RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

"Are you really saying you don't disagree with most of what I post??? "

I think he read a couple of Rsbs last posts and decided he was on the wrong side?:D

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

First off you can rest assured that there is nothing about the USP position that I support nor is anything I said supporting the misguided agenda of the USP.

Unlike you and the other USP supporters I know full well that wildlife management is not an exact science when it comes to estimated numbers. I and every other knowledgeable person also know that professional wildlife management is and always has been a matter of catching up with what has already happened as far a changes in populations.

That is management of trying to catch up with the past is true in every state that manages deer populations. Some states have an easier time doing that because they have less variance in their annual recruitment rates and deer harvests. Some states don’t have the winter variables to contend with and other states always have winter controlling factors affecting their deer populations. Both of those cases make it easier to predict the annual fawn recruitment rates.

States like Pennsylvania that are located where winter conditions change from year to year always have and always will have more nature induced variables that affect annual fawn recruitment rates. Nothing is ever going to change that fact and we have to live with it, like it or not.


Fawn recruitment in some parts of Pennsylvania is more predictable on an annual bases becausesome areas stillhave suitable habitat.In other areas though the fawn recruitment is almost entirely controlled by the environmental conditions of the year because the habitat has been so seriously damaged by years of deer populations that were too far out of balance with the habitat. That we could probably change if people like you would allow it to change.


As far as having a better handle on the annual fawn recruitment, there is no doubt we would like to have a better handle on that estimate. But, it is you and your USP buddies that have been and still are standing in the way of having better fawn recruitment data. In fact it is you, people like you and the USP that have been standing in the way and actually preventing better deer management for the past couple of decades.

Your kind have proudly stood against the State Legislature providing the funding that would be needed to develop and implement the deer research programs and projects that would lead to the answers needed for better management and then you yammer around when we don’t have better data. Well if you want the best possible deer management, just get your goons out of the way and stop fighting everything that results in having better management.

When you want to see the problem look in the mirror, or drag out a group photo of you with your USP buddies, and you will be see where the problem of not having the best possible data comes from.

R.S.Bodenhorn

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Once again you disagree with the professional deer managers with the PGC. The data from the 2006 harvest showed the herd in 2G increased by 42% so they increased the antlerless allocation for 2007 by 37%. The PGC has the recruitment data from 2G during years with severe winters and years with mild winters so there is no need to do more research. Even after the severe winters of 2003 and 2004 it still required significant antlerless allocations and harvests to control the herd so your claim that the habitat is controlling the herd is bogus.

Now ,would you care to explain why the overbrowsed habitat in 2G could support an antlerless harvest of almost 5 DPSM from 1988 to 2002, and now can only support a harvest of 2.35 DPSM?

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Not in your wildest dreams. I don't disagree that he posts some facts that are true but they're generally out of context. Bluebird posts distortions thatgenerally started withsome root of truth. As I've said before, he adds up little snippets of truth to assemble a lie

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

If that were true ,you and RSB would have no trouble ripping me to shreds by producing facts that refute my position. But all you and RSB can do is accuse me of lying and manipulating and distorting the facts, even though you can't support your claims with facts.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

[/size][/color][/size][/color]

You obviously didn’t understand what the data was, unless you are just trying to discredit the data because it doesn’t fit what you want to believe.

The posted percentage of each of those listed counties is the percentage of the county that is located within WMU 2A. That is a fact based on the data available for every unit in this state and comes from the percentage of antler less license each county in the unit receives for issuance. It is therefore rounded to nearest whole percent but otherwise accurately represents the percent of each unit is represented by the posted county.
As for the population per square mile, for each of those counties, that is based on the most recent population of the county being divided by the number of square miles within that county. Those are set numbers with nothing being an estimate. Nor is there a percentage of anything involved in that data what so ever.

Just because you don’t like the facts doesn’t change the fact that those are the facts for the unit.

No one ever said that unit 2B didn’t have more people and more development the unit 2A. But, you brought on that argument, after I simply pointed out that units 2A, 2B and 2D which are much more metropolitan than unit 2G, also has sustainable deer harvests that two to four times higher then the harvests of 2G.

I could really give a rat’s butt how many or how few people unit 2A has. The fact is they are sustaining one of the highest deer harvests in this state year after year. They are doing that because they are, and have been, harvesting enough deer to pretty well protect their habitat. By having those high harvests they also have sustainable high fawn recruitment. Hopefully they always will have as long as you unknowledgeable people can be prevented from causing the same harm unknowledgeable people already caused in the northern tier units like 2G.

