Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
10-07-2008, 07:13 AM
#191
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
ORIGINAL: sproulman
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.
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.
10-07-2008, 04:56 PM
#192
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
Here is what Dr. deCalesta had to say about predation on a QDM property in 2f.
I suppose that proves beyond a doubt that Alt's claims about a decreased breeding window would overwhelm the predators was pure horse puckey
Each doe should produce 1-2 fawns every year, but it took approximately 2.3 does to bring one
fawn to fall recruitment in 2005. Research recently conducted in Pennsylvania by the Pennsylvania
Game Commission and Pennsylvania State University suggests that predators (primarily black bear
and coyotes) kill about half of the fawns prior to fall; it is reasonable to assume that the same
predation rate exists on the KQDC where bears and coyotes are plentiful. If this predation rate is
representative, then without predation by bears and coyotes each doe should have brought about 1.15
fawns through to fall, which is closer to the desired 1-2 fawns per doe.
fawn to fall recruitment in 2005. Research recently conducted in Pennsylvania by the Pennsylvania
Game Commission and Pennsylvania State University suggests that predators (primarily black bear
and coyotes) kill about half of the fawns prior to fall; it is reasonable to assume that the same
predation rate exists on the KQDC where bears and coyotes are plentiful. If this predation rate is
representative, then without predation by bears and coyotes each doe should have brought about 1.15
fawns through to fall, which is closer to the desired 1-2 fawns per doe.
10-07-2008, 07:02 PM
#193
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 179
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
I will say for one thing the WMUs are way to big to manage correctly. Some areas of 2G can handle tons of deer but other parts of it can't. So they take the worst part and say here is how many DPSM should be in 2G. The WMUs are to big and need to go back to counties for better deer management. Should we go and kill 2/3rds of the elk and fishers and bobcats so their population grows? This is what RSB is saying About the slaughter of the deer to increase the population we have to kill more.LMAO
10-07-2008, 09:01 PM
#194
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: PA.
Posts: 5,195
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
ORIGINAL: BTBowhunter
Where's the pics!
i dont know how to put it on here,i do have it saved in the computer from the sd card.
ORIGINAL: sproulman
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.
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.
i dont know how to put it on here,i do have it saved in the computer from the sd card.
10-07-2008, 09:20 PM
#195
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: PA.
Posts: 5,195
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
ORIGINAL: sammy_tat
I will say for one thing the WMUs are way to big to manage correctly. Some areas of 2G can handle tons of deer but other parts of it can't. So they take the worst part and say here is how many DPSM should be in 2G. The WMUs are to big and need to go back to counties for better deer management. Should we go and kill 2/3rds of the elk and fishers and bobcats so their population grows? This is what RSB is saying About the slaughter of the deer to increase the population we have to kill more.LMAO
I will say for one thing the WMUs are way to big to manage correctly. Some areas of 2G can handle tons of deer but other parts of it can't. So they take the worst part and say here is how many DPSM should be in 2G. The WMUs are to big and need to go back to counties for better deer management. Should we go and kill 2/3rds of the elk and fishers and bobcats so their population grows? This is what RSB is saying About the slaughter of the deer to increase the population we have to kill more.LMAO
this is what pgc/dcnr wanted on the wmu units.
we wanted units within our county,they did not.
this was master plan to kill more doe.
i told about interview i did with hunters from cameron county who came all way to my little spot in clinton county, 4 years ago.
they came in and killed off 2 doe and fawn i let go.
they stated to me,SPROUL WHERE WE SEE A DEER SCOUTING, WE GO IN AND GET EM THEN WE MOVE TO OTHER AREAS AND COUNTYS WHERE WE SAW A DOE.
when it was county only tags,WE stopped this,fawns were left go and mothers too by most of us locally,not all but a lot of us did this at camps etc.
they corrupted the hunters and hunters got the greed meat fill the freezer disease.
there is no respect now for deer.
when you see the editors of one of states outdoor magazine with picture of him with a FAWN in paper, PROUD hunter.
when you here ADULTS say,SPROUL I SHOT A FURBALL TODAY,folks, they are talking about a fawn.[:@]
10-07-2008, 09:58 PM
#196
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
ORIGINAL: sproulman
ORIGINAL: BTBowhunter
Where's the pics!
i dont know how to put it on here,i do have it saved in the computer from the sd card.
