lOSE-LOSE SITUATION
 

I'm afraid it's a no win situation here in PA for our game commission.Danged if they do and danged if they don't.I'm hearing alot of talk of hunters hanging it up which will make it more expensive for the remaining hunters to buy a license.So then I expect some of them will quit.Man I can't tell you when the last time was I saw a youngster out hunting.
Now we know deer hunting is our bread and butter here in PA.But honestly if an adult is stuck hunting on public land he can't keep thAt youngster interested with 5-12 dpsm.In plain words those are unhuntable numbers.
Then there's the USP.The lawsuit and against the PGC is going to do more harm then good.This agency is for the hunters plain and simple.They are just stuck in a rock and hard place getting pressure from both sides on the deer issue.The DCNR and audobon are lickin their chops waiting for a take-over.If the USP wants to sue anybody it should go after the DCNR.
There's quite a few hunters who are done hunting the state forests.So how is the DCNR going to keep the herd at 5dpsm?Another story I suppose.
I hate to be so doom and gloom but I really don't see any way the PGC can survive these issues.
If any of you guys feel they can survive all this I'd like to see your ideas.

RE: lOSE-LOSE SITUATION
 

I think your concerns are valid Germain. I dont really have a solution but I think the first thing that Pa's hunters can do is to get behind the PGC on license increases. Without the money to run things they will get swallowed up. (Likely by DCNR) The bickering and lawsuit threats from lunatic fringes like Unified works right into the hand of those who would like to the PGC, as we know it, disappear.

RE: lOSE-LOSE SITUATION
 

I agree BT we need to stick together!! Suing each other certainly isn't the answer. [:@]

RE: lOSE-LOSE SITUATION
 

Contact Rep. Bruce Smith about the license increase. It is all in his court and he alone is holding it up at this point.

RE: lOSE-LOSE SITUATION
 

The USP has no legal grounds to sue the DCNR since the DCNR does not have the legal authority to control the herd on their property any more than a private land owner. The PGC , on the other hand , put the interests of the forestry industry and the Audubon, above the interests of hunters and are now paying the price.Increasing the price of licenses now will only provide more incentive for hunters to quit.

The PGC knows they are running a deficit, yet they implemeneted a deer management plan that will be much more expensive than the previous system. Before they relied on the USFS survey of forested habitat to establish OWDD goals. The new system will require PGC staff to monitor the conditions of the habitat every year statewide. The PGC ,simply does not have the staff or the resources to acomplish that, so the new plan won't be any better than the old plan and could be alot worse.

RE: lOSE-LOSE SITUATION
 

ddear,The DCNR is putting too much political pressure on the PGC to go along with their program.In plain words I feel the PGC is afraid of them.
It may sound paranoid but I feel there's more to this then what theDCNR is letting on.Sure some areas needed herd reduction but they are pushing for such a low number of deer they know dang well the desired numbers are unhuntable.They know people can't hunt a 5 dpsm number in a vast woods.The DCNR has threatened the PGC twice already.Now two commissioners are simply asking how low they want their numbers to go and the biologists won't give them an answer.There's more to this then meets the eye and the blame goes to the DCNR.
If the lawsuit would go in favor of the USP where would that let us?Probably with a take-over or merger.And we think the deer numbers are low now?Wait till audobon/DCNR get their paddies on deer management!

RE: lOSE-LOSE SITUATION
 

DD is a perfect example of whats wrong in the hunting fraternity. Never any positive ideas, just negative...... that won't work, this can't be done, it's all the PGC's fault, the sky is falling, rehash rehash rehash.

If this is truly a lose-lose situation, the likes of DD and USP have helped make it so[:'(]

RE: lOSE-LOSE SITUATION
 

One can blame the USP and the hunters all you want, but it is the PGC that created the changes that resulted in all the dissention. The PGC and those thatoppose the currrent plan have no control over the sseasins ,anterless allocations or AR's and those are the issues that are creating the dissention.

BTW, I said along time ago that it would be huge improvement if the included the carrying capacity of all of the habitat and that is the direction in which they are moving. How ever the benefits of that move will probably be negated by the selection of indicator plants that are highly sensitive to deer browsing. Some biologists say some species of plants can be adversely effected at 25% of the max. carrying capacity.

