RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Ha0-ha, do you really think all the bueacracy could live together? plus, PAPGC is self funded of a sorts. I am an out of state hunter and I do not relish increases in the licenses. I own property and a camp in the state but am treated as are my opinions treayted as an outsiders. Yet,I believ i have some useful info based on experience hunting in other staes that have processes that WORK> Poachers are caught and let go w/ a slap and a fine. Claim hardshipo and you pay the fine on time! Immediate revocation of license is the only answer, and the wardens know who is paoching in most cases, they let it happen.
I trhought the treasurers did a fine job on there own w/ doe license. I always had one when I came home from the service to huntMcKean county. Just another power play w/ PAPGC to gain control of the doe license funding.
ANY cuts would be better than none, do something...............I know deer move into cuts, I have cut, I have deer and other anuimals living in my woods because of this. No undergrowth, no deer or birds etc.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

No undergrowth wil equal poor deer habitat.Deer need early successional forests.However,if you cut too much,you'll end up with too much pole timeber,which is worthless deer habitat.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Rybo pretty much hit it dead nuts.

I would only add a few things....

Something would need to be put in place to keep anti's off the BOC. The only thing that has kept that from happening so far is the fact that we are a political force when angered and no governer has had an interest in pissing off the hunters of this state. If DCNR were to be merged in with the PGC and PFBC, there could be a real danger of the fanatic tree hugger types having a voice about game and fish management.

Everyone could benefit fromsmaller management units in some parts of the state.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

DougE,

First, I never said "all the commission had to do was cut trees".

If the land is State Game Land and it's sole purpose is for wildlife habitat not timber profit then I would say 1% to possibly 2% can be cut if done properly. It can't be done in one big tract, and varying methods should be implemented. Hinge cutting creates bedding habitat like a sanctuary for deer to live in. This will limit access of hunters just because of the terrain it creates. Only the truly ambitious hunter will want to walk through that jungle and odds of not spooking bedded deer are minimal. There needs to be other areas designed for feeding as hinge cutting does provide browse, some light is limited due to leaving the tops and it isn't the most practical method for replanting more protein rich trees and plants. I believe this % can be used on an 80 yr cycle. But every year there must be continued cutting and replanting of different grids selected for harvest in a set rotation.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

I agree completely in regard to harvest reports, poaching and even the license increase if the money is spent to increase the quality of our hunting experience. This is why the PAGC needs to be held accountable in their spending by annual audits. It's just hard for me to believe our commission as lackadaisical as they seem when it comes to doing things in a timely manner will ever run efficiently enough to be able to submit these reports within 3 months of each year's end. We won't know what is being spent until 2 years after the fact.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Bob,
I was going to throw in my dislike for the DCNR, but I didn't really know how I wanted to word it so I just left it out. I think the resources from the DCNR could be useful, but I am afraid of the attitude and direction they'd want to go.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Does anyone know of any other state that is managing their deer herd based on the regeneration of the existing forest canopy? I've done a lot of reading on the various deer management plans in numerous states and as yet ,i have not found one that uses that criteria as a basis for managing their herd.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

All the Game Commission really needs in order to greatly improve wildlife management is the adequate funding needed to have a full staff of people and to implement the best possible research and management objectives. As for habitat management that is more difficult because the Game Commission owns very little of the state’s land on which it has management control.

Bluebird’s last comments about Penna. “managing their deer herd based on the regeneration of the existing forest canopy” either shows how little he knows about Penna’s deer management program or was posted to mislead people that don’t know better.

The fact is deer are managed based on a number of different criteria many of which are actually proved by the real deer that live in each management unit.

The first and most important thing taken into consideration is if the area has the food to feed more deer or not. That is where the forest floor (not the canopy as Bluebird said) is surveyed by using established survey plots to find out what the deer food species are doing. If there are desired deer food and indicator species found in a majority of the survey plots then the unit gets a good habitat rating which ultimately indicates it could support more deer provided the deer health is also good. Only fair food supplies being found in the survey plots indicate the habitat will not allow more deer for long term periods. Thus it would be foolish to manage for even a short term population increase. Poor food supplies in the survey plots indicates that the deer numbers are still too high for the existing habitat and further reduction is desired before nature steps in and makes the population reduction without the aid of hunters.