ORIGINAL: sproulman
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.
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.
i dont know how to put it on here,i do have it saved in the computer from the sd card.
10-07-2008, 10:27 PM
#197
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: PA.
Posts: 5,195
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
i can do that, i think.
i have to try to remove my name from the picture, if i can and the date was 10/25 ,should have been 9/25.
so, i will try to get that info off first, then send you pic.
i have to try to remove my name from the picture, if i can and the date was 10/25 ,should have been 9/25.
so, i will try to get that info off first, then send you pic.
10-08-2008, 04:03 PM
#198
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
A friend of mine sent me a PM asking how long it would take for the herd at Kinzua to be reduced to next to nothing based on the previous harvest rates and high predation. Since it was an interesting question and his PM was disabled I decided to post the answer for all to see.
The 2004 harvest reduced the OWDD from 24.7 DPSM to 14.4 DPSM which is a decrease of over 10 DPSM in just one year. Therefore ,if hunters harvested the same number of deer in 2005 and 2006 , as they did in 2004 their would be few if any deer remaining. But, in 2005 they reduced the number of DMAP tags and the harvest only reduced the herd by 1 DPSM. At that rate it would take 13 years to reduce the herd to next to nothing.
When Alt was promoting his plan he said herd reduction combined with ARs would increase breeding rates and shorten the breeding period and increase recruitment because so many fawns would be born with in a short time period. The results from Kinzua shows the exact opposite is true. The percentage of fawns in the preseason herd dropped from 47% in 2001, to 25% in 2004 and then increased to 34% in 2005,which is still considerably below the state average of 44%.
Therefore, based on the results from Kinzua , it is obvious that the herd was not above the MSY carrying capacity of the habitat when they had 27 DPSM. Cutting the herd from 27 DPSM in 2002 to 14 DPSM in 2005 effectively doubled the amount of food available per deer, yet fawn recruitment dropped from 41% in 2002 to 34% in 2005.
The 2004 harvest reduced the OWDD from 24.7 DPSM to 14.4 DPSM which is a decrease of over 10 DPSM in just one year. Therefore ,if hunters harvested the same number of deer in 2005 and 2006 , as they did in 2004 their would be few if any deer remaining. But, in 2005 they reduced the number of DMAP tags and the harvest only reduced the herd by 1 DPSM. At that rate it would take 13 years to reduce the herd to next to nothing.
When Alt was promoting his plan he said herd reduction combined with ARs would increase breeding rates and shorten the breeding period and increase recruitment because so many fawns would be born with in a short time period. The results from Kinzua shows the exact opposite is true. The percentage of fawns in the preseason herd dropped from 47% in 2001, to 25% in 2004 and then increased to 34% in 2005,which is still considerably below the state average of 44%.
Therefore, based on the results from Kinzua , it is obvious that the herd was not above the MSY carrying capacity of the habitat when they had 27 DPSM. Cutting the herd from 27 DPSM in 2002 to 14 DPSM in 2005 effectively doubled the amount of food available per deer, yet fawn recruitment dropped from 41% in 2002 to 34% in 2005.
10-08-2008, 04:24 PM
#199
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
RSB, I cannot believe you wouldnt be honest enough to admit it andmove on, course I should know better by now, as I know after 7 years or so of this stuff, thats not your style.
Anyonecan see that when aTINY portion of one county is in a wmu, only a tiny sliver, and its the least populated part of the county.... You dont add in the area of over ONE MILLION people within that county, come up with an overall average and apply itto that area!!!Anyone who doenst understand that has some real problems with comprehension....Or know it, but like to lie in an attempt to decieve to further an eco-extremeagenda.
I stick to the facts and the facts support me. You dont knowhow to analyze the facts. My suggestion would be to stick with the law enforcement, as analyzing and discussing data in an accurate, honest and unbiased way is not your cup of tea.
"also has sustainable deer harvests that two to four times higher then the harvests of 2G."