RE: lOSE-LOSE SITUATION
 

My hope is that they can reach a huntable number with the habitat,common ground sort of speak.Obviously the amount of deer the habitat can support is important but so is deer hunting in PA.I think the PGC knows this hence the questions by commissioners to the DCNR.

BT,I didn't mean to rehash the same old topic but at the same time I don't think we can turn our heads on a serious problem.A merger would be very bad news for all of us and we need to pay attention to it.On the other hand the numbers desired by the DCNR are unhuntable and as a result will lead to fewer hunters in PA which will make the financial shortfalls even more of a problem for the PGC.
I gotta tell ya I think groups such as DCNR and audobon are the threat to hunting in PA.

RE: lOSE-LOSE SITUATION
 

You don't have to worry about the DCNR. They got their forests recertified and they got all the DMAP tags they wanted. What you should worry about is the PGC's plan to base future OWDD goals on indicator plants and other totally subjective criteria.

RE: lOSE-LOSE SITUATION
 

Germain,
I didnt mean to imply that you were rehashing anything and I sincerely apologize if I gave you that impression. You actually brought up a very good point that has a lot of merit. My comments were directed towards those that have nothing constructive to say and I dont think any of us include you in that VERY small group. If you just look back in this short thread, its apparent who simply wants to discredit the PGC without offering anything constructive to go with the constant criticism.

RE: lOSE-LOSE SITUATION
 

If some one is oposed to the direction the PGC is taking ,why would you expect commments that you would consider to be "constructive" however yoy may define it ? The fact is there are two opposing groups. Your side apparentlty feels that the PGC can do nothing wrong and the opposition questions whether the PGC knows what hey are doing. The fact that they abandoned the new computer model after just two years ,indicates the PGC doen't know what it is doing.

Now, if you want to be constructive , explain how the PGC plans to assign OWDD goals in the future and how they will determine anterless allocations. You might also explain where they will get te additional manpower to implement this plan. Thanks.

RE: lOSE-LOSE SITUATION
 

thank-you BT.

DDEAR,do you have any info on how the PGC will determine the owdd?Or how this will take more manpower?

RE: lOSE-LOSE SITUATION
 

We welcome any new ideas or comments on this topic. We will not however entertain ANY OLD rehashed data on the topic.

RE: lOSE-LOSE SITUATION
 

According to Dr. R. the PGC will no longer calculate OWDD's or use OWDD goals . Instead they are in the process of developing an entirely new management system as outline in this quote from Dr. R.


Note that the plan includes habitat inventories which will have to be conducted yearly in order to determine the effects of the previous years harvests. Before, they simply used the USFS aerial surveys to determine the number of SM's of each class of forest habitat there was in each WMU . Now they will need the manpower to conduct habitat inventories in enough areas of each WMU to determine the average condition of the habitat.

Since they are also going to use deer-human interactions, they will need to compile data on deer/car collisons, crop damage complaints, and home owners complaints . This will also require additional staff to collect and imput the data and to develop a plan to factor in this information when determining future anterless allocations.

RE: lOSE-LOSE SITUATION
 

The PCG put themselves in this position. With all there lies and untrue statements. Think about the quotes from the so called deer managment team. There is no way I would belive anything they say now. Every year there is less deer, hunters and places to hunt.
Now they think they are going to hurt us buy taking a couple of phasant away. The only ones I see are the ones the local gun club puts out. They need to reduce the PGC before I will agree on an increase

RE: lOSE-LOSE SITUATION
 

Thanks for the info ddear.With the shortfall of funds I don't see how they can get more manpower.Our future in hunting and the changes it brings will be interesting.I just hope that we can avoid a merger.

RE: lOSE-LOSE SITUATION
 

If the PGC continues on it's currrent course it won't matter if the PGC merges with the DCNR ,since the results will be the same. When the PGC switches to the new system , the OWDD goals will be totally subjective and arbitrary and hunters will have no voice . It won't matter if the PGC or the DCNR sets the goals , since both agencies are more concerned about growing commercially valuable timber rather than providing good deer hunting for hunters.

RE: lOSE-LOSE SITUATION
 

Are there any positive prospects in the "Doom and Gloom Theory" for PA Hunters:(?

It sounds like PA is doomed to a "Wildlife Arrmageddon (s)" in the near future:eek:.

