly literate.

DennyF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2009, 07:41 AM   #12
Nontypical Buck
 
J Pike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: York, PA.
Posts: 1,313
Default

Denny when it comes to doe's i seriously doubt that the PGC. cares if a doe is tagged with the proper tag. To them any dead doe is a good doe. Pike

Last edited by J Pike; 09-11-2009 at 07:43 AM.
J Pike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2009, 08:02 AM   #13
Spike
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 17
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DennyF View Post
Pretty sure WCO's are capable of readin' the print on the new tags, no matter how fine it is? Most of the ones I've met, seemed to be fairly literate.


What good is it when the deer is hung up in the garage? Again shoot the deer in say WMU2F take home place another WMU tag on it and go get another one. Reading in the field has nothing to do with the WMU tag number. It is replaced at home.
junky_car is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2009, 08:10 AM   #14
Typical Buck
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 701
Default

5C High density, Wrong , not anymore. Valley forge Fed park yes is the only place in SE pa with high density deer anymore. All except my 112 acre farm,in Berks county which has 3 deer, LOL. SAD. But this winter they hired sharpshooters to take out 1200 deer at night with floodlights at baited areas at Valley Forge.
cardeeer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2009, 12:04 PM   #15
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Morgantown WV USA
Posts: 108
Default

>Id hardly call less than 25 owdpsm and declining "high density",

I would. That's 25 deer per square mile of WMU left over after hunting season.
Thing is those square miles include roads, parking lots, houses, rivers, ponds, plowed up fields etc.

This WMU(2A) is 60% forested. So what we are really talking about is 42 deer per square mile of forest, ie winter deer habitat left over after hunting season.

The harvest last year in 2A was aroud 20 deer for every square mile of forest.

The pre-season deer density per square mile of forest in 2A last year was over 60.


Only in PA would 60 deer per squre mile of forest be considered a tragedy.

Cornball wants his over 100 deer per square mile back so that hunting can be like fishing at a hatchery.


WV Gino
WV Gino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2009, 01:50 PM   #16
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Default

1. overwinter density is the one most often spoken of by pgc and therefore us as well. Thats because its the one managed for. For hunters its the most important as well, since only thing added thereafter is fawns anyway. All you are trying to do is confuse the facts as usual Gino. Its also not a tragedy its a crime. SImilar areas to this in other states hold anywhere from 30-50 dpsm. At times more. Im not saying how many we should have, but i am saying less than 25 and continuing to decline despite claims of stabilization for the last 4 years that isnt happening is a JOKE.

2. Weve settled that on more boards than one, yet you choose to repeat. Trying to confuse people as to what the facts actually are. There is FAR more deer habitat that the 60% FORESTED. Thats because some of the best ISNT. Its farmland, broken farmland, greenbriar blackberry thickets, fencerows, crop and hay fields and much more.. Place where deer FEED, deer BED and hunters HUNT. And there is a helluva lot of it in sras such as this one. Yet you wish to subtract that land from the discussion? lmao typical say anything to support your postion pgc supporter nonsense.. That statement is a joke and you know it. Only way it would be worth a plug nickel would be if the entire wmu made up of two things. Large blocks of completely forested land and areas with nearly no deer habitat (such as within cities etc.). In a wmu such as 2A? lmao. Sorry bout yer luck but, no dice.

3.You harvest per square mile was questioned and you still didnt provide proof. You were asked for proof of square miles per wmu. Its not listed ANYWHERE and you didnt figure it out yourself since it would be impossible with all the fractions of counties involved. And whatever the harvest per square mile ends up being, its too many. Thats proven by years of REDUCTION when pgc has claimed 4 years ago and ever since STABILIZATION. Proof can be seen on the annual reports. Pgc has the decreases shown for 3 of the last 4 years. (not including all the extensive "planned for" reduction prior)

4. Far less than 25 dpsm and declining being stretched to 60 or 100 is absurd. There isnt one wmu listed in this state on the latest pgc annual reports that has even close to the 60 dpsm you spoke of, and that because that place doesnt exist. Perhaps youd next like to give another meaningless unused measure for shock and awe purposes?? Maybe we can say 2000 deer per square hectare of unforested land in July per hunting lease? lmao. It is what it is, and you cant paint a pretty picture with mud. Our deer densities from top to bottom are as low as any state in the nation that im aware of. I know no state that doesnt have best units with 25 dpsm or more (usually many more), and those who have rock bottom 5-10 dpsm in some areas of Maine (who still have other areas with HIGHER density than our best wmus!!)etc are trying to increase those herds. Not decrease them further.

5. IF i were interested in hunting being like fishing in a hatchery. I sure as hell wouldnt have quit shooting doe years ago, Id shoot the first legal buck i saw, and id do it with a rifle, not my bow. Fact is, whats rights right what wrong is wrong. And enviromentalists like you dictating our management and rock bottom deer density is 100% wrong....

