One would think that after years of EXTREME reduction some pgc promises mightve come true by now? I dont think that too much or unreasonable to ask?
After years of reduction in many cases VERY extreme, what is the result? We have 22 wildlife management units. One has no data for it as far as regeneration, that makes 21 with that data available.
Of 21 management units FIFTEEN have a net DECREASE in regeneration! The huge majority of our units have DECLINED according to pgc data since 2005 annual report!!! UN-believable.
I dont know what to tell ya about the earthworms. But no sillier than Raping the deer herd to an extent no state has ever seen before, then turning around and continuing on because we dont have 60 trillium per square foot, so we need less deer than any state in the nation i suppose. I think most completely objective would see this isnt exactly "normal" management practice by any stretch of the imagination.
We also have more highlights of failure, the decline of statewide embryo count, and decline in the adult doe bred percentage. both of which were SUPPOSED to increase. They didnt. = Failed plan.:
According to 2007 Pa game commission annual report:
2002----Embryos per adult doe--1.63-----adult doe bred 93%
2003---------------------------1.59--------------------93%
2004---------------------------1.53--------------------91%
2005---------------------------1.51--------------------92%
2006---------------------------1.54--------------------89%
2007---------------------------1.50--------------------88%
Last edited by Cornelius08; 09-23-2009 at 03:32 PM.
Pgc asked this as well in the link to "biodiversity nut stakeholders": "What is the participant's vision of the best achievable condition of biodiversity in Pennsylvania in the year 2013?"
I dont recall hunters being asked a similar question? Oh thats right hunters HAVE NO INPUT!
Last edited by Cornelius08; 09-23-2009 at 03:21 PM.
You got it Manyspurs. One helluva pile of audubon and other extremists, greenie antideer nut jobs, limp wristed pansy sniffers etc. in those groups.
Speaking of the other groups being "antideer" but that could also be extended to include Pa fish and boat thats on that list. High ranking officer Tim Shaeffer. His interests range further than "fishes" and "boats".... He is the ex executive director of audubon who also spoke out loudly against the deer herd previously on many occaissions prior to joining the pa fish & boat staff.
As for the biodiversity "stakeholders"...Assuming they gave the suggestion for even fewer deer because they want more trillium, more hobblebush etc etc, and hunters position is known to pgc... Whom do you think recieved the consideration. Hint. T'wasnt us.
Last edited by Cornelius08; 09-23-2009 at 04:58 PM.
I have no doubt you have to be talking about "huntingpa"? LIke Pfsc, they like to mix hunters with "environmentalists" and speak on deer management related issues with "one voice" although the ecoextremists decide whats said and what isnt.
Hang around there long enough on the outdoor issues thread and you'll see all the crusaders crusading for the allegheny woodrats, hellbenders, various insect species and everything else in between. Dare breath a word of deer mismanagement and watch the flamings and bannings start.
Ecoextremists keep an iron fisted grip on the deer management conversations. Most censorship Ive ever seen on a board. VERY politically motivated site. Also never seen a "hunting" messageboard with more active members being enviromentalist group members, pgc employees, dcnr employees and dep employees than "hunters"! Whats up with that???
Last edited by Cornelius08; 09-23-2009 at 05:29 PM.
Pa deer management plan - Highlights of failure
