Windwalker7

[quote]ORIGINAL: Windwalker7

Windwalker7

WHOA!!!

germain

I don't disagree with this Doug or that the deer were overpopulated in the past in sections of the NC.My question is where will it go from here?
You used the word primarily which let's some other factors into play.

DennyF

As far as I've been able to determine, it was the Michigan Audubon societyand it's many state affiliates there, that joined HSUS in opposition to the Michigan dove hunt. Haven't found anything yet that indicated that the National Audubon Society was involved.

They didn't "stop the Michigan dove hunt", the voters did. Granted that they andhundreds of other groups worked hard to convince voters to end the hunt.Go look it up and read the list of supporters for a ban.

Near's I could tell, Michigannever had the long dove hunting traditionthat many other states,(including PA), has had.Dove hunting had apparentlybeen banned in Michigan for a very long time. Proponents of dovehunting convinced the legislature to rescind the ban for a year or two, thenopponents managed to get the issue on the ballot, ending the hunt.

Perhaps it's like the problem we're having here in PA with Sunday hunting? Ithasn't been a part or our hunting tradition, therefore many still oppose it.Apparently the people of Michigan decided dove hunting wasn't what they wanted.

Crazy Horse RVN

DougE (dce) your statement "I stand behind my position that the vast majority of hunters,especially those complaining about no deer,couldn't identify a beech sapling from an oak sapling." is very condesending.

I'm greatful that the PGC has someone so talented and smart defending their failures.

DougE

Windwalker,the biologists and foresters that work for the PGC have been urging the commissioners to reduce the herd for a long time.Unfortunately,cries from hunters wanting too many deer for the habitat to support put pressure on the past commissioners to let the herd to get too large.Remeber all the bonus tag burning parties in the late 80's?Did the PGC drop the ball and allow the herd to grow to out of control?Sure did but the biologists and the forester weren't the one's recommending this.Fortunately,our present commissioners have the fortitude to stick to their guns and listen to the professional's recommendations.

Crazyhorse,That's right.I stand behindthat statement.I've been to every save the deer meeting in these parts and have read thousands of posts on these message boards,listening to guys deny there was a problem with the habitat.As plain as the problems are to see,it's easy to assess that the guy's doing the complaining don't have a clue.Sorry that sounds condescending but it's true.

What failures?They did what needed to be done and it's working.Just open up your eyes and mind.

DougE

Rich,it's a complicated problem and many factors come in to play with the habitat.High grading of timber,poor forestry practices,invasive species,drought and deer have all played a role but the one thing easily fixed is the deer population.When they cut an area and nothing grows back until they put a fence up,six years later it's easy to see that deer are the cause.When they fence an area prior to a timber sale and get some advanced regeneration,where there was none before,it's easy to see deer were the limiting factor.When they cut an area prior to HR and nothing but beech and striped maple comes back,it's easy to see deer were the problem.This is even more true when they cut an adjacent areathree years ago and the oak and sassafrass is now too thick to walk through.When you can now see stump sprouts surviving when there were never any before,it's easy to seewe had too many deer.

We had poor habitat and too many deer for way too long.Ifanyone takes the time to look at the facts,they can't deny a problem existed.It's indisputable.

PABuck_HNTR

No statement has ever been more true on this subject.

Crazy Horse RVN

That is a true statement. Now we have vast areas that are barren of deer. Same management team.

It's all about management, or the lack there of.

And DougE (dce) not all hunters are ignorant of their hunting surroundings as you would have us believe. The whole state isnot a "Treasure Lake."

BTBowhunter

Germain, to answer your original question, it is a cause for concern that Greenpeace is involved with forest certification but only because it's Greenpeace. Audubon and the Natonal Wildlife Federation have consistently been pro hunting or nuetral. I'll thank DougE for thr iinformation on Michigan as I was not aware of that particular situation.

That being said, how in the world can anyone connect Greenpeace to theHR going on in PA. Greenpeace has consistently been anti hunting on all fronts. How can anyone say Greenpeace is pushing the DCNR and the PGC to kill more deer? It simply makes no sense.