A Crack in the "Rock?"
02-01-2007, 06:22 PM
#171
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
RE: A Crack in the "Rock?"
You are probably correct that the habitat in 1A and 1B isn’t seriously habitat damaged. It is also probably true that any herd reduction there is largely driven by social acceptance issues. But, it is also true that the best way to safeguard the future of having suitable habitat in those areas capable of supporting the highest possible long term deer populations rests in protecting the habitat instead of the deer.
To best understand how true it is that protecting the habitat instead of the deer works toward having the best possible deer populations in the future you should take a look at what has happened in the units that have had unlimited doe harvests for over a decade now. In Allegheny County hunters have been able to get as many antlerless licenses as they wanted for about fifteens year. The hunters there could harvest as many does as they wanted too as long as they had a license. The hunters there could legally harvest more antlerless deer then they could rabbits or squirrels. But, the deer populations there have not declined like they have in the areas of the state where they protected the deer with lower license allocations and harvests. Why do you suppose the areas with unlimited doe harvests for all those years still have both increasing deer populations and increasing deer harvests?
To show that what I said is in fact true I am going to post the five year harvest averages for Allegheny County and then for WMU 2B since that is the unit that includes Allegheny County in resent years.
Allegheny County and Unit 2B harvest history per square mile of land mass:
Years……antlerless harvest……………antlered harvest……………total deer harvest
82-86………….1.5……………………….0.9â €¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.2.4
87-91………….2.5……………………….1.7â €¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.4.2
92-96………….6.8……………………….2.7â €¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.9.5
97-01………….8.1……………………….3.4â €¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦...11.5
02-04…………7.9………………………..3.4â €¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦...11.3
03-05 (2B)…...10.1……………………….3.4…†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦...13.4
As you can see the continuously increasing antlerless harvests in Allegheny County and unit 2B have not resulted in declining deer populations. If harvesting more deer had actually reduced the populations the hunters would not be able to continuously find and harvest even more deer including more bucks year after year. The key to having that on going success is in protecting the habitat instead of the deer. As long as you protect the habitat there will always bethe maximum number of deer the habitat can support. Of course the opposite of that is true if you over protect the deer; they damage the habitat and then you are going to end up with fewer deer because the habitat will no longer support as many deer as it did before it was damaged.
The objective in the areas you are hunting is to protect that habitat so it will always support a good population of deer. To protect the habitat you need to stay agressive with the antlerless harvests. If you have good habitat it seems that it is all but impossible to over harvest the deer through legal hunting methods and seasons. That doesn’t mean that you will always see a lot of deer, it just means that if you don’t harvest enough to protect the habitat the day will come when you have even fewer deer then you could have, and would have, had you been protecting the habitat instead of the deer. Once you start experiencing habitat damage you are going to have fewer deer even if you also continuously harvest fewer of the deer. We have learned that lesson well from making that mistake over and over again here in the northern tier areas of central Pennsylvania.
Now, as for your last sentence, the professional wildlife managers and the Commissioners do listen to hunters. But which hunters should we listen to the most; the ones that say harvest more deer, the ones that say harvest fewer deer or the hunters that say don’t harvest any antlerless deer at all for one, two, three or how many years? Should we only listen to hunters that want to have more deer and pay no attention to the food supply or the wishes of the land owners that supply the food for the deer? Just who should the professionals really be listening too?
I think the best answer to that is that the professionals need to listen to the deer and be paying attention to what the deer and their food supply are telling us. Deer and habitat don’t have any opinions so all they can provide is scientific data and fact. It is those scientific results and facts that will lead to the best possible future for the deer themselves. I tend to believe that what is best for the deer, their food supply and their habitat is what will also be the best for the long term future of the hunter and hunting.
R.S. Bodenhorn
To best understand how true it is that protecting the habitat instead of the deer works toward having the best possible deer populations in the future you should take a look at what has happened in the units that have had unlimited doe harvests for over a decade now. In Allegheny County hunters have been able to get as many antlerless licenses as they wanted for about fifteens year. The hunters there could harvest as many does as they wanted too as long as they had a license. The hunters there could legally harvest more antlerless deer then they could rabbits or squirrels. But, the deer populations there have not declined like they have in the areas of the state where they protected the deer with lower license allocations and harvests. Why do you suppose the areas with unlimited doe harvests for all those years still have both increasing deer populations and increasing deer harvests?
