baiting deer in Pa
06-25-2006 | 11:57 AM
#51
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
From: New Jersey USA
RE: baiting deer in Pa
For year after year they didn't cut even close to one percent and you throw that in? It has never been an issue that they should cut more than that amount.
Once again you are trying to muddy the waters.
I repeat whatI said before: you are not playing with a full deck!
To everyone else: beware of this person!
Once again you are trying to muddy the waters.
I repeat whatI said before: you are not playing with a full deck!
To everyone else: beware of this person!
06-25-2006 | 12:41 PM
#52
Giant Nontypical
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,195
Likes: 0
From: PA.
RE: baiting deer in Pa
bionic,. i hunt a lot here in 2g.i am retiredsupervisor.anyhow, i hunt about 3 to 4 days a week from archery to last day of flintlock.i come from a great hunting background. i saw around 34 deer in that time period. some of those 34 same deer i saw from first day of archery,.so count could be down around 20 that were real count .i could have taken doe, i choose not too. these 20 i saw covered around 40 miles of hunting.half of those were on privateland, lets say about 12 out of 20 or so.out of that i saw around 5 bucks,2 legal. i hunted 1 of those until flintlock,yes, i did not get him. so, i could have taken doe but what would have been left for this year. doug, says HABITAT is reason for no fawns, so if i shot doe, no fawns and add in his habitat. well, you see.does that mean there are lots of deer in 2g if ole sproul can kill doe?nooooooooooo.hunters that areputting in time,day in ,day out can get a DOE. buck is another story now, they are scare and very hard to get with pressure that is on deer now to eradicate them and hunters after MEAT now and not after a buck ,like me.BUT ,many hunters that go out in gangs each year,are not even seeing many deer. some only saw 2 doe,they killed those for 3 days of hard hunting.just because a hunter gets a doe and says it was easy, does not mean lots of deer are left.they are putting in time, as doug does and driving all over state to get one. as crazy horse said, most cant do this or have camps.most dont have the time to scout all over state. i agree,the ones , like me that spend time in woods, 4 days a week,have big advantage over ones that dont. BUT, that does not mean its easy or there are lots of deer because ole sproul can get one.now, you have ,say 50 hunters after 3 deer. it used to be, 300 deer, for every 50 hunters.
06-25-2006 | 03:58 PM
#53
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
From:
RE: baiting deer in Pa
ORIGINAL: Bionicrooster
Wow, 18 posts on this board and you got everything figured out. These posts about the "deer eradication programs in PA" are great. Especially when I talk to good hunters that I know in PA who were successful last year.
For year after year they didn't cut even close to one percent and you throw that in? It has never been an issue that they should cut more than that amount.
Once again you are trying to muddy the waters.
I repeat whatI said before: you are not playing with a full deck!
To everyone else: beware of this person!
Once again you are trying to muddy the waters.
I repeat whatI said before: you are not playing with a full deck!
To everyone else: beware of this person!
06-25-2006 | 06:04 PM
#54
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Likes: 0
RE: baiting deer in Pa
Crazyhorse,I don't know that I live in a blessesd area.We have mostly public land that gets hunted hard,although admittedly,many camps are empty and pressure is way down.The public land around here isn't nearly as rugged as it is in the northern part of 2G and around the Sproul so it generally gets covered pretty good for the most part.Perhaps we are blessed around here as far as thehabitat improvemnts go on our state game lands.I argue that the PGC does a great job because that's what I see around here.Our gamelands have much better habitat than most of the state forest property and most of the private land.I do realize that I'm lucky to live where I hunt and I can spend alot more time scouting than the average person.However,I killed a dmap doe on Moshannon state forest last archery season and only spent one day in there scouting.I killed another dmap doe on the last day of rifle season and never stepped foot on that property before that day.I simply hunted where I knew some timber had been cut and followed a topo to the area.I actually just planned on taking my gun for a walk that day and to explore a new spot.
Ihave plenty of criticism for the PGC butI give them credit where I feel it's do.I think the Elk program is somewhat of a joke and I think it's counter productive to move more elk into overbrowsed habitat.I live on the edge of the elk range and admit that they do very little for me.I alsoadmit that there isn't a habitat problem everywhere and I don't like the way that the whole state is managed at 21 deer per forested square mile.There's many areas,some just 10 minutes south of here than can and do safely support much more deer than that.However,much of the northern tier has been severly damaged by the decades of overbrowsing by a herd that was much too large.The deer weren't the only factor that put us in this position but at this point,they're probably the biggest limiting factor effecting successful regeneration.I'd like to see more deer but I want to see the habitatrespond in a positive manor before that's allowed to happen.Fortunately,I'm beginning to see that happen in mnay places so i'm willing to settle for less deer.Furthermore,I'm sick and tired of the crazy conspiracy theories people dream up.The PGC is in a tough spot but they do the best with what they have.Are they perfect?No way but they aren't out to eliminate all the deer like so many claim.This is a very complicated issue and even the experts don't have all the answers.They do know enough to get us going is the right direction.That doesn't mean some areas won't have some cold spots but there's no way tomicromanage the whole state.Habitat work is very important but it takes time and money whick is something the PGC is lacking at this point.