Its not sustainable. You are using harvests that are REDUCING the herd, and dropping despite increases in allocationsand calling them sustainable. Thats simply a false statement where 2A is concerned anyway.
"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. "
Fact is there is no evidence that would have ever occurred. As there also is no reason to believe we needed such severe and continued reduction. it was based on nothing, and it cannot be based on 2G for many reasons.
"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."
Theow deer herd was over double what it is nowand it wasnt 15 years ago.
"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. "
I agree. And the voice has not been to reduce. Most have no clue what the deer numbers overall are, what the harvest rates are etc.nor do they care. Those who manage highly for quality herd may of course, but the vast majority of the land is still managed by THE GAME COMMISSION, and I dont think it is unreasonable for us to expect reasonable numbers of tags when the landowners of the wmu ARENT screaming for less and less deer, even before the herd was slaughtered.Its unfortunate, but thats the reality of it. Most of this land, even though private is not "off limits". Much is still open for the asking and even what isnt is often hunting by groups, families & friends etc.
"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."
Youropinions of the facts arequestionable at best as proven time and again. Your assessment of my knowledge is no different.
"I am darn sure you don’t have even a clue about what the best management of your unit is. "
Of course I dont. How can I when I disagree with the slaughter?[8D]
"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."
Sorry my friend. But you are not gonnado that. The herdis being and has been reducedwithin the last 3 years when according to pgc it was stabilizing. More tags than those that reduced the herd, and higher harvest goal than the 16,500 that reduced it.... Enuff said!
"That is why they actually lowered the allocation this year."
I know all about the rediculous allocation this year...and the last few as well. Gee, that did alot. Went to an uncalled for,based on absolutely nothing all time high 60 k last year even though we were supposed to be stabilizing! (LOL) It was done so we could stay RIGHT WHERE WE HAVE BEENALL ALONG afterwards, and still be able to point and say SEE we REDUCED the allocation! Just like your doing now! (LOL) Right back where we've been for3of the last 4 years. 55k. Even though it only took 45k to reduce a larger herd. We went from too high, to 5k more, then right back to too high.Gee thanks PGC![:'(] 5k fewer than our all time high for the wmu. If we harvested 1 doe per say, 3 tags, thats not even 2k deer saved, and thats being generous, that is if we cannot STILL get the exact same harvest with such a huge allocation! Heck ehd killed an estimated 3 to4k! That allocation doesnt even begin to make up for that! Let alone anything else.. Whatta joke! 55k is about "saturation point" anyways for the wmu. More than that last year and we had tags left well into the huntingseason.
"Those DPFSM numbers you posted aren’t used any more and haven’t been for quite some time."
So? Whats your point? They are what they are. That doesnt make the statement regarding them any less accurate.
"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"
No. Sorry, but in case you havent noticed, I havent neglected to specify FORESTED square miles...and as we discussed previously, even that in itself is a sham. Gives the ILLUSION of more deer. A play on words. Psychology if you will. It didnt take into account MUCH of the best deer habitat, therefore giving illusion of higher density numbers on less land.
"I suspect you have been listening to bluebird’s ramblings too much."
You would do well to start.
"Deer are not managed as DPFSM or DPSM either one any more and for good reason."
The estimated densities are still recorded, and still a topic of discussion for those concerned. IAlso even though the herd isnt managed for a specific density, that doesnt mean that the areas that can have more deer shouldnt. And right now they dont.
"We listened to them to long, that is want got us in this mess."
The reason we are in this mess iswrong people on the boc, and pgc laying down with eco-extremists and others, and us allowing them to do it.
Anyonecan see that when aTINY portion of one county is in a wmu, only a tiny sliver, and its the least populated part of the county.... You dont add in the area of over ONE MILLION people within that county, come up with an overall average and apply itto that area!!!Anyone who doenst understand that has some real problems with comprehension....Or know it, but like to lie in an attempt to decieve to further an eco-extremeagenda.
I stick to the facts and the facts support me. You dont knowhow to analyze the facts. My suggestion would be to stick with the law enforcement, as analyzing and discussing data in an accurate, honest and unbiased way is not your cup of tea.
"also has sustainable deer harvests that two to four times higher then the harvests of 2G."