To show that what I said is in fact true I am going to post the five year harvest averages for Allegheny County and then for WMU 2B since that is the unit that includes Allegheny County in resent years.
Allegheny County and Unit 2B harvest history per square mile of land mass:
Years……antlerless harvest……………antlered harvest……………total deer harvest
82-86………….1.5……………………….0.9â €¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.2.4
87-91………….2.5……………………….1.7â €¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.4.2
92-96………….6.8……………………….2.7â €¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.9.5
97-01………….8.1……………………….3.4â €¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦...11.5
02-04…………7.9………………………..3.4â €¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦...11.3
03-05 (2B)…...10.1……………………….3.4…†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦...13.4
As you can see the continuously increasing antlerless harvests in Allegheny County and unit 2B have not resulted in declining deer populations. If harvesting more deer had actually reduced the populations the hunters would not be able to continuously find and harvest even more deer including more bucks year after year. The key to having that on going success is in protecting the habitat instead of the deer. As long as you protect the habitat there will always bethe maximum number of deer the habitat can support. Of course the opposite of that is true if you over protect the deer; they damage the habitat and then you are going to end up with fewer deer because the habitat will no longer support as many deer as it did before it was damaged.
The objective in the areas you are hunting is to protect that habitat so it will always support a good population of deer. To protect the habitat you need to stay agressive with the antlerless harvests. If you have good habitat it seems that it is all but impossible to over harvest the deer through legal hunting methods and seasons. That doesn’t mean that you will always see a lot of deer, it just means that if you don’t harvest enough to protect the habitat the day will come when you have even fewer deer then you could have, and would have, had you been protecting the habitat instead of the deer. Once you start experiencing habitat damage you are going to have fewer deer even if you also continuously harvest fewer of the deer. We have learned that lesson well from making that mistake over and over again here in the northern tier areas of central Pennsylvania.
Now, as for your last sentence, the professional wildlife managers and the Commissioners do listen to hunters. But which hunters should we listen to the most; the ones that say harvest more deer, the ones that say harvest fewer deer or the hunters that say don’t harvest any antlerless deer at all for one, two, three or how many years? Should we only listen to hunters that want to have more deer and pay no attention to the food supply or the wishes of the land owners that supply the food for the deer? Just who should the professionals really be listening too?
I think the best answer to that is that the professionals need to listen to the deer and be paying attention to what the deer and their food supply are telling us. Deer and habitat don’t have any opinions so all they can provide is scientific data and fact. It is those scientific results and facts that will lead to the best possible future for the deer themselves. I tend to believe that what is best for the deer, their food supply and their habitat is what will also be the best for the long term future of the hunter and hunting.
R.S. Bodenhorn
02-01-2007, 06:24 PM
#172
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location:
Posts: 430
RE: A Crack in the "Rock?"
One of the posts, I believe by DougE-dce, stated that Officer Boddenhorn was shown and taught theses things by PGC, Penn Stateand DCNR people. So he's repeating exactly what they have fed him. I'd like to see an independent evaluation/study by some unbiased group/agency.
Remember the MAT evaluation of the PGC? That was an unbiased, independent study, and the agency was found lacking. Just goes to show you that when you feed money into a university sometimes you get to hear what you want to hear.
And yes, Boddenhorn is a Game Warden (LEO) and is not qualified to act and report as a biologist. I also am not qualified as is not Doug or just about anyone else posting here. Especially those who hunt on land that offers70 deer per square mile and still maintains superior habitat. (Is that honey hole "Treasure Lake" DMAP country?)
Just because he cut someone's cousin a break does not give him a free pass to spout biologic, scientific dogma as though he did the studies himself. Law Enforcement is Law Enforcement and Biology is an entirely different field.
And to get back on track, there was no distortion concerning Rocco Ali's words. He spoke of what he knew and he made it was clear that 30 to 40 percent of his membership was/is displeased with the PGC's deer management program. Believe me, there is a great deal of talk about it in Harrisburg.
Remember the MAT evaluation of the PGC? That was an unbiased, independent study, and the agency was found lacking. Just goes to show you that when you feed money into a university sometimes you get to hear what you want to hear.