RE: lOSE-LOSE SITUATION
 

AJ52 I know one thing. If my hunting was as bad as some peoples hunting is on this thread. I would spend little less time on the computer and be knocking on more doors looking for new places to hunt.
Here is an example.
I didnt shoot a spring gobbler in 5 years in PA. Was it because there were no turkeys in PA? No it was because I was to lazy to do my homework. 2005 I did my homework and got permission for new land guess what? I shot 10 5/8 inch long beard opening morning. The same goes with deer hunting. If you are not seeing any deer change your approach next season. I will agree some places are hurting for deer but there are plenty of places to find plenty of deer. To find these places effort is required.
;)

RE: lOSE-LOSE SITUATION
 

i love it when people from other states chime in on here, better yet like Delaware where there're deer harvest last year was 14,000+... turns out, it was a record... see PA is a little bigger and has just a few more hunters... on another post DE deer i ask how many est. deer, how many hunters, how much public land and i didn't get an answer..
bullmoose i see what your saying and that is a good idea, but the thing is we have some really nice public land here in PA its just being shot out and it doesn't need to be that way, the PGC are giving the telling the hunters to do that by saying the deer need cut and giving out the tags.. if we all go to private land who is left to hunt this public land? i see DE wants to do some HR so i say some PA hunters should go there and help them out... i dont want to cut up DE its just PA is a lot different than DE, fact PA is different than any state..

RE: lOSE-LOSE SITUATION
 

PA Gobbler - Your point is well taken.

My point was and still is there must be something Good to say about the PA wildlife management. I refuse to believe PA is that bad off. We know you guys have some legitimate issues up there as we do in little ole Delaware.We're dealing with it by getting involved in meetings and QDM.

I suggest the Nay Sayers become part of the Solution rather than adding fuel to the problems by generating dozens - hundreds - and thousands of negative posts. All this trash talk about PA doesn't speak highly for a hunters home state.[&o]

RE: lOSE-LOSE SITUATION
 

Pa is indeed different and unique and that will help us in the long run. Even with shrinking numbers we have more hunters than almost any other state. Hunting here isn't doomed but we're in for some challenging times.

On the other hand, the herd reduction arguement is not unique to PA. Many states other than Pa are attempting some type of HR. I've seen the same type of battles from many other states.

We've heard from lots of other states and the same arguement rages on in many of them. Pa just has more hunters on both sides.

RE: lOSE-LOSE SITUATION
 

Just what do you suggest that we do to become part of the solution rather than part of the problem? Are you suggesting we all keep quite and just blindly accept all the misinformation and false claims that have been made over the past 5 years? If so, what would that accomplish?

RE: lOSE-LOSE SITUATION
 

Let me "chime in from another state" in support of ddear and others.

AJ52, you "may refuse to believe PA is that bad off", but that doesn't mean its not so. In the southern tier of NY, our deer have been getting hammered. Our herd decreased 40% in 2 years. 2/3 of NY's WMU are below targets.

I think that the "Naysayers" DID become part of the solution, by loudly raising their voices and attracting the attention of NY DEC. As a result, DEC announced that building the herd is the priority for the next few years.

You may not know what's really going on unless you are right there in the trenches.

I have to laugh at those armchair biologists that keep saying "manage the herd", and "kill more does", and "earn a buck." In your neck of the woods, this could be the gospel truth. Depending on YOUR region, this may be the most ridiculous rhetoric ever.

RE: lOSE-LOSE SITUATION
 

AJ- i didnt know you were from PA so now i know and you kinda know what its like here then.. i know QDM works in and would work in a lot of states but i think w/ PA having so many hunters, and a lot of private land that dont have access to, it wont work here now.. and letting our voices be heard on message boards in one way to get a point out.. i do not think that the PGC is 100% against the hunters but they arent 100 % for us and they should be since we pay the bills..
BT- your right PA has A LOT of hunters and i just dont think PGC has the money to micro-manage the herd like they need to do.. but i think by telling us to kill more and more doe is a wrong approach for them to take..
i think both sides have good points but its something to keep talking about not just be quiet and not voice your thoughts and let it just happen and then complain later.. one of the biggest reasons i come on the NE section is to give and get info about PA deer.. i do learn a lot here about it.. i just dont want our voices to get shut down on a very important issue..