Its not sustainable. You are using harvests that are REDUCING the herd, and dropping despite increases in allocationsand calling them sustainable. Thats simply a false statement where 2A is concerned anyway.
"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. "
Fact is there is no evidence that would have ever occurred. As there also is no reason to believe we needed such severe and continued reduction. it was based on nothing, and it cannot be based on 2G for many reasons.
"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."
Theow deer herd was over double what it is nowand it wasnt 15 years ago.
"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. "
I agree. And the voice has not been to reduce. Most have no clue what the deer numbers overall are, what the harvest rates are etc.nor do they care. Those who manage highly for quality herd may of course, but the vast majority of the land is still managed by THE GAME COMMISSION, and I dont think it is unreasonable for us to expect reasonable numbers of tags when the landowners of the wmu ARENT screaming for less and less deer, even before the herd was slaughtered.Its unfortunate, but thats the reality of it. Most of this land, even though private is not "off limits". Much is still open for the asking and even what isnt is often hunting by groups, families & friends etc.
"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."
Youropinions of the facts arequestionable at best as proven time and again. Your assessment of my knowledge is no different.
"I am darn sure you don’t have even a clue about what the best management of your unit is. "
Of course I dont. How can I when I disagree with the slaughter?[8D]
"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."
Sorry my friend. But you are not gonnado that. The herdis being and has been reducedwithin the last 3 years when according to pgc it was stabilizing. More tags than those that reduced the herd, and higher harvest goal than the 16,500 that reduced it.... Enuff said!
"That is why they actually lowered the allocation this year."
I know all about the rediculous allocation this year...and the last few as well. Gee, that did alot. Went to an uncalled for,based on absolutely nothing all time high 60 k last year even though we were supposed to be stabilizing! (LOL) It was done so we could stay RIGHT WHERE WE HAVE BEENALL ALONG afterwards, and still be able to point and say SEE we REDUCED the allocation! Just like your doing now! (LOL) Right back where we've been for3of the last 4 years. 55k. Even though it only took 45k to reduce a larger herd. We went from too high, to 5k more, then right back to too high.Gee thanks PGC![:'(] 5k fewer than our all time high for the wmu. If we harvested 1 doe per say, 3 tags, thats not even 2k deer saved, and thats being generous, that is if we cannot STILL get the exact same harvest with such a huge allocation! Heck ehd killed an estimated 3 to4k! That allocation doesnt even begin to make up for that! Let alone anything else.. Whatta joke! 55k is about "saturation point" anyways for the wmu. More than that last year and we had tags left well into the huntingseason.
"Those DPFSM numbers you posted aren’t used any more and haven’t been for quite some time."
So? Whats your point? They are what they are. That doesnt make the statement regarding them any less accurate.
"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"
No. Sorry, but in case you havent noticed, I havent neglected to specify FORESTED square miles...and as we discussed previously, even that in itself is a sham. Gives the ILLUSION of more deer. A play on words. Psychology if you will. It didnt take into account MUCH of the best deer habitat, therefore giving illusion of higher density numbers on less land.
"I suspect you have been listening to bluebird’s ramblings too much."
You would do well to start.
"Deer are not managed as DPFSM or DPSM either one any more and for good reason."
The estimated densities are still recorded, and still a topic of discussion for those concerned. IAlso even though the herd isnt managed for a specific density, that doesnt mean that the areas that can have more deer shouldnt. And right now they dont.
"We listened to them to long, that is want got us in this mess."
The reason we are in this mess iswrong people on the boc, and pgc laying down with eco-extremists and others, and us allowing them to do it.
10-08-2008, 05:38 PM
#200
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
ORIGINAL: Cornelius08
RSB, I cannot believe you wouldnt be honest enough to admit it andmove on, course I should know better by now, as I know after 7 years or so of this stuff, thats not your style.
Anyonecan see that when aTINY portion of one county is in a wmu, only a tiny sliver, and its the least populated part of the county.... You dont add in the area of over ONE MILLION people within that county, come up with an overall average and apply itto that area!!!Anyone who doenst understand that has some real problems with comprehension....Or know it, but like to lie in an attempt to decieve to further an eco-extremeagenda.