And yes, Boddenhorn is a Game Warden (LEO) and is not qualified to act and report as a biologist. I also am not qualified as is not Doug or just about anyone else posting here. Especially those who hunt on land that offers70 deer per square mile and still maintains superior habitat. (Is that honey hole "Treasure Lake" DMAP country?)
Just because he cut someone's cousin a break does not give him a free pass to spout biologic, scientific dogma as though he did the studies himself. Law Enforcement is Law Enforcement and Biology is an entirely different field.
And to get back on track, there was no distortion concerning Rocco Ali's words. He spoke of what he knew and he made it was clear that 30 to 40 percent of his membership was/is displeased with the PGC's deer management program. Believe me, there is a great deal of talk about it in Harrisburg.
02-01-2007, 06:32 PM
#173
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 23
RE: A Crack in the "Rock?"
ORIGINAL: Crazy Horse RVN
And we should all be aware that, Dick Boddenhorn is a Game warden, and not a Game Biologist. His observations of elk are simpley that, observations by a Law Enforcement Officer and not scientific observations by a degreed professional.
And we should all be aware that, Dick Boddenhorn is a Game warden, and not a Game Biologist. His observations of elk are simpley that, observations by a Law Enforcement Officer and not scientific observations by a degreed professional.
02-01-2007, 06:48 PM
#174
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
RE: A Crack in the "Rock?"
ORIGINAL: Crazy Horse RVN
One of the posts, I believe by DougE-dce, stated that Officer Boddenhorn was shown and taught theses things by PGC, Penn Stateand DCNR people. So he's repeating exactly what they have fed him. I'd like to see an independent evaluation/study by some unbiased group/agency.
Remember the MAT evaluation of the PGC? That was an unbiased, independent study, and the agency was found lacking. Just goes to show you that when you feed money into a university sometimes you get to hear what you want to hear.
And yes, Boddenhorn is a Game Warden (LEO) and is not qualified to act and report as a biologist. I also am not qualified as is not Doug or just about anyone else posting here. Especially those who hunt on land that offers70 deer per square mile and still maintains superior habitat. (Is that honey hole "Treasure Lake" DMAP country?)
Just because he cut someone's cousin a break does not give him a free pass to spout biologic, scientific dogma as though he did the studies himself. Law Enforcement is Law Enforcement and Biology is an entirely different field.
And to get back on track, there was no distortion concerning Rocco Ali's words. He spoke of what he knew and he made it was clear that 30 to 40 percent of his membership was/is displeased with the PGC's deer management program. Believe me, there is a great deal of talk about it in Harrisburg.
One of the posts, I believe by DougE-dce, stated that Officer Boddenhorn was shown and taught theses things by PGC, Penn Stateand DCNR people. So he's repeating exactly what they have fed him. I'd like to see an independent evaluation/study by some unbiased group/agency.
Remember the MAT evaluation of the PGC? That was an unbiased, independent study, and the agency was found lacking. Just goes to show you that when you feed money into a university sometimes you get to hear what you want to hear.
And yes, Boddenhorn is a Game Warden (LEO) and is not qualified to act and report as a biologist. I also am not qualified as is not Doug or just about anyone else posting here. Especially those who hunt on land that offers70 deer per square mile and still maintains superior habitat. (Is that honey hole "Treasure Lake" DMAP country?)
Just because he cut someone's cousin a break does not give him a free pass to spout biologic, scientific dogma as though he did the studies himself. Law Enforcement is Law Enforcement and Biology is an entirely different field.
And to get back on track, there was no distortion concerning Rocco Ali's words. He spoke of what he knew and he made it was clear that 30 to 40 percent of his membership was/is displeased with the PGC's deer management program. Believe me, there is a great deal of talk about it in Harrisburg.
We have many WCOs that have Biologist degrees all the way up to Masters Degrees. All WCOs are trained in the biology field as it pertains to wildlife research and data collection. All WCOs also do a lot of work with the Agency’s Biologists and it is the WCOs who collect a pretty large amount of the data the Biologist then compile and use in determining the direction of the various wildlife management programs. WCOs are also the front lines voice on all of the Agency’s wildlife management programs; we have to be well versed in answering questions and explaining the various management programs to the multitudes of public we deal with.
