We need changes in PA
12-13-2005, 10:01 AM
#61
Typical Buck
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Altoona,PA
Posts: 679
RE: We need changes in PA
the difference between you and I is i try not to say who is a better hunter and others aren't good hunters. But since you question that i will say i think im a pretty darn good hunter. i spend all free time in the woods and im not retired i have a full time job, and id still say i get out in the woods a great deal of time. i also travel far from the road to hunt. i just get so sick of hearing that excuse from people that don't know that people do go far from the road. also in my area people hunt even the far to get to places, you will always see someone. yes i did get a buck this year so im not crying that i didn't get one. [/align]yes 20 years ago we did have a high deer level, but now its to low, wheres the middle. not seeing deer i blame the PGC for issuing so many tags and i blame the hunters for shooting does in areas that should be held off for a while. and for you to say to me that im not much of a sportsman and to find out who the real hunters arejust shows what type of a hunter you are. [/align]andanother thing is i brush my teeth and i also send in my cards [/align]
ORIGINAL: patrkyhntr
As usual, I spent the entire rifle season on State Gamelands #81 in Huntingdon County. I saw fewer hunters than I saw deer, a total of four other hunters in two weeks, but that shouldn't surprise me. The terrain is rugged and steep, and you have to get some distance from the road to find the deer. There were a surprising number of tracks in the fresh snow on Thursday of the second week, the day I took my buck.
I will agree with those who feel some change is needed. First, we must change the attitude of some, who seem to expect that the blame commission will provide them with a deer wherever they choose to hunt. You had a deer population that was way to large and it did damage to the environment. If you don't care about that, you aren't much of a sportsman. Deer hunting isn't supposed to be as easy as it has been in the years before hr/ar. Now, we will find out just who the real hunters are.
I also agree with those who think the game commission's harvest measurement is not 100% accurate. If it isn't, who can we blame? Just maybe it is the slobs who refuse to send in a postage-free report card? These are probably the same idiots who don't brush their teeth and think they are getting away with something.
Pardon me if I don't have much sympathy for those who didn't see as many deer as they wanted to see. I don't have time to shed tears for you. I'm going hunting.
As usual, I spent the entire rifle season on State Gamelands #81 in Huntingdon County. I saw fewer hunters than I saw deer, a total of four other hunters in two weeks, but that shouldn't surprise me. The terrain is rugged and steep, and you have to get some distance from the road to find the deer. There were a surprising number of tracks in the fresh snow on Thursday of the second week, the day I took my buck.
I will agree with those who feel some change is needed. First, we must change the attitude of some, who seem to expect that the blame commission will provide them with a deer wherever they choose to hunt. You had a deer population that was way to large and it did damage to the environment. If you don't care about that, you aren't much of a sportsman. Deer hunting isn't supposed to be as easy as it has been in the years before hr/ar. Now, we will find out just who the real hunters are.
I also agree with those who think the game commission's harvest measurement is not 100% accurate. If it isn't, who can we blame? Just maybe it is the slobs who refuse to send in a postage-free report card? These are probably the same idiots who don't brush their teeth and think they are getting away with something.
Pardon me if I don't have much sympathy for those who didn't see as many deer as they wanted to see. I don't have time to shed tears for you. I'm going hunting.
12-13-2005, 10:21 AM
#62
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Pa.
Posts: 554
RE: We need changes in PA
ORIGINAL: PA GOBBLER
the difference between you and I is i try not to say who is a better hunter and others aren't good hunters. But since you question that i will say i think im a pretty darn good hunter. i spend all free time in the woods and im not retired i have a full time job, and id still say i get out in the woods a great deal of time. i also travel far from the road to hunt. i just get so sick of hearing that excuse from people that don't know that people do go far from the road. also in my area people hunt even the far to get to places, you will always see someone. yes i did get a buck this year so im not crying that i didn't get one.
[/align]yes 20 years ago we did have a high deer level, but now its to low, wheres the middle. not seeing deer i blame the PGC for issuing so many tags and i blame the hunters for shooting does in areas that should be held off for a while. and for you to say to me that im not much of a sportsman and to find out who the real hunters arejust shows what type of a hunter you are.
[/align]andanother thing is i brush my teeth and i also send in my cards
[/align]
the difference between you and I is i try not to say who is a better hunter and others aren't good hunters. But since you question that i will say i think im a pretty darn good hunter. i spend all free time in the woods and im not retired i have a full time job, and id still say i get out in the woods a great deal of time. i also travel far from the road to hunt. i just get so sick of hearing that excuse from people that don't know that people do go far from the road. also in my area people hunt even the far to get to places, you will always see someone. yes i did get a buck this year so im not crying that i didn't get one.