I stick to the facts and the facts support me. You dont knowhow to analyze the facts. My suggestion would be to stick with the law enforcement, as analyzing and discussing data in an accurate, honest and unbiased way is not your cup of tea.
"also has sustainable deer harvests that two to four times higher then the harvests of 2G."
Its not sustainable. You are using harvests that are REDUCING the herd, and dropping despite increases in allocationsand calling them sustainable. Thats simply a false statement where 2A is concerned anyway.
"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. "
Fact is there is no evidence that would have ever occurred. As there also is no reason to believe we needed such severe and continued reduction. it was based on nothing, and it cannot be based on 2G for many reasons.
"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."
Theow deer herd was over double what it is nowand it wasnt 15 years ago.
"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. "
I agree. And the voice has not been to reduce. Most have no clue what the deer numbers overall are, what the harvest rates are etc.nor do they care. Those who manage highly for quality herd may of course, but the vast majority of the land is still managed by THE GAME COMMISSION, and I dont think it is unreasonable for us to expect reasonable numbers of tags when the landowners of the wmu ARENT screaming for less and less deer, even before the herd was slaughtered.Its unfortunate, but thats the reality of it. Most of this land, even though private is not "off limits". Much is still open for the asking and even what isnt is often hunting by groups, families & friends etc.
"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."
Youropinions of the facts arequestionable at best as proven time and again. Your assessment of my knowledge is no different.
"I am darn sure you don’t have even a clue about what the best management of your unit is. "
Of course I dont. How can I when I disagree with the slaughter?[8D]
"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."
Sorry my friend. But you are not gonnado that. The herdis being and has been reducedwithin the last 3 years when according to pgc it was stabilizing. More tags than those that reduced the herd, and higher harvest goal than the 16,500 that reduced it.... Enuff said!
"That is why they actually lowered the allocation this year."
I know all about the rediculous allocation this year...and the last few as well. Gee, that did alot. Went to an uncalled for,based on absolutely nothing all time high 60 k last year even though we were supposed to be stabilizing! (LOL) It was done so we could stay RIGHT WHERE WE HAVE BEENALL ALONG afterwards, and still be able to point and say SEE we REDUCED the allocation! Just like your doing now! (LOL) Right back where we've been for3of the last 4 years. 55k. Even though it only took 45k to reduce a larger herd. We went from too high, to 5k more, then right back to too high.Gee thanks PGC![:'(] 5k fewer than our all time high for the wmu. If we harvested 1 doe per say, 3 tags, thats not even 2k deer saved, and thats being generous, that is if we cannot STILL get the exact same harvest with such a huge allocation! Heck ehd killed an estimated 3 to4k! That allocation doesnt even begin to make up for that! Let alone anything else.. Whatta joke! 55k is about "saturation point" anyways for the wmu. More than that last year and we had tags left well into the huntingseason.
"Those DPFSM numbers you posted aren’t used any more and haven’t been for quite some time."
So? Whats your point? They are what they are. That doesnt make the statement regarding them any less accurate.
"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"
No. Sorry, but in case you havent noticed, I havent neglected to specify FORESTED square miles...and as we discussed previously, even that in itself is a sham. Gives the ILLUSION of more deer. A play on words. Psychology if you will. It didnt take into account MUCH of the best deer habitat, therefore giving illusion of higher density numbers on less land.
"I suspect you have been listening to bluebird’s ramblings too much."
You would do well to start.
"Deer are not managed as DPFSM or DPSM either one any more and for good reason."
The estimated densities are still recorded, and still a topic of discussion for those concerned. IAlso even though the herd isnt managed for a specific density, that doesnt mean that the areas that can have more deer shouldnt. And right now they dont.
"We listened to them to long, that is want got us in this mess."
The reason we are in this mess iswrong people on the boc, and pgc laying down with eco-extremists and others, and us allowing them to do it.
RSB, I cannot believe you wouldnt be honest enough to admit it andmove on, course I should know better by now, as I know after 7 years or so of this stuff, thats not your style.