Next what the deer tell the Biologists is used to determine what they deer have to say about the habitat they are living in. That is done by checking the reproductive rates on the adult does being killed on the highways. Adults three years and older with a reproductive rate of less then 1.50 indicate poor herd health, 1.50 - 1.70 indicates satisfactory herd health and over 1.70 indicates good herd health. Bred does two year old does are based on less then 1.10 reproductive rates being poor, 1.10 - 1.50 as satisfactory and over 1.50 as good.

Next the breeding rates for the yearling does is considered. If less then 10% of the yearly does were bred that indicates both poor herd and poor habitat health. Breeding of 10-30% is satisfactory while over 30% is a good herd and habitat health indicator.

Finally a human conflict factor gets applied. This is used primarilty in the areas where there are high numbers of people like around our cities. Since deer really aren’t wanted on, or around, our city streets those human conflict factors can be a justified reason toward attempting to reduce deer numbers to levels that are lower then the carrying capacity of the habitat. That is where the Citizens Advisory Council comes into the deer management picture. When they recommend fewer deer then the habitat could support it is likely their recommendation will be acted upon. But, if they recommend having more deer then the deer and the food supply say is wise, or even possible, for the land and food supplies then we have to listen to the deer and what they have to say over what people wish could happen.

That trying to do what people wish were possible over what the deer and habitat tell us is stupid, because it can’t work. It can’t work because nature will never allow more of any living organism then the food supply will support for more then short term periods of ideal environmental conditions. That is what everyone needs to be smart enough to recognize if we really want the best possible resource management.

The Game Commission is well on their way to having the best management of our lifetime. The way to make it better is to have adequate funding to implement both better management options and better education programs. The management is needed to do the right thing for the wildlife, the habitat and the future. The education is need to help people understand what good management really is. It is very obvious that many simply don’t have a clue about good wildlife or habitat management.

R.S.Bodenhorn

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Please note that I said the herd was being managed based on the regeneration of the existing canopy. Since regeneration begins at the forest floor my statement was accurate. Also, since in 2008 the PGC said the herd was at or above it's goal for herd health in every WMU,except one, herd health is not a limiting factor in managing the herd. Furthermore, deer human conflicts in areas that are 90% forested should be very low ,so that should not be a limiting factor in 2F or 2G.

Therefore, in 2F and 2G the herd is being managed based on the regeneration of the existing canopy as determined by the survey plots. In 2G only 42% of the plots regenerated and in 2F if was even worse. So, how much more does the PGC have to reduce the herds in 2F and 2G in order to increase regeneration to the desired goal of over 70%?Also, why is 2F being managed at 22 PS DPSM while 2G is managed at 12 DPSM? That doesn't seem to make any sense when the regeneration is poorer in 2F than in 2G.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

We in the eastern states are the last of the strong hold of this country with our firearms. To me,sometimes I wonder if they are trying to make people give up their firearmsand the new generations not interested in hunting so less guns are purchased. It seems like this is happening sometimes when we look at the big picture of everything one can do to have a gun restriction placed against them. Just a thought that occurs.Especially with the way the PGC is manageing the animals. Why introduce all these predators to our state? Go west if you want to see these animals.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

:DThat thought is funny but getting tiresome.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

"All the Game Commission really needs in order to greatly improve wildlife management is the adequate funding needed to have a full staff of people and to implement the best possible research and management objectives."

I disagree. The changes that need made to better the sport of hunting in our state wouldnt take one additional dime. Unless you are saying maybe if they get more fundingthey won't "lean" so hard on theadded money from far too many doe tags? I dont think they are planning on cutting the allocation anytime soon, added funding or not. Audubon wouldntstand for it.

Bluebird, great points made, there are NO STATES that use management strategies Pgc employs. The reasons are clear and dont really need pointed out to most.


"The fact is deer are managed based on a number of different criteria many of which are actually proved by the real deer that live in each management unit."

Then which criteria is it that necessitates herd reduction when human conflict is low, the herd and habitat are healthy? That condition exists in more than one wmu, yet they recieved severe reduction anyway. Its this statewide blanketcarpet bombing approach that most directly led it to be a miserably failed program, as has been proven by pgc's own data.

" That is where the Citizens Advisory Council comes into the deer management picture."

