Rsb, you know better than that and that is a pathetic tasteless attempt at discrediting someone whom you cannot counter with facts. You do this continually and its nothing more than a desparation tactic that doesnt support your argument any more than the facts do.
Hey, you are the one that came on here bashing and trying to discredit the Game Commission. All I did was point out how clueless you are about the facts. If you want debate a subject then ask a question or post without making personal opinion bashing comments about things you obviously haven’t fully researched.
Don’t expect me to sit back and let you, or anyone else,get away with posting misinformationand poisonous comments about the Game Commission or what I know to be the best direction for the future of our wildlife resources.
Very few area of the state are they rated poor. Many areas never were, and thats giving the benefit of a doubt and assuming the pgc habitat assessments are worth the paper their written on. Id also suggest you familiarize yourself with the pgc annual reports that contain the herd health analysis. Looks pretty good to them apparently.
I have not only those annual reports but a ton of other deer and habitat data not available to the public right here in from of me. I also have the ability to talk with the researchers about the data to make sure I fully understand what it means. I was just a meeting a few weeks ago where those research leaders brought us up to speed on the data and what it means.
You claim that little of state has a poor rating, but you are very much wrong. This is what those annual reports tell a person that actually understands what they do mean.
The most recent survey results showed that 23.9% of the state’s WMUs have such poor forest habitat regeneration they will not support more deer for more then short term periods of ideal mast and winter conditions.
Another 67.0% of the state’s units have only fair habitat regeneration that is very marginal toward supporting the present deer numbers even with those ideal mast and winter conditions. In other words the habitat conditions in those units is still very fragile and could go the wrong way toward supporting even fewer deer if we aren’t careful with the deer densities.
Only 7.3% of the state had habitat ratings that indicated the deer were not presently a serious factor and needing careful management to assure the populations didn’t increase until the habitat was more improved then it presently is.
Hmmm. Thats interesting. Id seen you use another excuse on another board.. I believe it was that more data was coming from different areas of the state. That was dismissed, so now I guess the "weather" is now what you wanna hang your hat on?
The changes in reproductive data collection most certainly wasn’t dismissed, at least not by any management professional, though I suppose those that don’t want to accept the facts that prove theiropinionswrong might have dismissed it.
Facts aren’t excuses either, though people that don’t have any facts that support their opinions often try to dismiss the facts as excuses.
No. Lets not. Ive hunted for quite awhile now, and have seen bad winter come and go. Fact of the matter is, that scare tactic is nothing but just that.
Really. How is relevant toward good management objectives based on researched facts?
Im not clueless. Ive heard that line. Most of the state is supposed to be in stabilization mode. The doe tags tell a different tale. Lipservice is all it is. Look to other areas as well...Look at 2A... herd was reduced 7% according to pgc on I belive the 2004 annual report and that was with a 16,500 antlerless harvest using 45,000 tags. The goal since has been 18,000 antlerless harvest and the tags from 55k to 60k...!!! And we were SUPPOSEDLY IN STABILIZATION MODE!? Yeah right... Dont insult us.
Oh and 2A having sustained either highest the second highest deer harvests of the state year after year (only to be surpassed by special regulations unit 2B) for the past five years isn’t sufficient evidence that the high harvests aren’t harming the deer populations?
Just because the harvest increases it doesn’t mean the population isn’t stable or even increasing. The fact is that many of the counties that make up those units have had continuously increasing harvests of both does and bucks for over twenty years. Those high harvests are actually what has protected the habitat that allows those deer populations to stay high and even continue to increase. Why to you, as a hunter, consider that a bad thing, unless you are more clueless then you want everyone to think?
Sorry, but thats utterly rediculous. Unless you are anticipating our hunter numbers CONTINUING to drop at over double the national average for several more years thanks to no change of direction with our "plan", then I guess I could agree with that statement.
Just more of what you don’t understand I guess. Explain to us how it is that all of the areas of the state that have had unlimited antler less harvests for the past twenty years still have increasing deer harvests and increasing deer numbers. In fact they been harvesting more then three times as many deer per square mile in the units around and including our city streets then they have in the forested habitats of our northern tier. Why do you that that is possible for more then a decade if you believe high harvests result in having fewer deer? Why is that the areas harvesting the most deer for over twenty years continue to have increasing deer numbers? Why do you think the areas of the state, with lots of forested area, but kept reducing their deer harvests had continuously declining buck harvest and deer populations?
Explain those things for us and prove to us how much you really know.
R.S. Bodenhorn