I also didnt whine about anything. I stated a fact, a fact which stands. Less than 25 dpsm is not "high deer density" by any stretch of the imagination. Do i really have to post links to the states again with "HIGH" deer densites?

Last edited by Cornelius08; 09-11-2009 at 02:19 PM.
Cornelius08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2009, 03:26 PM   #17
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Morgantown WV USA
Posts: 108
Default

Here is the WMU attribute table info I got from RSB

You will need to bring this into Excel to make sense out of it.


Table X. Area and percent composition of public lands within Wildlife Management Units
Gamelands State Forest National Forest All Public % Composition by Cover-type
WMU Area (km2) Area (mi2) Area (km2) % Area (km2) % Area (km2) % Area (km2) % Developed Forest Agland/Fields
5D 2163.81 835.45 0.00 0.0 0.39 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.39 0.0 43.2 33.7 18.3
2B 3529.79 1362.85 5.91 0.2 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 5.91 0.2 20.1 57.3 20.0
5C 5619.60 2169.73 30.34 0.5 0.12 0.0 0.00 0.0 30.46 0.5 9.9 44.5 43.9
5B 7168.58 2767.79 95.29 1.3 2.57 0.0 0.00 0.0 97.86 1.4 6.7 27.6 63.1
2A 4689.92 1810.78 79.27 1.7 0.00 0.0 1.73 0.0 81.00 1.7 2.7 60.6 35.2
2D 6440.55 2486.70 122.00 1.9 12.86 0.2 0.00 0.0 134.86 2.1 1.9 68.3 27.2
1A 4782.49 1846.52 133.19 2.8 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 133.19 2.8 4.3 51.2 41.2
3C 5589.21 2158.00 167.70 3.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 167.70 3.0 1.3 70.2 26.7
1B 5483.85 2117.32 196.24 3.6 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 196.24 3.6 3.1 61.8 34.5
4E 4495.57 1735.74 146.24 3.3 14.75 0.3 0.00 0.0 160.99 3.6 2.2 51.5 43.0
2E 3267.51 1261.59 86.73 2.7 68.93 2.1 0.00 0.0 155.66 4.8 1.7 75.7 19.3
2C 8027.94 3099.59 464.32 5.8 285.43 3.6 0.00 0.0 749.75 9.3 2.3 74.0 21.7
3A 3905.96 1508.09 160.94 4.1 181.77 4.7 32.23 0.8 374.94 9.6 0.4 75.5 23.5
5A 3368.86 1300.72 17.93 0.5 366.70 10.9 0.00 0.0 384.63 11.4 3.8 32.9 62.4
4C 4693.29 1812.08 548.19 11.7 63.59 1.4 0.00 0.0 611.78 13.0 2.8 69.7 22.8
4A 4496.35 1736.04 364.66 8.1 270.02 6.0 0.00 0.0 634.68 14.1 0.9 67.9 29.3
4B 4112.28 1587.75 160.48 3.9 458.99 11.2 0.00 0.0 619.47 15.1 1.2 64.4 33.4
3D 5654.90 2183.36 501.87 8.9 375.15 6.6 0.00 0.0 877.02 15.5 2.4 84.9 9.2
3B 5829.69 2250.85 680.64 11.7 539.79 9.3 0.00 0.0 1220.43 20.9 3.3 74.9 19.8
4D 7112.23 2746.03 517.75 7.3 1482.27 20.8 0.00 0.0 2000.02 28.1 2.0 70.7 26.0
2G 10655.36 4114.04 688.88 6.5 4549.52 42.7 0.00 0.0 5238.40 49.2 0.6 90.0 7.6
2F 6243.88 2410.76 459.58 7.4 46.59 0.7 2963.49 47.5 3469.66 55.6 0.8 90.7 7.0

Last edited by WV Gino; 09-11-2009 at 03:39 PM.
WV Gino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2009, 03:34 PM   #18
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default

Send it back to RSB, because it is totally worthless as you presented it in your post.

What have we gained from a 40% reduction in our herd? Could it be a 5% reduction in in breeding rates, no change in the breeding window, a 40% reduction in the buck harvest and little or no change in forest health.
__________________
In Miss. ,ARs reduced the average rack size of 2.5+ buck across the entire state
bluebird2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2009, 03:42 PM   #19
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Morgantown WV USA
Posts: 108
Default

Cornball

reverting fields ARE counted as forest. They would classified as seedling/sapling stands.

Gino
WV Gino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2009, 03:48 PM   #20
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Morgantown WV USA
Posts: 108
Default

Yea I know bluebird. Above is the ascii text that anyone can import into their fav spreadsheet

and here is a gif of what the table should look like

Gino
WV Gino is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

 

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:46 AM.