[/align]yes 20 years ago we did have a high deer level, but now its to low, wheres the middle. not seeing deer i blame the PGC for issuing so many tags and i blame the hunters for shooting does in areas that should be held off for a while. and for you to say to me that im not much of a sportsman and to find out who the real hunters arejust shows what type of a hunter you are.
[/align]andanother thing is i brush my teeth and i also send in my cards
[/align]
ORIGINAL: patrkyhntr
As usual, I spent the entire rifle season on State Gamelands #81 in Huntingdon County. I saw fewer hunters than I saw deer, a total of four other hunters in two weeks, but that shouldn't surprise me. The terrain is rugged and steep, and you have to get some distance from the road to find the deer. There were a surprising number of tracks in the fresh snow on Thursday of the second week, the day I took my buck.
I will agree with those who feel some change is needed. First, we must change the attitude of some, who seem to expect that the blame commission will provide them with a deer wherever they choose to hunt. You had a deer population that was way to large and it did damage to the environment. If you don't care about that, you aren't much of a sportsman. Deer hunting isn't supposed to be as easy as it has been in the years before hr/ar. Now, we will find out just who the real hunters are.
I also agree with those who think the game commission's harvest measurement is not 100% accurate. If it isn't, who can we blame? Just maybe it is the slobs who refuse to send in a postage-free report card? These are probably the same idiots who don't brush their teeth and think they are getting away with something.
Pardon me if I don't have much sympathy for those who didn't see as many deer as they wanted to see. I don't have time to shed tears for you. I'm going hunting.
As usual, I spent the entire rifle season on State Gamelands #81 in Huntingdon County. I saw fewer hunters than I saw deer, a total of four other hunters in two weeks, but that shouldn't surprise me. The terrain is rugged and steep, and you have to get some distance from the road to find the deer. There were a surprising number of tracks in the fresh snow on Thursday of the second week, the day I took my buck.
I will agree with those who feel some change is needed. First, we must change the attitude of some, who seem to expect that the blame commission will provide them with a deer wherever they choose to hunt. You had a deer population that was way to large and it did damage to the environment. If you don't care about that, you aren't much of a sportsman. Deer hunting isn't supposed to be as easy as it has been in the years before hr/ar. Now, we will find out just who the real hunters are.
I also agree with those who think the game commission's harvest measurement is not 100% accurate. If it isn't, who can we blame? Just maybe it is the slobs who refuse to send in a postage-free report card? These are probably the same idiots who don't brush their teeth and think they are getting away with something.
Pardon me if I don't have much sympathy for those who didn't see as many deer as they wanted to see. I don't have time to shed tears for you. I'm going hunting.
12-14-2005, 04:14 PM
#65
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location:
Posts: 430
RE: We need changes in PA
Let's not have any "tricks" at all.What's not needed is hunters playing the system. What is needed is for all hunters to report their kill in the manner prescribed. Simply send in the pre paid post card if you've legally killed a deer!
I know a few farmers who have never sent in a report card and several members of their families have hunting licenses. (Grandpa, Grandma and Ma.) Freezer's full and never a report card sent.
What's needed is a more efficient reporting system. The implimentation of the telephone and computer might help to some degree. Perhaps the manditory requirement of presentation of the past years license so any used tag could be recorded and the results compiled and then the agency might possibly be able to obtain reliable figures. As it stands now the agency uses a "Magical, Mystical" recording method that no two people from the PGC can explain the same way.
I know a few farmers who have never sent in a report card and several members of their families have hunting licenses. (Grandpa, Grandma and Ma.) Freezer's full and never a report card sent.
What's needed is a more efficient reporting system. The implimentation of the telephone and computer might help to some degree. Perhaps the manditory requirement of presentation of the past years license so any used tag could be recorded and the results compiled and then the agency might possibly be able to obtain reliable figures. As it stands now the agency uses a "Magical, Mystical" recording method that no two people from the PGC can explain the same way.
12-14-2005, 05:38 PM
#66
Typical Buck
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Mertztown, PA
Posts: 970
RE: We need changes in PA
I suppose the best idea would be to just plain limit the number of tags - period. Of course, that would mean the PGCwould have to admit that the reduced browse in today's PA forests is a function of the forest's maturity and not the number of deer. That foot would not taste too good at all..................