The cac is a very ineffectivejoke. People on it that have no business on it, hunters having very limited voice, and tiny minority stakeholders dictate that increase is a near impossibility in anywhere but nearly deer void areas. Legit suggestions arent accepted and some even vote against their own stakeholder groups!! ITs a joke and needs to be done away with. IF results are skewed, then we must "live" with itfor 5 years, until they can be once again skewed.

"The Game Commission is well on their way to having the best management of our lifetime."

Not hardly. Unless someone were born during the "alt era"or unlesschange is coming soon, thats not an accurate assessment.

My opinion is no deer= no funding.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

You are correct that there are few deer/human conflict in units 2G or 2F but that is the very last influence in the deer management and population equation.

The limiting factor in units 2F and 2G is the fact that the habitat (which reads as the deer food) is still poor. That simply means that the food supply is not ready to support more deer except during the years of ideal conditions. If we have another hard winter or two the habitat could hardly support the present deer number let alone even more deer. Remember that it simply doesn’t matter how good the habitat is on the ridge tops or the plateaus of the northern tier during a harsh winter. During a long drawn out and harsh winter the only habitat that counts or will support deer is what can be found in the wintering grounds habitat of the river and stream bottoms or pine and hemlock thermal cover.

You keep wanting to use, argue and hang you hat on those old deer per square mile estimates. They are no longer used because they have no value, relationship to reality or reliability. Deer management is now based on the facts the deer provide because deer have no ability toward providing false information about when there are too many, just enough or capable of having more in the population.

Listen to the deer, they will tell us how to do it. We just need to be smart enough to do as they say we should.

Dick Bodenhorn

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

All of your comments are so far off base they could only have come from someone who is completely clueless of even the most basic principles of nature or wildlife management.

First of all the herd and habitat are not healthy. Even though the deer herd indices indicate the deer herd is presently healthy the habitat is poor in many if not most of the northern tier traditional deer range areas. It is very likely that the hear is only showing good health indicators right now because we have had another couple of mild winter years that come with ideal environmental conditions. Lets just wait and see how the herd health indicators look following a couple of those harsh winter years and see if you can sing that same tune.

The second thing that proves you are clueless is that none of the northern tier is geared toward further herd reduction at his time and hasn’t been fro the past couple of years. Pretty much everything is in a state of just holding the current herd stable until the habitat improves enough to support more deer. Once the habitat will support more deer there will be more deer and hunters will not be able to over harvest them where they truly do have suitable habitat.

Those are among the points many of you either haven’t bothered to educate your selves on or simply choose to ignore because it will not fit into your misguided agenda.

Dick Bodenhorn

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

I toatally agree with the above !!


If we get lucky, maybe Neville will show up next& explainjust how the "automated" POS system won't actually save any money overthe existingantiquated "manual" one.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

That simply is not true. If you will take the time to read the Annual Wildlife reports you will see that the PGC still estimates populations in each WMU based on DPSM and allocates antlerless tags based on the percent increase or decrease in deer density.

If the herd was being managed based on the facts that the deer provide, then we would still have 1.5M PS deer since breeding rates,productivity and recruitment were higher when we had over 1.5M PS deer than they are now with less than 1M PS deer. For over 35 years the habitat supported a herd that produced a buck harvest that was higher than the 2007 harvest ,so the deer have proven beyond a doubt that the habitat can support a lot more deer than the PGC will allow.
Once again that simply is not true. The breeding rates and productivity have not improved in 2f or 2G. The PGC simply accepted the fact that reducing the herd did not increase breeding rates and productivity because the herd was already below the MSY carrying capacity in 2000 before the current herd reduction plan.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

"All of your comments are so far off base they could only have come from someone who is completely clueless of even the most basic principles of nature or wildlife management."

Rsb, you know better than that and that is a pathetic tasteless attempt at discrediting someone whom you cannot counter with facts.You do this continually andits nothing more than a desparation tactic that doesntsupport your argument any more than the facts do.

"First of all the herd and habitat are not healthy."

Very few area of the stateare they ratedpoor. Many areas never were, and thats giving the benefit of adoubt and assuming the pgc habitat assessments are worth thepaper their written on. Id also suggest you familiarize yourself with the pgc annual reports that contain the herd health analysis. Looks pretty good to them apparently.

"It is very likely that the hear is only showing good health indicators right now because we have had another couple of mild winter years that come with ideal environmental conditions."

