---

ORIGINAL: AJ52


However in the real world of business it is not always possible or practical for CEO,directors,managers or even supervisors to spend time down in the trenches.

---

---

ORIGINAL: Crazy Horse RVN

You cannot blame hunters for shooting does, fawns, and button bucks. It's not the hunter who sets the policy that allows this kind of slaughter. The people responsible are our Board of commissioners who approve such heavy allocations of antlerless licenses. If they were to hunt public land you can be sure the quota for antlerless licenses would be much smaller,and that's a fact.
And before Dennis foolishly asks what does a Ciommissioner hunting public land have to do with anything, allow me to say that our PGC Executive Director Carl Roe is a U.S. Army retired full bird colonel. He above all should know that a good officer and leader experiences everything that his soldiers are expected to endurein the field. He eats what they eat, he sleeps where they sleep, he wears what they wear. (Unless he's a REMF)That being the case, his Commissioners should be hunting Game lands. If they did hunt Game Lands the Game Lands would be one hell of a sight better than they are.

If you give permission for a hunter to kill adoe, fawn or button buckthe hunter will do just that. That is exactly what our irresponsible Commissioners have done. The blame rests on their shoulders.

The one good thing about the impending DCNR takeover is that Mr. D will probably dismiss a few of the PGC's Commissioners.

---

---

ORIGINAL: Crazy Horse RVN

"My question remains - How Often and How Many state game lands does the retired Army full bird director need to hunt before he's worthy to serve the hunters of PA."

My point is that if these Executive officers of the PGC and the Commissioners were to hunt public land expressly designated for hunting (Game Lands) conditions on them would be much better then what they presently are.

How else can they know for sure what conditions are? Don't you think that they owe it to us to experience it themselves? Shouldn't they do some of their own "home work."

---

---

ORIGINAL: TRYKONOISSEUR

Good article, do you know who wrote it?

---

---

Domino Deer Management

By Greg Levengood
USP Chairman of the Board

For those of you who are relatively new to “The Deer Wars”, a brief history lesson should be helpful to provide a backdrop for how we have arrived at this low point in our deer management history. It will also give you a better understanding of why the USP felt compelled to ask the court to intervene. While I can’t say for certain exactly how it all happened because only a few people really know -- and they aren’t talking; it’s relatively easy to follow the paper trail, connect the dots, and see how the dominos fell. This is my “artist’s rendition” of how I think it went down, but I would welcome input from anyone to come up with a more accurate scenario. After I wrote this, I bounced it off of three gentlemen who’s opinion I value very highly: USP Legislative Director Dr. Charles Bolgiano who is 83 years old and has been fighting for sportsmen longer than most of us are alive; Woody Shields who is our expert statistician and bio-metrician; and well known Nationally Syndicated Outdoor columnist and lecturer Jim Slinsky, who is about as well versed in deer management as anyone in the state because of his many radio interviews with deer managers all over the country . They all concur.

Unlike the bitter debate about deer numbers currently taking place in Pennsylvania between sportsmen and the timber industry, up until about 6 years ago there was relative peace between deer hunters and foresters in the Commonwealth. Oh, everyone knew there were too many deer in the forests of northern Pennsylvania in the 60’s and 70’s, but in the 80’s we began to responsibly bring that number down with the advent of bonus tags and higher antlerless deer allocations using a deer management plan known as Maximum Sustained Yield (MSY). By the end of the 90’s the deer herd was greatly reduced in the northern part of the state, resulting in more and bigger bucks, and less pressure on the habitat. Deer numbers also developed more uniformly across the southern part of the state, and we seemed to have the perfect blend between deer numbers and the quality and number of bucks. Hunters were happy, trust and confidence in the Game Commission was high, and life was good. With the advent of the 40-person Deer Management Working Group to represent Pennsylvania's stakeholders, our deer hunting future looked bright.

It was around this time though, that a document was produced that may forever change the way we manage deer on Pennsylvania’s public lands. With the blessing of Governor Tom Ridge and a goal of maximizing timber profits for the state treasury, a California-based firm by the name of Scientific Certification Systems was selected to evaluate the forestry practices on our State Forest Lands. Scientific Certification Systems is one of 12 accredited certifiers from around the globe, and an extension of the Forest Stewardship Council; an international body of environmentalists based in Bonn, Germany. According to their website, "Trusted environmental organizations including Greenpeace, National Wildlife Federation, The Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club, and The World Wildlife Fund all support and encourage FSC certification." Hmmm….That kind of company throws up a “red flag” right off the bat.