Mocha,the last increase was nine years ago.They hired additional personel at that time.In fact a friend of mine was hired on the food and cover crew when that happened.Operating expenses have continued to climb but revenues have decreased.it's easy to see what happened.Do you think they're purposefully not doing more habitat improvements?What would be their motivation for doing so?
Ihave plenty of criticism for the PGC butI give them credit where I feel it's do.I think the Elk program is somewhat of a joke and I think it's counter productive to move more elk into overbrowsed habitat.I live on the edge of the elk range and admit that they do very little for me.I alsoadmit that there isn't a habitat problem everywhere and I don't like the way that the whole state is managed at 21 deer per forested square mile.There's many areas,some just 10 minutes south of here than can and do safely support much more deer than that.However,much of the northern tier has been severly damaged by the decades of overbrowsing by a herd that was much too large.The deer weren't the only factor that put us in this position but at this point,they're probably the biggest limiting factor effecting successful regeneration.I'd like to see more deer but I want to see the habitatrespond in a positive manor before that's allowed to happen.Fortunately,I'm beginning to see that happen in mnay places so i'm willing to settle for less deer.Furthermore,I'm sick and tired of the crazy conspiracy theories people dream up.The PGC is in a tough spot but they do the best with what they have.Are they perfect?No way but they aren't out to eliminate all the deer like so many claim.This is a very complicated issue and even the experts don't have all the answers.They do know enough to get us going is the right direction.That doesn't mean some areas won't have some cold spots but there's no way tomicromanage the whole state.Habitat work is very important but it takes time and money whick is something the PGC is lacking at this point.
Mocha,the last increase was nine years ago.They hired additional personel at that time.In fact a friend of mine was hired on the food and cover crew when that happened.Operating expenses have continued to climb but revenues have decreased.it's easy to see what happened.Do you think they're purposefully not doing more habitat improvements?What would be their motivation for doing so?
06-25-2006 | 09:01 PM
#55
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
From:
RE: baiting deer in Pa
All I know is that as part of the deal to sellthe last increase, the PGC created a Habitat Improvement Advisory Committee made up of hunters (most of whom represented groups), legislators and other govt. officials.
Afterthis committee found out that the dedicated habitat funds were being applied against the costs of timbering (even though the PGC had promised not to do that), the committee was summarilydisbanded.
Vern Ross was the Ex. Director and I am not a mindreader; you should ask him about his motivation.
BTW, unlike what you have stated, those operating funds did not decrease -- they were siphoned off and misapplied.
Afterthis committee found out that the dedicated habitat funds were being applied against the costs of timbering (even though the PGC had promised not to do that), the committee was summarilydisbanded.
Vern Ross was the Ex. Director and I am not a mindreader; you should ask him about his motivation.
BTW, unlike what you have stated, those operating funds did not decrease -- they were siphoned off and misapplied.
06-26-2006 | 06:50 AM
#56
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
From:
RE: baiting deer in Pa
That misappropriation (of dedicated Habitat Funds) could lead to suspension of Pittman/Robertson funding as this would be a breech of commitment on the part of the PGC.
In fact, Pittman/Robertson has been looking into this matter as we speak. If you ask for a FOIA on the matter you will be told that the matter is still under investigation.
Let's see,....Hmmmmmm in 1998 Pennsylvania had 1 Million+ hunters. At $6. from each license sold going to Habitat Improvement that would equal
$6,ooo,ooo
Pittman/Robertson matching funding:$3,000,000
___________
Total = $9,000,000
The real total since 1998, considering theloss of hunters over the past several years is most likely somewhere in the neighborhood of some.....
$60,000,000 Million Dollars.
That my fellow hunting friends is one heck of a lot of Habitat Improvement money. It should have gone a long way to improving hunting on Game Lands in Pennsylvania. Does anyone think that there has been $60,000,000 worth of Habitat Improvement on Game Lands in the past 7 years?
In fact, Pittman/Robertson has been looking into this matter as we speak. If you ask for a FOIA on the matter you will be told that the matter is still under investigation.
Let's see,....Hmmmmmm in 1998 Pennsylvania had 1 Million+ hunters. At $6. from each license sold going to Habitat Improvement that would equal
$6,ooo,ooo
Pittman/Robertson matching funding:$3,000,000
___________
Total = $9,000,000
The real total since 1998, considering theloss of hunters over the past several years is most likely somewhere in the neighborhood of some.....
$60,000,000 Million Dollars.
That my fellow hunting friends is one heck of a lot of Habitat Improvement money. It should have gone a long way to improving hunting on Game Lands in Pennsylvania. Does anyone think that there has been $60,000,000 worth of Habitat Improvement on Game Lands in the past 7 years?
06-26-2006 | 06:55 AM
#58
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Likes: 0
RE: baiting deer in Pa
I don't think it's unreasonable to imagine that they spent $9000000 a year on habitat improvements.They've obviously been using the money around here because the food and cover guys are busy all the time.
