|
Interesting Pa Deer Article
A friend of mine sent this to me and I thought it made some good reading and should create some good debate.
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. [/b]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.[/b] Consequently this requirement continues to mold the [/b]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 [/b]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[/b] condition for future certification[/b]. 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. |
RE: Interesting Pa Deer Article
Good reading High Country. I bet these liberals will like this one.:D
|
RE: Interesting Pa Deer Article
Good article, do you know who wrote it?
|
RE: Interesting Pa Deer Article
"HIgh Country kid," You sir have spoken the truth. I would only note that the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen Club is an affiliate of the National Wildlife Federation. Maybe that's why they never question PGC decisions to kill all the deer.
|
RE: Interesting Pa Deer Article
I have no idea who wrote it. My friend that sent it to me is currently serving in Iraq. I will ask him, but it may be a few days until I hear from him again.
At any rate, I'd like to buy the author a beer.:):D |
RE: Interesting Pa Deer Article
Should take donations and print this in all thelocal papers.Or make copies and place in gun shops for people to take and read.I bet this would stir the pot at the least. I thought the slaughter of doe had to do with the timber companies. Especially after not reducing the doe tags number over the past five years.
|
RE: Interesting Pa Deer Article
I will have copies posted at both of my gun clubs by tomorrow night!
|
RE: Interesting Pa Deer Article
I will even seal them and post them on bulletin boards at SGL and PFC bulletin boards. Rifle ranges all so.
|
RE: Interesting Pa Deer Article
I will have copies posted at both of my gun clubs by tomorrow night! will even seal them and post them on bulletin boards at SGL and PFC bulletin boards. Rifle ranges all so. |
RE: Interesting Pa Deer Article
Do not get caught posting anything on State game lands property. You will be cited if caught. You cannot even place things on cars parked in Game lands parking lot.
Try and get sporting good dealers to display or have them visable in their shops. |
RE: Interesting Pa Deer Article
Here Ithought massive HR was for the benefit of the habitat for wildlife with an added effort on bird nesting.
If the DCNR was a private company that would be one thing but the forests were not solely put aside for timber sales.State forests were put aside for wildlife and recreation with timber sales as a way to pay for them and then some. |
RE: Interesting Pa Deer Article
ORIGINAL: Crazy Horse RVN Do not get caught posting anything on State game lands property. You will be cited if caught. You cannot even place things on cars parked in Game lands parking lot. Try and get sporting good dealers to display or have them visable in their shops. |
RE: Interesting Pa Deer Article
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…… |
RE: Interesting Pa Deer Article
Another interesting article:
> 2006 deer harvest had size > By MICHAEL MOLITORIS, Oil City Derrick - Dec. 15, 2006 > Hunters were gunning down animals with big bodies and antlers. > Pennsylvania whitetails were a little more challenging to find during this year's hunting season - but when hunters landed their trophy catches, many were nothing to scoff at. > Harvest numbers from the combined antlered and antlerless two-week season that ended Dec. 9 won't be available until March, but a quick check has shown some impressive animals being taken from Pennsylvania forests. > "The quality of the deer was excellent if you're looking at body size and antlers," said Regis Senko, an information education supervisor with the Pennsylvania Game Commission's northwest region in Franklin. "I've been in some of the taxidermist's (studios) and have seen some tremendous bucks." > Bryan Thatcher, owner of Bryan's Creative Wildlife Taxidermy in Franklin, agreed that the quality of this year's harvest was "much higher than normal." > "There wasn't necessarily the quantity, but the quality has improved," Thatcher said. > He typically preserves 70 deer in a season and most bucks average eight points, but the highest he has seen this year is 14 scoreable points. > "The average spread is up this year to about 17 or 18 inches," he added. "Last year, the spreads on most 2-year-olds was about 16 inches. That's increased in the 3-year-olds, putting some in the 18-inch category." > The bulk of deer he has seen this year sit in the 2-year-old range, but he also had one specimen that was believed to be 5 years old. > "I've seen increases in the 3-year-old whitetails, but the 2-year-olds dominate most of the whitetails in Pennsylvania as far as harvesting for mounting. It's nice to see some bucks that made it 4 years (and older)," Thatcher said. > Senko said the Game Commission's point restriction guidelines are only partly responsible for allowing bucks to mature, grow larger and produce trophy racks. Food supplies, too, have helped the matter. > "This past year, the winter of 2005, was very mild and we had an excellent food year going in and an excellent mass crop. Two years prior to that, we had significant winters and a poor mass crop. Deer were able to exit this past winter to put on that body growth and extra energy into antler development," Senko said. "You're harvesting deer larger than what most of us are used to from years gone by." > Though harvest numbers have yet to be tallied, Senko said he also gauged this year's hunting results from visits to deer processors - many of whom saw business swiftly boom because of this season's unseasonably warm temperatures. > "I'm hearing things similar to last year (regarding numbers of deer killed)," Senko said. "Some people who may not normally take a deer to a processor may have this year because of the weather." > He believes that also impacted the season's opening-end