whats more important
12-29-2005, 07:52 PM
#1
Typical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Livonia,new york
Posts: 564
whats more important
whats more important, a healthy herd were everyone can have success, which means a large herd or a small herd. hunters see few deer, few deer are harvested but auto accidents stay low. so what would you rather have. deer and good hunting or safe driving year round.
12-30-2005, 07:18 AM
#5
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location:
Posts: 317
RE: whats more important
Actually, this is in reply to Jimmy the foot's question.
If those were the only choices, perhaps your question might have some merit, but they aren't. Perhaps you might have phrased your question in this way:
"What is more important to you; having healthy forests or seeing lots of deer?" If your only concern is making deer hunting easy for you by having lots of deer so it is easy for you to find one to shoot, why then it is more important to you to have lots of deer.
Since us hunters have long cast ourselves to be the premier force for conservation, we need to take a different view than what makes our hunting the easiest. Conservation is not simply providing game for everyone to hunt. Conservation means making sure the resource is sustainable and that the ecosystems in which we live are healthy. If you don't agree with this, you aren't interested in conservation, but only in killing.
While there are those few and lonely voices in the state that blame the forest devastation on such things as acid rain and attempt to hold the overpopulation of deer that we had in the past blameless, those aren't credible. Acid rain doesn't produce a browseline. Acid rain doesn't allow lush growth inside a fenced area and a browseline outside of it. Acid rain doesn't eat all the underbrush and reduce populations of indicator plants and animals outside of fenced areas and allow them to florish inside.
As usual, you tend to oversimplify a complex problem. We had too many deer for our forests to support. That is a fact. Deer hunting in Pennsylvania has changed. That is a fact. In nature there is a maxim: Adapt or die. Us hunters will either have to adapt to the new situation or quit hunting. It is as simple as that, if you like simple choices. If you do quit hunting because it isn't as easy as you would like, you weren't much of a hunter anyway. Just my opinion.
12-30-2005, 08:13 AM
#7
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: Hughesville, PA USA
Posts: 18,322
RE: whats more important
ORIGINAL: patrkyhntr
Actually, this is in reply to Jimmy the foot's question.
If those were the only choices, perhaps your question might have some merit, but they aren't. Perhaps you might have phrased your question in this way:
"What is more important to you; having healthy forests or seeing lots of deer?" If your only concern is making deer hunting easy for you by having lots of deer so it is easy for you to find one to shoot, why then it is more important to you to have lots of deer.
Since us hunters have long cast ourselves to be the premier force for conservation, we need to take a different view than what makes our hunting the easiest. Conservation is not simply providing game for everyone to hunt. Conservation means making sure the resource is sustainable and that the ecosystems in which we live are healthy. If you don't agree with this, you aren't interested in conservation, but only in killing.
While there are those few and lonely voices in the state that blame the forest devastation on such things as acid rain and attempt to hold the overpopulation of deer that we had in the past blameless, those aren't credible. Acid rain doesn't produce a browseline. Acid rain doesn't allow lush growth inside a fenced area and a browseline outside of it. Acid rain doesn't eat all the underbrush and reduce populations of indicator plants and animals outside of fenced areas and allow them to florish inside.
As usual, you tend to oversimplify a complex problem. We had too many deer for our forests to support. That is a fact. Deer hunting in Pennsylvania has changed. That is a fact. In nature there is a maxim: Adapt or die. Us hunters will either have to adapt to the new situation or quit hunting. It is as simple as that, if you like simple choices. If you do quit hunting because it isn't as easy as you would like, you weren't much of a hunter anyway. Just my opinion.
Actually, this is in reply to Jimmy the foot's question.
If those were the only choices, perhaps your question might have some merit, but they aren't. Perhaps you might have phrased your question in this way:
"What is more important to you; having healthy forests or seeing lots of deer?" If your only concern is making deer hunting easy for you by having lots of deer so it is easy for you to find one to shoot, why then it is more important to you to have lots of deer.
Since us hunters have long cast ourselves to be the premier force for conservation, we need to take a different view than what makes our hunting the easiest. Conservation is not simply providing game for everyone to hunt. Conservation means making sure the resource is sustainable and that the ecosystems in which we live are healthy. If you don't agree with this, you aren't interested in conservation, but only in killing.
While there are those few and lonely voices in the state that blame the forest devastation on such things as acid rain and attempt to hold the overpopulation of deer that we had in the past blameless, those aren't credible. Acid rain doesn't produce a browseline. Acid rain doesn't allow lush growth inside a fenced area and a browseline outside of it. Acid rain doesn't eat all the underbrush and reduce populations of indicator plants and animals outside of fenced areas and allow them to florish inside.
