View Poll Results: A poll
Voters: 28. You may not vote on this poll
PA Hunters, does the USP speak for you?
#11
ORIGINAL: MeatHunter2
So no, it's really not that bad at all.... unless you were one of the spoiled ones. IMO
So no, it's really not that bad at all.... unless you were one of the spoiled ones. IMO
Even though I'm down here in Virginia, my wife and I will travel through PA to visit our families back up in upstate NY. I have seen so many deer around I-99/Route 220 inbetween Bedford and Altoona one time, that I almost drove off the road! I was just in awe of this huge herd with a massive buck trailing the herd.
For you PA guys, here's where we go through PA to see my wife's family in Buffalo, NY:
I-70 and pick up the PA Turnpike from Breezewood to Bedford. I-99/Route 220 north to Route 350 near Tyroneand Bald Eagle. Take 350 to Phillipsburg and then 322 to Clearfield and pickup I-80 west to DuBois. Pickup Route 219 and take it all the way up, the rest of the way to Buffalo, NY.
Opinion: This is the most nicest, most scenic route for deer hunting. Lots of nice areas and the Allegheny Natl Forest looks fantastic!
When we go to my sister & brother-in-laws' farm in upstate NY:
I-81 all the way up.... Uh, can we say B-O-R-I-N-G???

Alternate route for scenery: Get off at Harrisburg and take Route 15 all the way, through Williamsport and up through Mansfield and end up on Route 17 Corning, NY.
Opinion: Route 15 is really nice and has some nice areas for deer hunting as well.
Hey PA guys... Have I driven by anyone's house or deer camp on my way to upstate NY?
[8D]
#12
Spike
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
No, I didn't mean you were spoiled Butch, sorry. I meant it figuratively.
Well a comparison to the 60's and early 70's, no it is not. But those large herds of that era is what got us into the mess we're in now. If they wouldn't have allowed the herd to grow back then to such a large out of balance population, we wouldn't have to have such current low numbers now.
You know what they say, too much of a good thing will come back to bite you. Well it's back, and we can thank those small but vocal groups who lobbied the board of comm. back then to ignore science and the rest of the citizens, in favor of them. Now we're paying the price. But for some areas the overpopulation took it's toll years before the current changes and our herd reduced themselves, combined with a forest maturing to the pole timber stage of life where it wasn't producing much in the way of good deer food. So we already had lowered numbers to hunt and were kind of used to it.
The good news is with all the current cutting and fencing, we'll see an increase in habitat here in the not too distant future. As my pap used to say, "follow the food".
Well a comparison to the 60's and early 70's, no it is not. But those large herds of that era is what got us into the mess we're in now. If they wouldn't have allowed the herd to grow back then to such a large out of balance population, we wouldn't have to have such current low numbers now.
You know what they say, too much of a good thing will come back to bite you. Well it's back, and we can thank those small but vocal groups who lobbied the board of comm. back then to ignore science and the rest of the citizens, in favor of them. Now we're paying the price. But for some areas the overpopulation took it's toll years before the current changes and our herd reduced themselves, combined with a forest maturing to the pole timber stage of life where it wasn't producing much in the way of good deer food. So we already had lowered numbers to hunt and were kind of used to it.
The good news is with all the current cutting and fencing, we'll see an increase in habitat here in the not too distant future. As my pap used to say, "follow the food".
#13
this is one of the most intelligent posts i have read on this topic. i would like to know some land use comparisons from the 60's ans 70's and today. seems everywhere i look there is another walmart in what used to be a farmers field or a nice woodlot. how can pa support the deer populatioins of the early 70's with so much less area for them to live?
ORIGINAL: MeatHunter2
No, I didn't mean you were spoiled Butch, sorry. I meant it figuratively.
Well a comparison to the 60's and early 70's, no it is not. But those large herds of that era is what got us into the mess we're in now. If they wouldn't have allowed the herd to grow back then to such a large out of balance population, we wouldn't have to have such current low numbers now.
You know what they say, too much of a good thing will come back to bite you. Well it's back, and we can thank those small but vocal groups who lobbied the board of comm. back then to ignore science and the rest of the citizens, in favor of them. Now we're paying the price. But for some areas the overpopulation took it's toll years before the current changes and our herd reduced themselves, combined with a forest maturing to the pole timber stage of life where it wasn't producing much in the way of good deer food. So we already had lowered numbers to hunt and were kind of used to it.
The good news is with all the current cutting and fencing, we'll see an increase in habitat here in the not too distant future. As my pap used to say, "follow the food".
No, I didn't mean you were spoiled Butch, sorry. I meant it figuratively.
Well a comparison to the 60's and early 70's, no it is not. But those large herds of that era is what got us into the mess we're in now. If they wouldn't have allowed the herd to grow back then to such a large out of balance population, we wouldn't have to have such current low numbers now.
You know what they say, too much of a good thing will come back to bite you. Well it's back, and we can thank those small but vocal groups who lobbied the board of comm. back then to ignore science and the rest of the citizens, in favor of them. Now we're paying the price. But for some areas the overpopulation took it's toll years before the current changes and our herd reduced themselves, combined with a forest maturing to the pole timber stage of life where it wasn't producing much in the way of good deer food. So we already had lowered numbers to hunt and were kind of used to it.
The good news is with all the current cutting and fencing, we'll see an increase in habitat here in the not too distant future. As my pap used to say, "follow the food".
#14
The USP has the limited support it does because sportsmen are somewhat discouraged in the north central region. They don't see as many deer as they used to.
I, for one, think that the USP has embarassed the sportsmen and women of PA by wasting the PA courts time with the law suits it's filed.
As you can see by the number of negative response's against the USP , they're opinion's areNOT accepted bythe vast majority of us.
They need to hire a deer boilogist to advise them. The USP isWAY offwhen it comes to deer management.
I, for one, think that the USP has embarassed the sportsmen and women of PA by wasting the PA courts time with the law suits it's filed.
As you can see by the number of negative response's against the USP , they're opinion's areNOT accepted bythe vast majority of us.
They need to hire a deer boilogist to advise them. The USP isWAY offwhen it comes to deer management.
#15
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
From:
I like what has happened in PA. I hunt 4C on Public land with big parking lots and trails and I have never seen more bigger bucks in the past 4 years versus the previous 27.
The USP can only mess up what the PGC has accomplished.
Keep the lawyers out of our sport. The next think you know they will stop hunting by some legal garbage and we will all be taking a season or 2 off until the judge can make a ruling.
The USP can only mess up what the PGC has accomplished.
Keep the lawyers out of our sport. The next think you know they will stop hunting by some legal garbage and we will all be taking a season or 2 off until the judge can make a ruling.






