Hmmm. Thats interesting. Id seen you use another excuse on another board.. I believeit was that more data was comingfrom different areas of the state. That was dismissed, so now I guess the"weather" is now what you wannahang your hat on?

"Lets just wait and see how the herd health indicators look following a couple of those harsh winter years and see if you can sing that same tune. "

No. Lets not. Ive hunted for quite awhile now, and have seen bad winter come and go. Fact of the matter is, that scare tactic is nothing but just that.


"The second thing that proves you are clueless is that none of the northern tier is geared toward further herd reduction at his time and hasn’t been fro the past couple of years."

Im not clueless. Ive heard thatline. Most of the state is supposed to be in stabilization mode. The doetags tell a different tale. Lipservice is all it is.Look to other areas as well...Look at 2A...herd was reduced 7%according to pgc onI belive the 2004 annual report and that was with a 16,500 antlerless harvest using 45,000 tags. The goal since has been 18,000 antlerless harvest and the tags from 55k to 60k...!!! And we were SUPPOSEDLY IN STABILIZATION MODE!? Yeah right... Dont insult us.

"Once the habitat will support more deer there will be more deer and hunters will not be able to over harvest them where they truly do have suitable habitat."

Sorry, but thats utterly rediculous. Unless you are anticipating our hunter numbers CONTINUING to drop at over double the national average forseveral more years thanks to no change of direction with our "plan", then I guess I could agree with that statement.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Nope, that is just your goofy and twisted USP view, which has nothing to do with reality as provided by the real deer or their habitats.

All you are doing is trying to get me to post the real numbers so you can try twisting theminto some sort of evidencefor your misguided law suit.

It isn’t going to work. We will let the courts decide who’s numbers and management objectives make sense and who’s don’t.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Actually the vast majority of the data you have provided has very little value since you selectively used 5 year averages designed to support your agenda. The PGC Annual Wildlife Reports , press releases and studies provide all the data needed to show that the plan has not produced the predicted results and that the herd is being managed considerably below the MSY carrying capacity of the habitat.

Furthermore, the forests in 2G, where the herd has been reduced the most,are still rated as having poor forest health. But, since the PGC has decided not to reduce the herd even more, they are admitting that herd reduction alone is not the answer to good forest health in 2G. Even Dr. Rosenberry couldn't tell me why 2F is being managed at 22 PS DPSM while 2G is managed at 12 PS DPSM and i found that to be very disappointing.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Bluebird, Id liken lumping those years together in a strategic fashion, to sprinklingperfume on a turd to camouflage the odor.

The year by year comparisons show the continued herd decline, and the failed program for what it is beyond doubt when comparing herd health and other factors.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Hey, you are the one that came on here bashing and trying to discredit the Game Commission. All I did was point out how clueless you are about the facts. If you want debate a subject then ask a question or post without making personal opinion bashing comments about things you obviously haven’t fully researched.

Don’t expect me to sit back and let you, or anyone else,get away with posting misinformationand poisonous comments about the Game Commission or what I know to be the best direction for the future of our wildlife resources.

I have not only those annual reports but a ton of other deer and habitat data not available to the public right here in from of me. I also have the ability to talk with the researchers about the data to make sure I fully understand what it means. I was just a meeting a few weeks ago where those research leaders brought us up to speed on the data and what it means.

You claim that little of state has a poor rating, but you are very much wrong. This is what those annual reports tell a person that actually understands what they do mean.

The most recent survey results showed that 23.9% of the state’s WMUs have such poor forest habitat regeneration they will not support more deer for more then short term periods of ideal mast and winter conditions.

Another 67.0% of the state’s units have only fair habitat regeneration that is very marginal toward supporting the present deer numbers even with those ideal mast and winter conditions. In other words the habitat conditions in those units is still very fragile and could go the wrong way toward supporting even fewer deer if we aren’t careful with the deer densities.

Only 7.3% of the state had habitat ratings that indicated the deer were not presently a serious factor and needing careful management to assure the populations didn’t increase until the habitat was more improved then it presently is.

The changes in reproductive data collection most certainly wasn’t dismissed, at least not by any management professional, though I suppose those that don’t want to accept the facts that prove theiropinionswrong might have dismissed it.

Facts aren’t excuses either, though people that don’t have any facts that support their opinions often try to dismiss the facts as excuses.

Really. How is relevant toward good management objectives based on researched facts?