Ask yourself, when was the last time you saw one of the hundreds of PA fire towers used for its intended purpose. Aside from a very small fire on Mt Pisgah (Jim Thorpe) in PA 5 years ago, it was the Blue Mt north of the Lehigh Valley 15 years ago - another relative campfire. Our woods just don't burn anymore. When they do, the helos have them under control in no time. Higher canopies = less browse. I'm no expert, but come on, we were all born with common sense...........
Ask yourself, when was the last time you saw one of the hundreds of PA fire towers used for its intended purpose. Aside from a very small fire on Mt Pisgah (Jim Thorpe) in PA 5 years ago, it was the Blue Mt north of the Lehigh Valley 15 years ago - another relative campfire. Our woods just don't burn anymore. When they do, the helos have them under control in no time. Higher canopies = less browse. I'm no expert, but come on, we were all born with common sense...........
12-15-2005, 05:03 AM
#67
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Huntingdon, PA
Posts: 246
RE: We need changes in PA
In 1990, close to 10,000 acres burned in Sproul State Forest.
Even with it burned, Oaks and other high energy yielding trees haven't been able to take root. It is either 3 foot high scrub or 6'+ thick stuff. Neither having much of anything growing that would be worth anything to deer. From what I saw in that area, oaks that did take root were nipped off before getting to 6 inches high in most cases.
Higher canopies do not necessarily = less browse. Thicker canopies = less browse. An oak/maple/(insert most PA hardwoods here) canopy in PA (in most cases) is not thick enough to totally eliminate all browse on the ground. The browse has to get some "help" to be totally wiped. That being said, even in wide open areas in historically deer heavy areas, are barren of any energy browse.
Even with it burned, Oaks and other high energy yielding trees haven't been able to take root. It is either 3 foot high scrub or 6'+ thick stuff. Neither having much of anything growing that would be worth anything to deer. From what I saw in that area, oaks that did take root were nipped off before getting to 6 inches high in most cases.
Higher canopies do not necessarily = less browse. Thicker canopies = less browse. An oak/maple/(insert most PA hardwoods here) canopy in PA (in most cases) is not thick enough to totally eliminate all browse on the ground. The browse has to get some "help" to be totally wiped. That being said, even in wide open areas in historically deer heavy areas, are barren of any energy browse.
12-15-2005, 07:08 AM
#68
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location:
Posts: 430
RE: We need changes in PA
If that is the case, it sounds like it's time for a conserted effort in "HABITAT IMPROVEMENT" rather than simply relying on basic regeneration.
Has there been anything on that order in the area you described?
Has there been anything on that order in the area you described?
12-15-2005, 07:16 AM
#69
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Huntingdon, PA
Posts: 246
RE: We need changes in PA
Well Sproul is DCNR territory, not gamelands property. There has been selective logging, clear cuts, and several large deer fence enclosures put up. As far as plantings, creating herbaceous openings, sapling tubing, etc. I have not seen DCNR do much of that in most state forests. For everyone being on the same side, there is still a pretty strong line between DCNR and the PGC I believe.
I think the PGC will choose to improve habitat on it's own gamelands before choosing to do much in state forests, and vice versa. PGC has a lot more revenue than the state parks and forests do as well, so they can afford to build H.O.s, plant sapling tubes, plant pine trees, plant warm season and cold season grasses, etc. I don't think state parks and forests simply have the cash to do that.
I think the PGC will choose to improve habitat on it's own gamelands before choosing to do much in state forests, and vice versa. PGC has a lot more revenue than the state parks and forests do as well, so they can afford to build H.O.s, plant sapling tubes, plant pine trees, plant warm season and cold season grasses, etc. I don't think state parks and forests simply have the cash to do that.
12-15-2005, 08:19 AM
#70
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 53
RE: We need changes in PA
What I meant by trick is - how do you get the majority of hunters that harvest a deer to report it? To me, it seems like your duty as a hunter to mail back your card - but I know plenty of hunters that don't. Remember, the PGC is grossly underfunded for their annual budget. How do you pay for the manpower to monitor and compile accurate figures? PGC wants reporting online but the upfront costs are reported to be close to $3 million in upgrading computers, software, and training.
In thinking about the cost of a doe tag at $6, it's ridiculous. That probably doesn't even cover the cost of processing and handling the tag. Why not raise the price to something like $20? It might make some hunters think twice about purchacing it and it would help defray the costs of a more efficient system.
If you're not sending in your card after a harvest, you are part of the problem
In thinking about the cost of a doe tag at $6, it's ridiculous. That probably doesn't even cover the cost of processing and handling the tag. Why not raise the price to something like $20? It might make some hunters think twice about purchacing it and it would help defray the costs of a more efficient system.
If you're not sending in your card after a harvest, you are part of the problem