harvest. > "On the first day, conditions were far from ideal. Weather was far from ideal with most hunters sitting on stands and not getting the deer moving. During colder weather, people get up and get moving along to keep warm and the end result is that you get deer moving a lot more. > "The last day of the season had the best hunting conditions. There was snow on the ground and very decent temperatures to hunt. It was cooler and hunters found some good hunting," Senko said. > From the Game Commission's standpoint, Senko qualified this year's season as a success. > "I think it was on par with other seasons with the difference being - from my personal observations - I'm hearing individuals continue to comment on less deer. That is what the management program was designed to do, and in this case, it's been successful," he said. > "I hear people saying they see multiple bucks. Some are sublegal and they can't harvest them, or others that may have been of the harvestable variety but they couldn't get to them. That all adds to the quality of it." > > The two-week season, however, was not without incident. Senko said two regional gun-related accidents were reported: one in Venango County and the other in Jefferson County. In both, people received firearm-inflicted injuries, but Senko could not comment further on the incidents. > By the way who is the author and where did that article appear? My guess is Slinsky wrote it and it's right out of a USP publication. |
RE: Interesting Pa Deer Article
Here's another:
Bigger is better for deer hunters 12/15/2006 The following report is provided by Pennsylvania Game Commission Wildlife Conservation Officer Darin Clark of Erie County: "On the third day of deer season, I came across three hunters peering into the back of a pickup," he wrote. "I stopped, figuring there had to be a deer. The one hunter had harvested a nice 9-point with a 17-inch spread. "After we talked for a while, I asked him if he knew what the bad thing about his deer was. He looked at me with a puzzled look, so I told him that five years ago his deer would have won almost any buck pool around, but this year he probably did not stand a chance. I have seen several deer that are far bigger than his this year." That pretty well sums up the state of the buck population in Pennsylvania's deer herd. Never before in the memory of today's hunters have so many big bucks been taken by hunters in the two-week deer season. The days of spikes and forkhorns being the norm are over. With antler restrictions and a reduction of the deer population over the last several years, the deer population in the state has benefited. Not only are the bucks killed during the season sporting larger racks, but the body size of both bucks and does has increased. "I've got some of the nicest deer you'd ever want to see," said George Sullivan of Sullivan's Taxidermy in Rochester. "The largest was a 17-piont taken in Hanover Township. It had an inside spread just shy of 20 inches. "The mass on this thing is just amazing," said Sullivan. "I have seen more big deer at the processors than ever before. The body size has really increased. Most of the deer brought into my shop this year were 3 ½, 4 ½ and 5 ½ years old." Most every hunter I have talked with has repeated the same story. The racks are bigger and the deer are bigger. Deer hunting has never been better in Pennsylvania. Yes, some are still complaining there are not enough deer. This is mostly heard from the folks hunting the traditional deer woods of the northern counties. The buck that won the Potter County Big Buck Contest this year was an 11-point with a 24¾-inch spread. It had an 8-point frame with three stickers coming off the base of the antlers. The deer weighed 170 pounds. When was the last time a buck of that caliber was taken in Potter County? Entries were way up compared to last year. They had about 80 bucks brought in the first day this year compared to a total of 90 for the entire two-week season last year. Average weight of the bucks was over 140 pounds, average number of points was over 8 and the average inside spread was 17 inches. Of the five Big Buck Contests I checked into, the winning bucks were all better than 8 points with more than 20-inch spreads. There were eight in our party on opening day in Mercer County. Everyone saw deer and just about everyone saw a buck. Of the eight hunters, we took three bucks and one doe. The nicest buck was an 8-point with a 17-inch spread. I have heard the same thing from other counties. Bob Orie of Orie's Taxidermy in Moon Township agreed. "The biggest deer I had brought in weighed 265 pounds field-dressed," Orie said. "It was taken in Allegheny County. The racks are bigger this year. I have received the same number of buck racks this year as I have last year. They're just bigger." Interestingly, as the buck numbers increase in relation to the doe numbers, the bucks are becoming more "buck-like." "The thing I noticed most this year more than any other year was the amount of fighting injuries on the bucks brought into my shop," Orie said. "The first day when I was out I saw a herd of six bucks and nine does come through." I hunted in Allegheny, Beaver and Mercer counties this year and I also noticed the more even buck-to-doe ratio. I saw deer ever day out and bucks most days. On the second Tuesday of the season I saw three bucks and four does. The new direction in deer management plotted by the Game Commission several years ago has really changed deer hunting in Pennsylvania. Some would say for the better and some would say for the worse. In my opinion the "good old days of deer hunting" are right now. Mike Barcaskey is The Times Outdoors Coordinator. ©Beaver County Times Allegheny Times 2006 |
RE: Interesting Pa Deer Article
Some valid points but what credibility do hunters have when they fail to fill out a simple harvest report card. I read that an estimated 250,000 hunters have yet to send in this years report for their deer. This is really sad. We are an easy lot to manipulate aren't we?