Oh and 2A having sustained either highest the second highest deer harvests of the state year after year (only to be surpassed by special regulations unit 2B) for the past five years isn’t sufficient evidence that the high harvests aren’t harming the deer populations?

Just because the harvest increases it doesn’t mean the population isn’t stable or even increasing. The fact is that many of the counties that make up those units have had continuously increasing harvests of both does and bucks for over twenty years. Those high harvests are actually what has protected the habitat that allows those deer populations to stay high and even continue to increase. Why to you, as a hunter, consider that a bad thing, unless you are more clueless then you want everyone to think?


Just more of what you don’t understand I guess. Explain to us how it is that all of the areas of the state that have had unlimited antler less harvests for the past twenty years still have increasing deer harvests and increasing deer numbers. In fact they been harvesting more then three times as many deer per square mile in the units around and including our city streets then they have in the forested habitats of our northern tier. Why do you that that is possible for more then a decade if you believe high harvests result in having fewer deer? Why is that the areas harvesting the most deer for over twenty years continue to have increasing deer numbers? Why do you think the areas of the state, with lots of forested area, but kept reducing their deer harvests had continuously declining buck harvest and deer populations?

Explain those things for us and prove to us how much you really know.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

That is absolutely not what the survey results show, in fact they have very little relationship to how many deer the habitat can support. The forest survey results simply show what effect the existing deer density has on the regeneration of the existing forest canopy. It has no correlation to the true MSY carrying capacity of all the habitat that the deer utilize.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Amazing! It is simply amazing that people wouldn’t understand that the forest health really is very much about how many deer can live there.

No wonder some of you come on these boards demanding more deer. You simply can’t connect enough of the dots to figure out that habitat and deer numbers aren’t two total separate issues. They are in fact totally connected.

Those forest regeneration surveys measure the amount of regeneration there is on the forest floor. That regeneration is the deer food. If the regeneration isn’t there then there is no deer food establishing to feed the deer when and where there aren’t farm crops for them to eat. If there is no food there will not be any deer either so the forest regeneration most certainly tells the story about how many deer can live there.

Gee wiz I was kidding earlier when I made a comment about how some of you perhaps thought the deer could survive by eating rocks, but maybe you do think they can survive on rocks of you don’t see the correlation between the forest health surveys and past, present and future deer numbers.

It is just unbelievable how far from logical thinking and reality some of you people really are.

R.S.Bodenhorn

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

What you continually fail to realize is that forest health as defined by the PGC is drastically different than habitat health as defined by the deer. The deer in the NC counties have proven that they can survive and be quite healthy for long periods without the degree of regeneration that is preferred by the PGC. For example, if a 100 acre oak clearcut regenerates with beech,striped maple , birch , blackberry ,raspberry and maple, it will support just as many or if not more deer than if the same area had regenerated with 75% oak.

Studies show that the MSY carrying capacity of an over browsed forest of beech birch and striped maple is around 40 DPSM, which is about the deer density we had in the NC counties in the 70's. Today the PGC is managing the herd in 2G at 8 or 9 DPSM in attempt to get regeneration of the existing canopy ,even though the previous goal for for 2G, which was established by the same experts,was 15 DPSM. and DCNR

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Obviously you have no idea what the regeneration survey plots include because they do already include all of those tree and shrub species you listed. But when they or nothing else is regenerating or growing in the survey plot there simply isn’t any food.

Once again I have to ask, do you think we can support more deer without food or do you believe they can survive by eating rocks, since that is all that exists in some of those areas you people are demanding more deer?

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

May I respectfully request that you try reading the AWR with some degree of objectivity. here is a quote from the 2006-2007AWR.
Please note that the surveys are limited to high dominant species and does not include shrubs. Therefore , a clearcut where the majority of regeneration was blackberry, raspberry ,green thorn and multiflora rose would be considered a failure ,even though it would provide as much if not more food for deer that if it had regenerated as a stand of 100% red oak. furthermore after 10 or twelve years it would still producing a lot of browse ,whereas the browse in a stand of oak would drop by around 75%.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

"Hey, you are the one that came on here bashing and trying to discredit the Game Commission."

No they discredit themselves by their actions. You cannot expect we hunters to jump for joy when pgc has aligned itself so staunchly with anti-deer eco-extremist factions and Have them on the Boc and doing everything in their power to keep the "power" from shifting out of their hands by keeping "prohunter" commissioners to the powerless minority etc.