06-26-2006 | 09:32 AM
#60
Giant Nontypical
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,195
Likes: 0
From: PA.
RE: baiting deer in Pa
ORIGINAL: DougE
Crazyhorse,I don't know that I live in a blessesd area.We have mostly public land that gets hunted hard,although admittedly,many camps are empty and pressure is way down.The public land around here isn't nearly as rugged as it is in the northern part of 2G and around the Sproul so it generally gets covered pretty good for the most part.Perhaps we are blessed around here as far as thehabitat improvemnts go on our state game lands.I argue that the PGC does a great job because that's what I see around here.Our gamelands have much better habitat than most of the state forest property and most of the private land.I do realize that I'm lucky to live where I hunt and I can spend alot more time scouting than the average person.However,I killed a dmap doe on Moshannon state forest last archery season and only spent one day in there scouting.I killed another dmap doe on the last day of rifle season and never stepped foot on that property before that day.I simply hunted where I knew some timber had been cut and followed a topo to the area.I actually just planned on taking my gun for a walk that day and to explore a new spot.
Ihave plenty of criticism for the PGC butI give them credit where I feel it's do.I think the Elk program is somewhat of a joke and I think it's counter productive to move more elk into overbrowsed habitat.I live on the edge of the elk range and admit that they do very little for me.I alsoadmit that there isn't a habitat problem everywhere and I don't like the way that the whole state is managed at 21 deer per forested square mile.There's many areas,some just 10 minutes south of here than can and do safely support much more deer than that.However,much of the northern tier has been severly damaged by the decades of overbrowsing by a herd that was much too large.The deer weren't the only factor that put us in this position but at this point,they're probably the biggest limiting factor effecting successful regeneration.I'd like to see more deer but I want to see the habitatrespond in a positive manor before that's allowed to happen.Fortunately,I'm beginning to see that happen in mnay places so i'm willing to settle for less deer.Furthermore,I'm sick and tired of the crazy conspiracy theories people dream up.The PGC is in a tough spot but they do the best with what they have.Are they perfect?No way but they aren't out to eliminate all the deer like so many claim.This is a very complicated issue and even the experts don't have all the answers.They do know enough to get us going is the right direction.That doesn't mean some areas won't have some cold spots but there's no way tomicromanage the whole state.Habitat work is very important but it takes time and money whick is something the PGC is lacking at this point.
Mocha,the last increase was nine years ago.They hired additional personel at that time.In fact a friend of mine was hired on the food and cover crew when that happened.Operating expenses have continued to climb but revenues have decreased.it's easy to see what happened.Do you think they're purposefully not doing more habitat improvements?What would be their motivation for doing so?
Crazyhorse,I don't know that I live in a blessesd area.We have mostly public land that gets hunted hard,although admittedly,many camps are empty and pressure is way down.The public land around here isn't nearly as rugged as it is in the northern part of 2G and around the Sproul so it generally gets covered pretty good for the most part.Perhaps we are blessed around here as far as thehabitat improvemnts go on our state game lands.I argue that the PGC does a great job because that's what I see around here.Our gamelands have much better habitat than most of the state forest property and most of the private land.I do realize that I'm lucky to live where I hunt and I can spend alot more time scouting than the average person.However,I killed a dmap doe on Moshannon state forest last archery season and only spent one day in there scouting.I killed another dmap doe on the last day of rifle season and never stepped foot on that property before that day.I simply hunted where I knew some timber had been cut and followed a topo to the area.I actually just planned on taking my gun for a walk that day and to explore a new spot.
Ihave plenty of criticism for the PGC butI give them credit where I feel it's do.I think the Elk program is somewhat of a joke and I think it's counter productive to move more elk into overbrowsed habitat.I live on the edge of the elk range and admit that they do very little for me.I alsoadmit that there isn't a habitat problem everywhere and I don't like the way that the whole state is managed at 21 deer per forested square mile.There's many areas,some just 10 minutes south of here than can and do safely support much more deer than that.However,much of the northern tier has been severly damaged by the decades of overbrowsing by a herd that was much too large.The deer weren't the only factor that put us in this position but at this point,they're probably the biggest limiting factor effecting successful regeneration.I'd like to see more deer but I want to see the habitatrespond in a positive manor before that's allowed to happen.Fortunately,I'm beginning to see that happen in mnay places so i'm willing to settle for less deer.Furthermore,I'm sick and tired of the crazy conspiracy theories people dream up.The PGC is in a tough spot but they do the best with what they have.Are they perfect?No way but they aren't out to eliminate all the deer like so many claim.This is a very complicated issue and even the experts don't have all the answers.They do know enough to get us going is the right direction.That doesn't mean some areas won't have some cold spots but there's no way tomicromanage the whole state.Habitat work is very important but it takes time and money whick is something the PGC is lacking at this point.
Mocha,the last increase was nine years ago.They hired additional personel at that time.In fact a friend of mine was hired on the food and cover crew when that happened.Operating expenses have continued to climb but revenues have decreased.it's easy to see what happened.Do you think they're purposefully not doing more habitat improvements?What would be their motivation for doing so?