SCS was selected to do this study to obtain certification for the Bureau of Forestry by meeting the standards of a sustainable forest as set forth by this international body of environmentalists. Conforming to their standards and meeting the conditions upon which they will grant future certification will ultimately translate into marketability of the state's vast timber reserves on the international market, and greater profits for DCNR. With funding from the Heinz Endowments this evaluation was conducted between December of 1996 and June of 1997, and a report was released in October of 1997. The ultimate objective was to have Pennsylvania’s timber “certified”.

The Bureau of Forestry was subsequently granted certification in November 1998, and was advised that the certification process would be reviewed every 5 years. One of the primary conditions upon which future certification would be granted was to reduce the deer herd from the PGC goal of 21 deer per forested square mile (dpfsm), to the biodiversity capacity which is a significantly lower number. Regardless of what you may hear from the PGC or DCNR, the real driving force behind the deer eradication plan we are suffering through today is a direct result of this single requirement. In other words DCNR is really calling the shots, with the PGC and hunters merely being used to achieve their money motivated objective.

On May 10, 1999, Tom Ridge’s good friend Vern Ross was appointed as the new Executive Director of the Game Commission following a stint as the chairman of the Governor’s Sportsmen’s Advisory Committee. A short time later the Deer Management Working Group was dismissed and a new sheriff by the name of Gary Alt came to town. It didn't take Gary long to abolish the use of bonus tags for private land only, initiate concurrent deer seasons, recommend record numbers of antlerless deer allocations, initiate DMAP, and recommend more and longer seasons to harvest multiple numbers of deer. The rest as they say…..is history.

Interesting to note it was also in December of 1999 that Game Commissioner George Venesky was terminated by Gov. Ridge from his position of Game Commissioner in northeastern Pennsylvania. Commissioner Venesky was opposed to and quite outspoken about the deer reduction plan, and was coincidentally fired without cause. When he questioned why he was being terminated, George was told by a Gov. Ridge spokesman, “We’re not giving a reason and we don’t have to”. This was a very significant event because it set a precedent for what would happen to any Game Commissioner who opposed the newly initiated deer reduction plan, and paved the way for their plan.

The BOF was audited again in August 2003, and their certification was renewed in April 2004. While this was good news for the state of Pennsylvania and I'm sure cause for joy in the Governor's mansion, it does not bode well for deer hunters because further deer reduction is a pre-requisite for future certification. Consequently this requirement continues to mold the future of deer hunting in PA as deer numbers continue to fall, along with interest in deer hunting and the sale of hunting licenses.

It is also troubling to note that these certification documents were co-authored by Pennsylvania’s Bryon Shissler, who along with outdoor writer Ben Moyer and Gary Alt spearhead an organization named The Ecosystem Management Project. The primary and perhaps only objective of this organization is to be an advocate for major deer reduction in our state. It should come as no great revelation then that substantial deer reduction was written into the plan as a condition for future certification. This pre-determined bias against deer seriously jeopardizes the credibility of the report, and at the very least can hardly be considered an independent study.

This further begs the question of whether we are cleverly being held hostage through the leverage of a well-disguised, self-serving certification document designed to further the agenda of some of the eco-terrorist extremists and the anti-hunting organizations who endorse them. At the very least it is designed to further the agenda of the forestry industry in Pennsylvania, which unfortunately spells doom for deer hunters unless you own large tract of private land.

Nobody will fault DCNR for striving to maximize timber profits for the state; certainly the citizens of Pennsylvania expect nothing less. But how and why does our Game Commission justify the facilitation of a plan whose primary objective is to generate greater timber receipts for DCNR at the expense of sportsmen? What is the primary purpose for our forests; is forestry subservient to wildlife, or has wildlife become subservient to forestry? A quick review of Title 34 should answer that question for us.