Anyonecan see that when aTINY portion of one county is in a wmu, only a tiny sliver, and its the least populated part of the county.... You dont add in the area of over ONE MILLION people within that county, come up with an overall average and apply itto that area!!!Anyone who doenst understand that has some real problems with comprehension....Or know it, but like to lie in an attempt to decieve to further an eco-extremeagenda.
I stick to the facts and the facts support me. You dont knowhow to analyze the facts. My suggestion would be to stick with the law enforcement, as analyzing and discussing data in an accurate, honest and unbiased way is not your cup of tea.
"also has sustainable deer harvests that two to four times higher then the harvests of 2G."
Its not sustainable. You are using harvests that are REDUCING the herd, and dropping despite increases in allocationsand calling them sustainable. Thats simply a false statement where 2A is concerned anyway.
"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. "
Fact is there is no evidence that would have ever occurred. As there also is no reason to believe we needed such severe and continued reduction. it was based on nothing, and it cannot be based on 2G for many reasons.
"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."
Theow deer herd was over double what it is nowand it wasnt 15 years ago.
"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. "
I agree. And the voice has not been to reduce. Most have no clue what the deer numbers overall are, what the harvest rates are etc.nor do they care. Those who manage highly for quality herd may of course, but the vast majority of the land is still managed by THE GAME COMMISSION, and I dont think it is unreasonable for us to expect reasonable numbers of tags when the landowners of the wmu ARENT screaming for less and less deer, even before the herd was slaughtered.Its unfortunate, but thats the reality of it. Most of this land, even though private is not "off limits". Much is still open for the asking and even what isnt is often hunting by groups, families & friends etc.
"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."
Youropinions of the facts arequestionable at best as proven time and again. Your assessment of my knowledge is no different.
"I am darn sure you don’t have even a clue about what the best management of your unit is. "
Of course I dont. How can I when I disagree with the slaughter?[8D]
"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."
Sorry my friend. But you are not gonnado that. The herdis being and has been reducedwithin the last 3 years when according to pgc it was stabilizing. More tags than those that reduced the herd, and higher harvest goal than the 16,500 that reduced it.... Enuff said!
"That is why they actually lowered the allocation this year."
I know all about the rediculous allocation this year...and the last few as well. Gee, that did alot. Went to an uncalled for,based on absolutely nothing all time high 60 k last year even though we were supposed to be stabilizing! (LOL) It was done so we could stay RIGHT WHERE WE HAVE BEENALL ALONG afterwards, and still be able to point and say SEE we REDUCED the allocation! Just like your doing now! (LOL) Right back where we've been for3of the last 4 years. 55k. Even though it only took 45k to reduce a larger herd. We went from too high, to 5k more, then right back to too high.Gee thanks PGC![:'(] 5k fewer than our all time high for the wmu. If we harvested 1 doe per say, 3 tags, thats not even 2k deer saved, and thats being generous, that is if we cannot STILL get the exact same harvest with such a huge allocation! Heck ehd killed an estimated 3 to4k! That allocation doesnt even begin to make up for that! Let alone anything else.. Whatta joke! 55k is about "saturation point" anyways for the wmu. More than that last year and we had tags left well into the huntingseason.
"Those DPFSM numbers you posted aren’t used any more and haven’t been for quite some time."
So? Whats your point? They are what they are. That doesnt make the statement regarding them any less accurate.
"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"
No. Sorry, but in case you havent noticed, I havent neglected to specify FORESTED square miles...and as we discussed previously, even that in itself is a sham. Gives the ILLUSION of more deer. A play on words. Psychology if you will. It didnt take into account MUCH of the best deer habitat, therefore giving illusion of higher density numbers on less land.
"I suspect you have been listening to bluebird’s ramblings too much."
You would do well to start.
"Deer are not managed as DPFSM or DPSM either one any more and for good reason."
The estimated densities are still recorded, and still a topic of discussion for those concerned. IAlso even though the herd isnt managed for a specific density, that doesnt mean that the areas that can have more deer shouldnt. And right now they dont.
"We listened to them to long, that is want got us in this mess."
The reason we are in this mess iswrong people on the boc, and pgc laying down with eco-extremists and others, and us allowing them to do it.