I cant get over the fact that so many hunters will eagerly shoot does in an area they know is in trouble as far as deer density. The "I got mine" mentality is the weakness that these groups take advantage of. You want an idea? Form a private group that will collect and interpret harvest data from successful hunters. We could have a secure online reporting site that will link this data to the hunters license back tag number so there can be no tampering with numbers. We could print and distribute report cards to all the license vendors for distribution. We should form a foundation that promotes the perpetuation of the hunting heritage and traditions by the PA hunters themselves. There is power in numbers and money talks. If we all banded together, we would be a very strong group and force to be reckoned with. Wont happen though. We can't keep from fighting among ourselves. |
RE: Interesting Pa Deer Article
It's a PGC stated fact that only 40% of hunters return report cards. Could it be that the number of report cards sent in reflect the true number of deer kills?
After all, we've been told by the PGC that Pennsylvania has 1.6 million deer. We all know that's not true. How do we know that the 40% figure (whatever that is) isn't the real number of deer taken? I think George Venesky (former Commissioner) once asked to see and count the return cards and the agency was very hesitant. |
RE: Interesting Pa Deer Article
If you buy a Dmap tag and don't fill out the report card you get fined and you can't get another tag the following year. Why isn't this the case with all hunting licenses? If they made this change we would finally have accurate numbers.
|
RE: Interesting Pa Deer Article
ORIGINAL: chr103yod If you buy a Dmap tag and don't fill out the report card you get fined and you can't get another tag the following year. Why isn't this the case with all hunting licenses? If they made this change we would finally have accurate numbers. What we need is online reporting like the PGC website has now for DMAPS and make it mandatory for all hunters to report on any license with a tag at seasons end. You print a receipt (in case it gets "lost"). Next year, no report reciept, no license or you pay a penalty to get your license. I qualify this with one thing: The PGC must have the computer capabilities to police it accurately. Right now, they dont seem to have a reliable system for policing reports and that has to come first. |
RE: Interesting Pa Deer Article
If this 40% reporting data is "fact"(nobody has posted it yet??)sounds to me hunters might very well be the biggest part of the alleged problem caused by everybody else but themselves
 How the hek is PA supposed to draw a wildlife management plan if only 40% of hunters return report cards.Or maybe the 40% is the true harvest (lame excuse) because there really isn't 1.6M deer in PA as the PGC claims because nothin they say is ever true.There all morons and idiots. Maybe the PGC claims there are 1.6m deer because only 40% of hunters report - Hello - Knock Knock - Anybody Home. Geeezzzz From reading most of these posts it seems hunters in PA want PA to "fix it" when in fact hunters seems to be a large part of the problem. Whackin BB's,Spikes at will,only return 40% of report cards. |
RE: Interesting Pa Deer Article
ORIGINAL: AJ52 If this 40% reporting data is "fact"(nobody has posted it yet??)sounds to me hunters might very well be the biggest part of the alleged problem caused by everybody else but themselves How the hek is PA supposed to draw a wildlife management plan if only 40% of hunters return report cards.Or maybe the 40% is the true harvest (lame excuse) because there really isn't 1.6M deer in PA as the PGC claims because nothin they say is ever true.There all morons and idiots. Maybe the PGC claims there are 1.6m deer because only 40% of hunters report - Hello - Knock Knock - Anybody Home. Geeezzzz From reading most of these posts it seems hunters in PA want PA to "fix it" when in fact hunters seems to be a large part of the problem. Whackin BB's,Spikes at will,only return 40% of report cards. As I see it there are a few reasons for the low reporting rate: 1 Hunter Apathy. This is by far the biggest part of the problem 2 lack of ability by the PGC to accurately police those who don't bother to report 3 due in part to their to the lack of ability to be accurate, the PGC doesnt pursue those who dont report 4 If you are busted for not reporting, the fine is not meaningful 5 Misguided protests. Some huntesr who arent happy with one thing or another refuse to report their deer. In some cases it's a direct result of 2,3 and 4 |
RE: Interesting Pa Deer Article
Welp,some don't wanna agree with this but hunters are a big part of the problem in PA.Some can't let a deer walk.Some say they only saw one doe in two weeks of hunting so they whacked it.Ok that's fine,it's legal but then don't complain about the lack of deer.Our area got hammered by HR but we started passing on does two years ago and are seeing the results.Obviously in very heavily hunted lands without the cooperation of fellow hunters this won't work.Heck I see guys complain about the lack of deer yet put on drives willing to shoot anything that moves.They're like locusts.