Rsb, before you dig yourself a deeper hole, you may wanna familiarize yourself with the latest released Pgc annual report. Some interesting findings on it are;

Numbers of adult does pregnant and their steady decline which shows reducing the herd did NOTHING in that regard, as was predicted.

2003 --92%
2004-- 89%
2005--87%
2006--85%

Then next, you may wanna look at page#9 on the link provided. Second chart on the page, last column to the right...titled WMU HEALTH. In that column even you should see that in EVERY SINGLE WMU the health was rated as "good" or "fair"....Not a "poor" to be seen.....Thats the result of combining columns one and two to determine overall health. Some rate poor in one, yet good in the other, when combined = fair etc. Overall, not a one rates poor...

You want people to believe pgc AGREES with you, yet there it is for all to see...Simply not the case. Hardly the "doom and gloom" you speak of Rsb. Sorry. No dice.

....And instead of alot of huffing an puffing, lets see you point out something on the annual report that supports YOUR position...Good luck! (LOL)

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/pgc/reports/2007_wildlife/21001-06Z.pdf

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Let me tell you i sent an email along with everyone that hunts out of our camp about the non-resident doe license. Our section 2F is gone before we can even apply... The P.A. Game commision respone..try for another area?? My reply What can i move our 120 acers or am i suppose to hunt on public land in another area? They said yes........Everyone is thinkning about boycotting the state. If we couldsell we would.. We bought our land in 1976 and only the last few years since Dr.Alt have we had a problem....A pissed off group of M.d. hunters won't be spending our $$$ in P.A. this year.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

You can't automatically get NR landowner tags based on having 120 acres?

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

I truly sympathize with you but Dr Alt didnt cause your problem. Your problem is caused by too FEW available doe permits for the demand.
Dr Alt advocated MORE not LESS doe permits when he was here.

I've hunted 2F since 1968 and there have been many years, including this year,where not all residents who applied got a doe tag either. One of our gang didn't get his either this year and he's a resident.

Assuming your 120 acres is allforest, you could qualify for 2 DMAP tags if you appliedon correctly and time. Something tothink about next year.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Once again you demonstrate you lack of knowledge of deer management. The high altlerless allocations of 44k , requested by Alt in 2003 and 2004 reduced the herd to a point where it only took 28K tags to keep the herd stable in 2006 and 2007. Therefore, the herd reduction as a result of Alt's plan is directly responsible for the current low allocations in 2F.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

And in the past 40 years there have been cycles in the old county oriented antlerless allocations several times generating either an excess or shortage of tags that affects non residents in particular. During that 40 years there have always been a few vocal doomsayers like bluebird2 claiming the impending doom for the deer herd to be just around the corner.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

That is a totally false and misleading claim. You can't find one post where I claimed the herd was facing impending doom. I am very careful to avoid such ridiculous claims, so you owe me an apology.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

LOL!

Tell you what, you start a poll asking Pa members to vote on whether or not that has been your message and mission and If a majority says I'm wrong, I'll apologize.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

For many years there have been clownish doomsdayers who were antideer. Guys who were ecoextremists and preached that the deer too large herd was on the cusp of destroying life in Pa as we know it, and we HAD to take extreme reduction actions immediately!... Funny thing is, the deer herd multiplied since thenby leaps and bound since and the predictions still never came to pass. Some infamous characters, like the joker than got himself thrown out of the game commission for his "over extreme" views. Cant remember the cats name.... On the tip of my tongue too.. Latham maybe?

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

I'll make it real simple for you. Just find one post where I said or implied the herd was facing impending doom. In fact, I don't recall making any predictions about the future of our herd ,except to say that the decrease in the number of hunters will eventually prevent the PGC from managing the herd at such low levels.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Go ahead and run a poll. If the members here don't think that what I said has been your repeated message, I'll apologize!

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

There is no need for a poll. You lied about my position and you aren't man enough to admit it or apologize and that is fine with me because that is exactly what i expected.

Our herd and our hunting will survive for many more years despite the PGC's mis-guided management practices and hunters like you that support a 47% reduction in the buck harvest.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Didn't think you'd take that challenge!

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

And i didn't think you'd be man enough to tell the truth. That puts you and RSB in the same category.