Northeast ME, NH, VT, NY, CT, RI, MA, PA, DE, WV, MD, NJ Remember, the Regional forums are for hunting topics only.

Pa Game Comm. Overhaul

Old 09-26-2008, 10:16 PM
  #121  
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Default RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul

"Claim lack of funds, but if they don't make more effort to please their customer, and stop telling us half truths to defend their flawed plan, they are just not going to get those funds. And our legislators will make sure of it. "

AMEN BROTHER! lol

They have made no promises of better management. They havent spoken at all of change of direction, in fact, just the opposite. After each state has been prepped for slaughter by the dog and pony cac shows and goals set, as manyalready have with their fates already being sealed and locked in for FIVE MORE years of the same with no chance of parole.

We need to double efforts on communicating with our legislators, This coming year is going to be EXTREMELY key imho. No deer= No money.

Cornelius08 is offline  
Old 09-27-2008, 09:46 AM
  #122  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul

Now all habitat available to the deer is being considered because the health of the deer is part of the management direction. Since deer herd health is determined by the adult doe reproductive rates obviously all of the habitat available to the doe being examined is being considered. If that doe had good enough food, whether it was forest habitat, farm crop habitat or someone’s garden or shrubs it was all considered as food eaten by that doe and used by her to either be healthy enough or not healthy enough to produce the number fawns she was carrying.
But herd health is no longer a factor that is used to determine antlerless allocations since only WMU 3D is rated below the target goal for herd health. Therefore ,going forward the herd is being managed based on forest health and deer /human conflicts, not herd health.
e

Since the reproductive rate data only counts the number of fawns that dead doe was carrying at the time she died it doesn’t really tell us if those fawns were going to be born at the required weight to have survived after they were born. It doesn’t matter how many were born if the majority of them die within days of being born, When that happens they are just as none existent as if they had never been born. That is why other factors, such as forest health, also need to be factored into that same equation when determining if all is well or if things are still too tentative to allow the herd to increase.

The PGC knows how many fawns that are born survived based on the harvest data and population estimates. Hunters can't harvest fawns that aren't born so the PGC knows how many fawns survive based on their harvest ratio verses adult doe plus the SAK computer model

bluebird2 is offline  
Old 09-27-2008, 10:11 AM
  #123  
Giant Nontypical
 
BTBowhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
Default RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul

It is truly amazing after the results of the doe mortaility study showed that over two years, hunters accounted for no more than 15% of the doe mortality in 2G yet some still cling to the notion that hunting is the culprit.

As RSB has pointed out, mother nature will balance populations with habitat if we don't. In 2G, We didn't and so eventually she did.

I'm happy that we are continuing to stay the course so that it doesn't happen elsewhere.
BTBowhunter is offline  
Old 09-27-2008, 10:40 AM
  #124  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul

As RSB has pointed out, mother nature will balance populations with habitat if we don't. In 2G, We didn't and so eventually she did.
Nature had absolutely nothing to do with the decrease in deer density in 2G. The herd in 2003 and 2004 to produced enough fawns to produce a significant increase in the population and the only reason the herd didn't increase significantly is because hunters harvested as many if not more deer than were recruited each year. For you and RSB to claim that nature is controlling the herd in 2G is just plain silly when we are harvesting over 11,000 deer annually. If those deer were allowed to survive the herd would increased by over 20,000 deer in just two years.

Furthermore, the very agency RSB works for claimed the herd in 2G increased by 40% in just one year in 2006. Can you or RSB explain how that happened?
bluebird2 is offline  
Old 09-27-2008, 02:44 PM
  #125  
Giant Nontypical
 
BTBowhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
Default RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul

ORIGINAL: bluebird2

As RSB has pointed out, mother nature will balance populations with habitat if we don't. In 2G, We didn't and so eventually she did.
Nature had absolutely nothing to do with the decrease in deer density in 2G. The herd in 2003 and 2004 to produced enough fawns to produce a significant increase in the population and the only reason the herd didn't increase significantly is because hunters harvested as many if not more deer than were recruited each year. For you and RSB to claim that nature is controlling the herd in 2G is just plain silly when we are harvesting over 11,000 deer annually. If those deer were allowed to survive the herd would increased by over 20,000 deer in just two years.

Furthermore, the very agency RSB works for claimed the herd in 2G increased by 40% in just one year in 2006. Can you or RSB explain how that happened?
Nature had nothing to do with it eh? How do you square that with the fact that 2G has a predator mortality for fawns that is 4 times higher than the fawns studied outside 2G ?. Hunters accounted for 3.4% of fawn mortality in 2G but 10% outside 2G. Hunters accounted for less than 15% of adult doe mortality in 2G. Hunting is not the problem. A deer population that exceeds the carrying capacity of the land is the problem. A drive through the Sproul Sate Forest reveals virtually no understory and almost nothingbut pole timber. A RSB said, deer don't eat rocks in spit of their mineral content.
BTBowhunter is offline  
Old 09-27-2008, 03:04 PM
  #126  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul

How do you square that with the fact that 2G has a predator mortality for fawns that is 4 times higher than the fawns studied outside 2G ?.
The higher predation mortality does not negate the fact that it still took a harvest of 11,000 deer to keep the herd stable and the same applies to the fawn mortality due to hunting.
Hunting is not the problem. A deer population that exceeds the carrying capacity of the land is the problem. A drive through the Sproul Sate Forest reveals virtually no understory and almost nothing but pole timber. A RSB said, deer don't eat rocks in spit of their mineral content.
I didn't say hunting was the problem . What I said was that the harvest of 11,000 deer yearly clearly shows that the habitat was not the factor that prevented the herd from increasing. When the habitat is controlling the population ,non-hunting mortality equals recruitment. I understand why you don't comprehend that ,but I find it hard to believe RSB doesn't understand that simple concept.

bluebird2 is offline  
Old 09-27-2008, 04:20 PM
  #127  
Giant Nontypical
 
BTBowhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
Default RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul

ORIGINAL: bluebird2

How do you square that with the fact that 2G has a predator mortality for fawns that is 4 times higher than the fawns studied outside 2G ?.
The higher predation mortality does not negate the fact that it still took a harvest of 11,000 deer to keep the herd stable and the same applies to the fawn mortality due to hunting.
Hunting is not the problem. A deer population that exceeds the carrying capacity of the land is the problem. A drive through the Sproul Sate Forest reveals virtually no understory and almost nothing but pole timber. A RSB said, deer don't eat rocks in spit of their mineral content.
I didn't say hunting was the problem . What I said was that the harvest of 11,000 deer yearly clearly shows that the habitat was not the factor that prevented the herd from increasing. When the habitat is controlling the population ,non-hunting mortality equals recruitment. I understand why you don't comprehend that ,but I find it hard to believe RSB doesn't understand that simple concept.
Hunting is only helping maginally to control the herd in 2G. Hunting has fallen short of controlling the herd so mother nature has taken over with predation being the dominant factor. It's a simple enough concept. Studies of coyotes have repeatedly shown that they have an amazing capacity to self limit their litter size according to food supply.

Everyone from the PGC to the insurance companies have been blamed for planting coyotes. The cause ofthe coyote population explosion in PA has been the past failures of the PGCandhunting tocontrol the herd for decades. BTW, make no mistake when I say the PGC has failed. I mean to say that the PGC failed in the past to stand up to the likes of the USP, a few idiot legislators, and the rest of the "deer behind every tree" crowdand do the right thing by getting the herd under control decades ago
BTBowhunter is offline  
Old 09-27-2008, 04:50 PM
  #128  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul

Hunting is only helping maginally to control the herd in 2G. Hunting has fallen short of controlling the herd so mother nature has taken over with predation being the dominant factor. It's a simple enough concept. Studies of coyotes have repeatedly shown that they have an amazing capacity to self limit their litter size according to food supply.
That is an absolutely ridiculous claim. After the severe winter of 2003 , it still took a harvest of 17,200 deer in 2004 in 2G to keep the herd stable. If those deer wouldn't have been harvested the 2005 PS population would have increased significantly. When you rely on coyote predation to make your point you sound like a USP supporter..
bluebird2 is offline  
Old 09-27-2008, 08:41 PM
  #129  
Typical Buck
 
Screamin Steel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 659
Default RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul

ORIGINAL: BTBowhunter

ORIGINAL: bluebird2

How do you square that with the fact that 2G has a predator mortality for fawns that is 4 times higher than the fawns studied outside 2G ?.
The higher predation mortality does not negate the fact that it still took a harvest of 11,000 deer to keep the herd stable and the same applies to the fawn mortality due to hunting.
Hunting is not the problem. A deer population that exceeds the carrying capacity of the land is the problem. A drive through the Sproul Sate Forest reveals virtually no understory and almost nothing but pole timber. A RSB said, deer don't eat rocks in spit of their mineral content.
I didn't say hunting was the problem . What I said was that the harvest of 11,000 deer yearly clearly shows that the habitat was not the factor that prevented the herd from increasing. When the habitat is controlling the population ,non-hunting mortality equals recruitment. I understand why you don't comprehend that ,but I find it hard to believe RSB doesn't understand that simple concept.
Hunting is only helping maginally to control the herd in 2G. Hunting has fallen short of controlling the herd so mother nature has taken over with predation being the dominant factor. It's a simple enough concept. Studies of coyotes have repeatedly shown that they have an amazing capacity to self limit their litter size according to food supply.

Everyone from the PGC to the insurance companies have been blamed for planting coyotes. The cause ofthe coyote population explosion in PA has been the past failures of the PGCandhunting tocontrol the herd for decades. BTW, make no mistake when I say the PGC has failed. I mean to say that the PGC failed in the past to stand up to the likes of the USP, a few idiot legislators, and the rest of the "deer behind every tree" crowdand do the right thing by getting the herd under control decades ago
If that is the case, then shouldn't coyote numbers be highest/ predation highest in areas such as the suburbs where deer densities are highest? 2G has the lowest DD in the state, and the highest predation, because the coyotes moved in to feast on the 8 dpsm? Better rethink that logic.
Screamin Steel is offline  
Old 09-28-2008, 04:07 PM
  #130  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul

What RSB and BTB don't understand is that predation and winterkill may reduce the sustainable harvest, but it is the harvest that determines whether the herd increases or decreases. The PGC doesn't control the weather or the effects of predation,but they do control the antlerless allocations and it is the antlerless harvest that determines if the herd will increase ,decrease or remain stable.
bluebird2 is offline  

Quick Reply: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul


Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.