Then there's the harvest cards.:eek: Now having said that the PGC needs to set policy knowing that most PA hunters are going to whack as many deer as are allowed.And they will shoot the button bucks so don't set policy thinking they won't. But on the other hand a feller is better off shooting a BB if he {needs the meat}as they say then shooting a mature doe.For future populations anyway.And most likely they're killing somebody elses future buck anyway.I'm exempt,don't shoot does or bb's.:D Then there's the DCNR.Maine with by far poorer habitat then ours not to mention the more severe winters has goals on average of 20 DPSM yet our DCNR has plenty of areas below 15 yet still hand out demap tags.There's a no win situation as far as deer hunting goes on the state forest lands. So yes while in my opinion deer management policy needs retooling the hunters themselves has to take responsibility also. |
RE: Interesting Pa Deer Article
I'm sure there's some truth to all this.However most of it it smells to high heaven of a One Sided Biased opinion written by an unknown who has stated he's hunted WMU 2G for 40 years.The writer states it should be closed as the tremendous number of yotes,bears,bobcats and ML's would keep deer in check.Great management theory.
|
RE: Interesting Pa Deer Article
The dismal 40% reporting rate has been reported by PGC officials on numerous occasions, so it's certainly not a secret. Neither are the actual "regular" and DMAP report cards. I have seen them at several public forums over the years, for anyone to look at, including this past September at the PGC open house.
I think George Venesky (former Commissioner) once asked to see and count the return cards and the agency was very hesitant. (the data base of same on computers), available at the PGC booth during the Eastern Sports and Outdoors show in Harrisburg. |
RE: Interesting Pa Deer Article
OK - BTB your point is well taken. As a hunter who is always lookin at neighboring states deer management it is a breath of fresh air to hear something positive come out of PA.Your 2 posts clearly show something positive.
Other than this MB I talk to a fair number of guys on the street who hunt PA.All - Everyone has stated there are fewer deer to see but "better" deer overall and older more mature bucks to be had. Many say you can't eat horns.I agree with that up to to a point.Then we have or should have as hunters a game management plan when we go afield.As sportsman we owe it to a certain degree to "Let Em Grow". Any avid ethical fisherman will tell you the exact same management theory holds true.Only differance you can only let a deer "Walk" you can't practice catch and release. BTW - There is no excuse from either side of fence for not sending in a report.How do you manage when only 40% of users/customers send in a report card?? The fines might be to little but if they were 2x or 3x how would they enforce it? Fines are not the answer. |
RE: Interesting Pa Deer Article
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. |
RE: Interesting Pa Deer Article
I just read on the PGC web site that the 2005 harvest results had anywhere from 30-70% of hunters send in report cards depending on the management unit. The PGC takes "Field observations" into account when they calculate the total harvet for each unit. The total kill was estimated at 354,000. With anywhere form 30-70% these numbers are absolutely useless. I think a lot of hunters don't bother sending in their cards becasue they know it's a waste of time. I'm thinking about sending mine in and telling them I filled every tag so it will be one step closer to reducing doe tags in my area.
|
RE: Interesting Pa Deer Article
Everyone has stated there are fewer deer to see but "better" deer overall and older more mature bucks to be had. Many say you can't eat horns.I agree with that up to to a point.Then we have or should have as hunters a game management plan when we go afield.As sportsman we owe it to a certain degree to "Let Em Grow". |
RE: Interesting Pa Deer Article
ORIGINAL: lead poisoner Should take donations and print this in all thelocal papers.Or make copies and place in gun shops for people to take and read.I bet this would stir the pot at the least. I thought the slaughter of doe had to do with the timber companies. Especially after not reducing the doe tags number over the past five years. |
RE: Interesting Pa Deer Article
We absolutely need accurate numbers for the deer harvest every year!! I mean how hard is it to fill out a report card and put the prepaid postage card in the mail?? It's rediculous that the Game Commission is forced to estimate the harvest because hunters won't do the responsible thing and send in their report card!! Wake up!!
|
RE: Interesting Pa Deer Article
Yes I can blame hunters.They have a stake in PA hunting and your reputation.The PGC does not pull the trigger - Hunters Do.