I posted the data because I thought people would be smart enough to understand it when it showed the percentage of each units that was developed, farm land and public hunting land.

Yet you figured I posted it because I thought people would be to stupid to understand it? Now doesn’t that speak volumes about where you show up in that picture?

Quote:

---

That is absolutely rediculous. Human conflict is rated by Pgc, not on public land only but on a wmu-wide basis.
2A is rated as LOW and always has been. Please consult the annual reports.

---

[/size][/color]

Absolutely human conflict is evaluated on the whole picture of complaints and conflicts with each unit. But, I would bet the only reason the human conflict issues are low in the unit is because of the fact it has had one of the top two to three harvest rates in the entire state for about the past fifteen to twenty years. Start harvesting fewer deer there and I suspect you will find a lot more human conflict issues from the area.

The fact that the unit is 35.2% farmland and only 1.7% public land tells a very clear story that the deer populations are tentative and dependant upon the desires of the private land owners.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

"Now you should be able to see that unit 2A is the 10th highest developed unit in the state as far as buildings and highways. It is also the 6th highest developed in farm land of the state while being one of the lowest public land units in the state at the 5th lowest amount of public land. "

---

---

Quote:

---

---

Actually you were not only rude but wrong.

Unit 2A is the 10th highest developed unit in the state, the 6th highest in farmland and the 5th from the lowest in the amount of public land.

All of those facts come directly from the compilation of data available for each and every unit. I posted those facts in the prior post. Just because you don’t like it certainly doesn’t mean the data was the result of any incorrect formulas. In fact I didn’t use any formulas at all. All did was post the data for each unit.

Quote:

---

Human conflict rated as low shows that not to be the case. I live here, and have friends family members who are land owners and know many others MANY others, and most arent "antideer" and dont support the slaughter any more than I because most of them hunt too. There are FAR FAR more who want more deer, and some who want stabilization not less and less....VERY few want that, but it doesnt matter one bit. Pgc doesnt want to know what people want or dont want. They do what THEY want, and their friends/family members interests. I know what people in 2A want. I live here and talk to many people every single day, and think I have just a tad bit better idea than you my friend. I also know of a very few who wanted less deer. They have red-tag, and few deer... There are other tools available that pgc has given them as well. If they refuse to use them, I have no sorrow for them. At any rate, its no excuse to lower the herd when the habitat is fine, the herd is healthy and the human conflict low... No excuses rsb. None exist. Thats but one reason why this program is an unbased sham and a failure here, and across most of the state, according to Pgcs own data.

---

First of all lets make no mistake about the fact that I don’t think you know nearly as much about your own unit as you think you know. I am darn sure you don’t have even a clue about what the best management of your unit is.

Next I want to make sure that you know that no one is managing to reduce the deer herd in unit 2A at the present time. That is why they actually lowered the allocation this year. Here are the comments from the News Release that explain that fact. See, once again you are going off half cocked without any idea what really is going on in your unit.

From this year's license allocation news release:


WMU 2A allocation will be 55,000 to continue to stabilize the population trend, which is a decrease from last year's allocation of 60,000. The Deer Management Section noted that the deer harvest declined in 2007-08. This is a return to the allocation level from 2004-2007 until the agency can better assess population trend changes in 2008.

The habitat in 2G isn’t fine like you say it is though. The most recent evaluations showed the habitat in 2A as only FAIR and the herd health as only FAIR as well. So even though you think everything is fine the deer and their habitat are saying “maybe not so fine after all.”

Quote:

---

The herd density was reduced from 69 dpfsm to 25 (21-30) according to PGCS annual reports. I suggest you read them and not try to circumvent the facts by posting data that has nothing to do with anything. Even so, of the data you posted, the buck harvest during the 98-2002 period tells the tale. ALso, the rediculous harvests in the middle of your lil' chart (nice grouping of certain years too btw) are the reason the herd continues to decline and the harvests of 06 and 07 show that clearly. The kill didnt fall immediately because the allocation was raised 2 or 3 times to prevent that from occurring. OUr goal has supposedly been "stabilization". Your chart clearly shows that isnt the case, but a bunch of bs.
"From those harvest history facts I sure don’t see anything to support your opinion of the deer harvests in your area being over harvested during any time period."
Its not my opinion its fact. If the goal were stabilization only as pgc said it was for the last 3 years, then there was definately overharvest. Not even debatable. Nor is it debatable that our habitat, herd health, and level of human conflict (even according to pgc) can sustain much higher deer densities than current level of 25 owdpfsm when we had 69 in Greene with no problems at all. Im not asking for 69 owdpsm mind you, Im just showing how rediculous it is for you to expect anyone to believe we should support 25 owdpsm and continuing efforts at reduction FOR ABSOLUTELY NO REASON AT ALL.