You are way off base in your understanding, or in this case lack of understanding, as to just what the job description really is for a Wildlife Conservation Officer and how that relates to wildlife management.
But then I have noticed you are frequently pretty far off base with a lot of the things you harp about.
R.S. Bodenhorn
02-01-2007, 07:32 PM
#175
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location:
Posts: 430
RE: A Crack in the "Rock?"
RSB, If you and your colligues are so proficient at these biological matters, why do we have areas that have so very few deer? Why Doesn't Commissioner Tom Boop agree with the agency's deer management Plan? Why is the habitat in such poor shape on many Game lands? Why is our Grouse population in such poor shape and why has not the Grouse Study been expanded on several Game lands in the same proportions as it is on Game lands 176?
Why are we not harvesting 300,000 racked deer as the supreme Deer Biologist for the PGC Gary Altpromised when he held up that large set of antlers and claimed that if his prescription for deer management were followed PA would triple it's take of racked bucks?
Perhaps you should dabble a bit more in Law Enforcement and leave the science to those more and better qualified tham yourself.
Why are we not harvesting 300,000 racked deer as the supreme Deer Biologist for the PGC Gary Altpromised when he held up that large set of antlers and claimed that if his prescription for deer management were followed PA would triple it's take of racked bucks?
Perhaps you should dabble a bit more in Law Enforcement and leave the science to those more and better qualified tham yourself.
02-01-2007, 08:15 PM
#176
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Treasure Lake DuBois,Pa.
Posts: 1,571
RE: A Crack in the "Rock?"
Crazy Horse,
You still have not answered my question.
I'll put it in simpler terms."What or who qaulifies the USP to make scientific and biologicaldeterminations of the game and habitat in this state?
Does the USP have a game biologist in it's membership??
You still have not answered my question.
I'll put it in simpler terms."What or who qaulifies the USP to make scientific and biologicaldeterminations of the game and habitat in this state?
Does the USP have a game biologist in it's membership??
02-01-2007, 09:29 PM
#178
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
RE: A Crack in the "Rock?"
ORIGINAL: T_in_PA3
The person that gives the answer they want to hear will be deamed "Qualified".
The person that gives the answer they want to hear will be deamed "Qualified".
Well, since even the Good Lord is not likely to give such an answer, how can we expect mere mortals to do it?
02-01-2007, 10:05 PM
#179
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
RE: A Crack in the "Rock?"
RSB, If you and your colligues are so proficient at these biological matters, why do we have areas that have so very few deer?
I hope the present Commissioners are smart enough not to once again repeat that mistake.
Why Doesn't Commissioner Tom Boop agree with the agency's deer management Plan?
But, we are hopeful that he will one day attend one of our tours so he can see some of the affects of an out of balance deer/habitat relationship first hand.
Why is the habitat in such poor shape on many Game lands?
The other big reason the habitat is so poor, on many of the game lands, is too many deer destroying the habitat and food supply for entirely too many decades.
Why is our Grouse population in such poor shape and why has not the Grouse Study been expanded on several Game lands in the same proportions as it is on Game lands 176?
In many areas where grouse numbers are low it often has to do with the deer having damaged the habitat for too many decades. All of the game lands around this part of the state do have grouse management areas like those on GL 176 and good grouse numbers to go with it.
If hunters would support a license increase we might be able to create even more quality grouse habitat. But, you and your crew have been a big part of the fight to prevent good habitat projects, they aren't free you know.
Why are we not harvesting 300,000 racked deer as the supreme Deer Biologist for the PGC Gary Altpromised when he held up that large set of antlers and claimed that if his prescription for deer management were followed PA would triple it's take of racked bucks?
Alt nor anyone else ever said we would harvest any way near 300,000 bucks or that we would triple the number of racked bucks.
I think you mightbe delusional, listening to the wrongend of a sea shell, a bottle or something.
Perhaps you should dabble a bit more in Law Enforcement and leave the science to those more and better qualified tham yourself.
If you have something factual that proves me wrong then by all means submit it for everyone to learn from. I am not at all opposed to learning new facts, if you could present some facts instead of just opinions along with your misguided agenda.
R.S.Bodenhorn