Has there ever been a cost/benefit analysis done to determine what's best for all parties concerned? DCNR whines about regeneration on the paltry 1% (at most) of the forest they cut each year. Yet according to their website, they had an 18% increase in board foot volume since 1989! They also bemoan spending $2 million per year for fencing - but just like any other farmer there's a cost for growing trees. If fencing is so objectionable, perhaps they should explore some other options like testing the pH level of the soil to see if desired plant species will even grow; or perhaps raise the pH levels by liming clear cuts to facilitate faster growth. Also, with deer numbers as low as they are, is it really necessary to fence out an animal that no longer exists in large enough numbers to impact regeneration on the vast clear cuts conducted by DCNR?

Nationally acclaimed hardwood regeneration ecologist Dr. Lee Frelich from the University of Minnesota claims that a hardwood forest with a pH level between 4 and 5 cannot grow fast enough to get past the feeding deer, and regeneration will be severely inhibited. It’s interesting to note that DCNR is not required to monitor soil pH as a requirement of the certification document, just kill the deer. Any 8th grade biology student can tell you that plant growth is a function of soil quality, water, and sunlight; the last of which is readily apparent any time there is a break in the forest canopy allowing the sunlight to shine through. Amazing how the under-story blossoms like tulips in April when you open up the canopy…..

So the option according to DCNR are to continue spending $2 million a year to fence these areas that allegedly have too many deer, or go to near zero deer density if necessary which is the implication being made by DCNR. Actually Commissioner Tom Boop finally coerced a number of 5 deer per square mile for perhaps "a generation" (20-25 years!) out of Bureau of Forestry Director Jim Grace at the January 2005 PGC Meeting. Well I’m sorry Mr. Grace; sportsmen are not going to sit idly by and allow a 100-year-old hunting tradition which in itself generates far more revenue in this state than the timber industry; as well as have the future of the Game Commission destroyed by an organization whose primary motivation is money.

Our detractors say that hunters are just being selfish, greedy, and want a deer behind every tree. In reality just the opposite is true. It’s DCNR who is being greedy by turning our forests into tree farms to generate maximum profitability. Hunters are willing to compromise, and all we want is a credible and scientific deer management plan starting with a valid deer census in each WMU to determine how many deer actually exist in Pennsylvania; deer population objectives for each WMU using the USDA objective of 20 dpsm as a guideline; implementation of mandatory deer harvest reporting systems to accurately monitor the results; and improved forestry practices to allow more sunlight to reach the forest floor and promote regeneration before timbering. These are objectives which everyone should be able to agree upon.

In some areas of the state we should consider closing doe hunting to give the herd a chance to bounce back. Simply reducing the doe permit allocations is too little, too late. In WMU 2G where I spend a lot of time having hunted it for 40 years , I believe we could eliminate all doe hunting and the deer herd would be kept in check by the tremendous numbers of coyotes, along with bears, bobcats, and now mountain lions……

Deer management need not be rocket science; it’s actually relatively easy if you treat it as the biological issue that it is, instead of making it a money-motivated political issue. Unfortunately the Pennsylvania Game Commission has succumbed to the tremendous pressure being exerted by the Governor and DCNR to put dollars and cents ahead of our rich deer hunting traditions, and have sold out sportsmen. Ironically the USP is one of their strongest advocates in the fight to remain independent and not be merged with the PFBC under DCNR. To some degree the Game Commission is being victimized in this battle, with heavy pressure to reduce the deer herd by the environmental community such as Audubon, DCNR, and the powerful forestry industry. But ultimately it is the Game Commissioners who incidentally are only appointed with the blessing of DCNR, who make the final decisions and as such must be held accountable.

---

---

And, why are our carrying capacities still based solely on forested land?

---

---

These debates are pointless.

---

---

ORIGINAL: Crazy Horse RVN

This site is fast becoming the home for people like you wishing to derail discussion that proves PGC mismanagement.

Let the truth be heard!

---

---

ORIGINAL: DennyF

They are even less than pointless, when peoplemake claimsthey know are not true, like the post above yours does.

This site is rapidly becoming a home for those who,not being abletosupport their positions on PA deer managementwith facts,attempt todistort the truth in an effort to gain converts. Or worse, justmake things up when all else fails.

---