As usual, you tend to oversimplify a complex problem. We had too many deer for our forests to support. That is a fact. Deer hunting in Pennsylvania has changed. That is a fact. In nature there is a maxim: Adapt or die. Us hunters will either have to adapt to the new situation or quit hunting. It is as simple as that, if you like simple choices. If you do quit hunting because it isn't as easy as you would like, you weren't much of a hunter anyway. Just my opinion.
12-30-2005, 08:24 AM
#8
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: PA
Posts: 1,149
RE: whats more important
As for auto/deer accidents here in PA we have more rural roads then any other state in the country.As more and more land is developed and hunting access is lost these accidents will happen.
Most hunters I know want a healthy forest but also have a passion for hunting.
Having said that I don't want the extreme environmentalists controlling policy.The deer herd needed reduction in some areas and still does but on the other hand some big tracts of land have suffered overharvest.Hunters are simply asking for this to be corrected.
An example would be the Tioga state forest where the original goal was 15 DPSM.The flyover produced below 10 yet more DMAPS were handed out.
Not to mention the other areas below this goal where the forestry is asking for a three month rifle season.This to me is extreme and getting away from the original intent of the biologists.
Most hunters I know want a healthy forest but also have a passion for hunting.
Having said that I don't want the extreme environmentalists controlling policy.The deer herd needed reduction in some areas and still does but on the other hand some big tracts of land have suffered overharvest.Hunters are simply asking for this to be corrected.
An example would be the Tioga state forest where the original goal was 15 DPSM.The flyover produced below 10 yet more DMAPS were handed out.
Not to mention the other areas below this goal where the forestry is asking for a three month rifle season.This to me is extreme and getting away from the original intent of the biologists.
12-30-2005, 09:17 AM
#9
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location:
Posts: 317
RE: whats more important
ORIGINAL: germain
Having said that I don't want the extreme environmentalists controlling policy.The deer herd needed reduction in some areas and still does but on the other hand some big tracts of land have suffered overharvest.Hunters are simply asking for this to be corrected.
An example would be the Tioga state forest where the original goal was 15 DPSM.The flyover produced below 10 yet more DMAPS were handed out.
Not to mention the other areas below this goal where the forestry is asking for a three month rifle season.This to me is extreme and getting away from the original intent of the biologists.
Having said that I don't want the extreme environmentalists controlling policy.The deer herd needed reduction in some areas and still does but on the other hand some big tracts of land have suffered overharvest.Hunters are simply asking for this to be corrected.
An example would be the Tioga state forest where the original goal was 15 DPSM.The flyover produced below 10 yet more DMAPS were handed out.
Not to mention the other areas below this goal where the forestry is asking for a three month rifle season.This to me is extreme and getting away from the original intent of the biologists.
As to having the "extreme environmentalists" controlling policy, I couldn't agree more, germain. I don't think we have that now. I do think the original goal of 15 deer per square mile was a bit high for a forest so badly damaged as the northcentral seems to have been. The deer population will have to be held at a very low level for several years until the forest recovers, and then will be allowed to rise to a sustainable level.
In a healthy forest, depending upon what stage the forest is in as respects maturity, varying populations of deer can be supported without damage (this assumes that no damage already exists). In mature forest, of which we have very little in PA., about 15-20 deer per square mile can be sustained. In pole stage timber, which makes up a whole lot of the state's forests, about 10 deer per square mile is maximum. In recent cutovers, perhaps as many as 35-40 deer per square mile can live, but they will reduce the regenerative capacity necessary for the forest to regrow.
I would be very happy hunting deer in a population density of 10-15 deer per square mile. Many areas I have visited have much less than that. Maine and the Canada prairie provinces for example have less than 5 deer per square mile over most of their area. On a trip to Manitoba in November of this year, I saw just over twenty total deer during a seven day hunt. There were two days in which I saw none. I was satisfied that I saw enough to keep me interested.
One other point. The one type of license that is sold in the state of PA that has increased in the number sold is the bear license. While there sure are way more bears in PA than there were back when I started hunting, the density is very low compared to that of deer, even where you and I hunt. Why is it that more people go bear hunting this year than went last year or two years ago? Maybe it is because the bear population is on the increase. Still, with about a hundred thousand tags sold and only 2500 or so bears taken, the odds are much better that you will get a deer than that you will get a bear. I have hunted bears many years in PA, and have never taken one here. Still, I continue to go bear hunting. And some say that they will give up hunting because there are so few deer. I guess it is a matter of what makes one happy. Just my opinion.
12-30-2005, 09:34 AM
#10
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Feb 1997
Location: Cheasapeke and Delaware Bay Region
Posts: 10,485
RE: whats more important
I answered the question as posed. Didn't need a serman of what the post didn't ask, save that for another thread instead of hijacking this one. Of course this is JMO.