---

It seems that they only thing that is a bunch of BS is you.

Those DPFSM numbers you posted aren’t used any more and haven’t been for quite some time. Next is the fact that are so confused you trying to compare Deer Per Forested Square Mile (DPFSM) with just Deer Per Square Mile (DPSM) even though the two are totally separate numbers. I suspect you have been listening to bluebird’s ramblings too much.

Deer are not managed as DPFSM or DPSM either one any more and for good reason. Now deer are managed based on the information the deer and they habitat provide. So, contrary to Bluebird’s nonsense we are listening to the deer. Some people are just upset because we don’t listen to them demanding that we do the wrong thing for the future. We listened to them to long, that is want got us in this mess.

[color=#000000][size=2]R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

I’m not disagreeing with the deer management team in the least.
I know the difference between an increase in one year’s buck harvest verses a herd in crease though too which appears to be less then true for you.

Yes the evidence does suggest that the deer herd is increasing in unit 2G the past few years. But it is only increasing because the habitat has started to improve and we have had very mild winters the past couple years.

If the Game Commission had sufficient annual fawn recruitment data they wouldn’t have to work from three year averages or from deer that 1.5 to 2.5 years after they were born. The reason we don’t have that data is because of the lack of funding to get it. If you think more research isn’t needed to have better management then it speaks volumes about how misguided you truly are.

No they didn’t need to harvest more antler less deer in unit 2G to control the herd after the harsh winters of 2003 and 2004. It just took that long forreality to catch up the management model becasue we have to work with recruitment from three year averages.

That is just an example of what I already explained about wildlife management always playing catch up to what has already occurred. We could narrow some of those lengthy catch up problems with adequate funding to do the required research, but a bunch of your fellow USP guys have been standing in the way of progress for decades now.

Quote:

---

Now ,would you care to explain why the overbrowsed habitat in 2G could support an antlerless harvest of almost 5 DPSM from 1988 to 2002, and now can only support a harvest of 2.35 DPSM?

---

The fact is the habitat wasn’t able to sustain those higher populations following the two back to back harsh winters. We over protected the deer for way too long but we were getting away with it because we were having mostly years with good mast and mild winters. But, nature came along with a couple of hard winters and did what they hunters had failed to do. The winters reduced both the adult deer herds and the fawn recruitment over a couple years.

Plus hunters have simply gone to the areas where there are more deer that are easier to hunt. Thus the deer harvests have stayed lower then they should be. That isn’t a good thing for the long term future of deer populations within the unit, either.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

my moultrie camera caught 2 coyotes attacking mother and her fawn at 9 pm the other day,that really turned ole sproul mad.

1 coyote was female ,other a male,i figure as the female took pee pee after the attack.

in lock haven express tonight is all bills on floor to REVAMP the PGC.

some points, 4 year for commissioner,no wco on board,i believe less powers for wco, could be i read that wrong, it said they have to have cause.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

That is not a true or accurate statement. After those two winters it still required an antlerlesss harvest of 2.35 doe PSM to keep the herd stable, which means the herd recruited over 2.35 fawns PSM. That recruitment rate is what is to be expected from an OW herd of less than 10 DPSM.


Of course the habitat in 2G could have supported a lot more deer after 2003 and 2004. You forget that the herd is being managed below the MSY carrying capacity of the habitat, which means the habitat could support twice as many deer.It also means that the current habitat could support a herd that produced a harvest of almost 5 antlerless deer PSM for 15 years ,during which we had the most severe winter in recent history and the herd not only survived but increased.


The facts simply do not support your biased and misguided interpretation of the data. The harvests are controlling the herd just as they did in the past. If the harvests in 2G would be less than recruitment the herd would increase just as it has in the past. But as long as the harvests equal or exceed recruitment the herd will not increase even if the habitat improves.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Pictures please! If you need help posting them just PM me!