RE: lOSE-LOSE SITUATION
 

hey im sorry i wasent meaning i didnt think people from other states shouldnt chime in, but sometimes when your not from an area or never hunted an area like PA its hard to understand everything going on... i take that back to everyone

RE: lOSE-LOSE SITUATION
 

No offense taken - I was actually reiterating your point. Your hunting situation is as you find it....not how some guy 200 miles away envisions it.

RE: lOSE-LOSE SITUATION
 

Its good that we have plenty of posters that care enough to keep the subject going and going and going .... kind like the energizer bunny. I'll just offer this up: the ability to use a calculator and the willingness to hammer away at it for hours to come up with a way of stating your case does not make one an expert. If a point is to be made, it shouldn't take statistical smoke and mirrors to make it. More importantly, constantly criticising without offering a better way is counterproductive. Anyone from any state can see that and should feel free to point it out.

Saying it over and over doesnt make it so..... unless you say it over and over and no one objects!!!

RE: lOSE-LOSE SITUATION
 

Analyzing the data may not make one an expert but it certainly makes one much better informed. If we only relied on what the PGC tells us , one might think that the harvest of 2,5+ buck more than doubled due to AR's ,since the percentage of 2.5+ buck in the harvest increased from 20% to 50%. But, in fact, the number of 2.5+ buck harvested only increased by 9.4 K or 18%. They also told us the 2005 anterless allocation was conservative, but when one considers how much the herd has been reduced , the 879K tags in proportion to the number of anterless deer available , the allocation is far from being conservative and will result in additional significant herd reduction.

RE: lOSE-LOSE SITUATION
 

Thank you DD for providing an example of what I described in my last post. More of what we've all heard a thousand times (mostly from you) without anything positive to offer.

RE: lOSE-LOSE SITUATION
 

Maybe you have forgotten that I suggested that the PGC could eliminate the need for much of the future herd reduction if they just included all of the habitat the deer use rather than just forested habitat. It is widely accepted in deer management circles that fragmented forests have a much higher carrying capacity than contiguous forests. Simply increasing the OWDD goals for 5C and 5B from 5 & 6 DPSM, to 15 DPSM would eliminate the need for significant herd reduction in those WMU's. But, instead of increasing the OWDD gaols for 5 C. the PGC increased the length of the extended anterless season by 2 weeks.

RE: lOSE-LOSE SITUATION
 

Germain,

I kinda thinks that an early, middle, and late Indiana Bat Season would be one possible way for the PGC to make a few bucco's ... at least in my neck of the woods. Besides, in addition to the $$, there would be more insect fodder fer the Grouse and Turkeys ... seems like a WIN / WIN to me, but heck, what do I know, yanno ?? ... lmao


99er

RE: lOSE-LOSE SITUATION
 

model99er,I propose an open season on Indiana bats.They don't belong in PA anyway!:D
AJ52,of course not all is bad in PA.We have great turkey and bear hunting to name a few.Unfortunately the coyote hunting is getting better every year too.And here's the best thing of all.We have thousands and thousands of gamelands to hunt.
Having said that though our bread and butter is deer hunting and that's where the problem lies.Ever try to hunt deer on 5-10 dpsm land?It pretty much aint happening.And this is what most of our public land is like.
And for the people telling folks to move 100 miles to hunt deer please stop it.Too many folks have money invested in cabins in the prime vast mountains of PA.You know deer country.Mountains and deer go hand in hand.Mountains are supposed to have deer.Not to mention private land open to hunting is shrinking quick.Leases are getting hard to find with some having a ten year wait to get on.A fellow in NC PA isn't going to travel to SW PA and get permission to hunt private land.
Besides,if you guys support HR like you claim then to help your cause you'll need those hunters to stay in the NC to keep the herd down.
Problem is right now there's hardly any herd left to keep down.

RE: lOSE-LOSE SITUATION
 

Germain unfortunatley leasing is on the rise. There are more and more places being posted around here every year and more ads in the papers looking for places to lease. Its a trend I dont see stopping any time soon.
Those of you who say move to another area that doesnt work for a lot of people. There are some for whatever reason just cant pick up and move.

RE: lOSE-LOSE SITUATION
 

I think leasing and posting in PA will cause hunter numbers to drastically drop off Dale.Of course any landowner has the right to do this but with the deer numbers so low on public land and the shrinking amount of private land open to hunting it will have an affect.
Then there's the loss of land to developement.