HuntingNet.com Forums - View Single Post

09-22-2008 | 08:51 PM

#86

RSB

Fork Horn

Joined: Sep 2008

Posts: 147

Likes: 0

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul

Quote:

ORIGINAL: Cornelius08

"Hey, you are the one that came on here bashing and trying to discredit the Game Commission."

No they discredit themselves by their actions. You cannot expect we hunters to jump for joy when pgc has aligned itself so staunchly with anti-deer eco-extremist factions and Have them on the Boc and doing everything in their power to keep the "power" from shifting out of their hands by keeping "prohunter" commissioners to the powerless minority etc.

Rsb, before you dig yourself a deeper hole, you may wanna familiarize yourself with the latest released Pgc annual report. Some interesting findings on it are;

Numbers of adult does pregnant and their steady decline which shows reducing the herd did NOTHING in that regard, as was predicted.

2003 --92%
2004-- 89%
2005--87%
2006--85%

Then next, you may wanna look at page#9 on the link provided. Second chart on the page, last column to the right...titled WMU HEALTH. In that column even you should see that in EVERY SINGLE WMU the health was rated as "good" or "fair"....Not a "poor" to be seen.....Thats the result of combining columns one and two to determine overall health. Some rate poor in one, yet good in the other, when combined = fair etc. Overall, not a one rates poor...

You want people to believe pgc AGREES with you, yet there it is for all to see...Simply not the case. Hardly the "doom and gloom" you speak of Rsb. Sorry. No dice.

....And instead of alot of huffing an puffing, lets see you point out something on the annual report that supports YOUR position...Good luck! (LOL)

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/pgc/reports/2007_wildlife/21001-06Z.pdf

Perhaps you need to slow down on your reading of the reports because you obviously miss a lot or have some serious comprehension problems.

Though you say the units are all either good or fair you as mistaken. There are two units that have a POOR herd health rating in that report, you linked, plus another two classified as UNCERTAIN (do to low sample size) that have reproductive data in the poor category.

There are only two units (4B and 4E) that have both good herd and forest health which means that only 7.3% of the state is in category that would put it as someplace practical for a possible deer herd increase provided the public wanted more deer. The other 92.7% of the state has either poor or marginal herd and/or forest health. That means managing for more deer in those units is not the best more for the future. That is not the Game Commission saying that but the deer and their food supply telling us that. We would be absolutely STUPID not to listen to what they tell us.

Incidentally the forest health has to carry the highest weight in the total assessment of when the deer will allow higher long term deer populations.

As for the adult breeding rates that is statewide data that resulted during periods when the sample size and areas of representation changed. That rendered the data as not be valid for comparison purposes during those year. Once this law suit is begin us perhaps the data will posted by WMU. That data will tell a different story.

R.S. Bodenhorn

Reply

0