Hunters fail to turn in report cards using any number of lame duck excuses. They pull the trigger and then justify it because the PGC said so.I could fill 6 tags this year very easily on legal deer.By the end of Jan I might fill 4 by my choice not because I have 6. What does the PGC director being a retired full bird colonel have to do with the price of bread.BTW - Very Few officers experiance what there soldiers endure. Another blame game finger pointing manuever.How many WMA's and how often would this colonel need to hunt to become worthy of his job. |
RE: Interesting Pa Deer Article
ORIGINAL: White-tail-deer We absolutely need accurate numbers for the deer harvest every year!! I mean how hard is it to fill out a report card and put the prepaid postage card in the mail?? It's rediculous that the Game Commission is forced to estimate the harvest because hunters won't do the responsible thing and send in their report card!! Wake up!! |
RE: Interesting Pa Deer Article
Well I'm sorry to hear that LP. I knowthe area I hunt we evaluate the number of deer sightings we are seeing and then decide how many doe we will take. It's too bad guys can't lay off the trigger if it is that bad. If I hunted two weeks and could count the number of deer on my hand I sure wouldn't be shooting one of those deer. You can try to put ALL the blame on the PGC but we are all responsible for the management of the deer!!!
|
RE: Interesting Pa Deer Article
Exactly right WTD!
I have no patience for these guys that criticize the PGC's deer policies and yet they tell us they "shot the only 2 deer I saw in two weeks" The PGC didnt pull the trigger! I buy a bunch of doe tags as well as some DMAP tags every year. Not so I can fill every tag but so I can hunt in various areas. I take several in 2B every year because they are plentiful but even there, I take only what I feel each area can stand. My sons and I eachhave a 2F and two DMAPS for areas near my camp. We have taken a total of three deer there but only on lands where the deer herd is healthy. How did we find those spots? We scouted! We purposely laid off an old favorite area where sign was sparse. We know it well enough to have gone in and scored but it wasnt what we thought was the best thing for the area. I swear some of these USP types would knowingly shoot the last deer in the area just to blame the PGC for it's demise! |
RE: Interesting Pa Deer Article
"What does the PGC director being a retired full bird colonel have to do with the price of bread.BTW - Very Few officers experiance what there soldiers endure."
I thought I explained that. Perhaps you should read the post again. Slowly. Just for your info, officers in the field, under combat conditions experience everything the lowest ranking member of the company experiences. Everything from food to toilet paper. |
RE: Interesting Pa Deer Article
I read exactly what you wrote the 1st time.It clearly tries to equate the PGC executive director who just happens to be a retired Army full bird to enduring what his soldiers do by hunting state game lands.
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.Answer - None - Nuttin - Nauda - Zip - Zero FYI - Officers in the field under combat conditions = Very Few officiers BTW - The best officer is one who has come up thru the ranks and endured as a non-comm before being commisioned. Now - since you probably know nothing about this directors military back ground and how it relates to his current position its seems to be a moot point. |
RE: Interesting Pa Deer Article
Created in 1895 as an independent state agency, the Game Commission is responsible for conserving and managing all wild birds and mammals in the Commonwealth, establishing hunting seasons and bag limits, enforcing hunting and trapping laws, and managing habitat on the 1.4 million acres of State Game Lands it has purchased over the years with hunting and furtaking license dollars to safeguard wildlife habitat.
I do not see where it says the hunters are responsible,Does anyone else? Even the PGC says they are responsible and no mention of the hunters. We are just responsible to follow the laws they make. And by this above,They should be getting fired pretty soon if they don't make this priority instead of catering to other agencies. |
RE: Interesting Pa Deer Article
  |
RE: Interesting Pa Deer Article
"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." |
RE: Interesting Pa Deer Article
And you make a very good point if it was a perfect world.
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. It would be nice but not imperative to be an effective Director to "endure" hunting on state lands.Could you imagine if hunters found out this guy was hunting xyz WMA. And - Being he is a retired Army Col and just might be a hard core outdoorsman and hunter,he might come back after hunting all these state lands and say "what the hell is the problem with these guys". Be careful what you wish for. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:00 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.