Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Regional Forums > Northeast
 Pa Game Comm. Overhaul >

Pa Game Comm. Overhaul

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 10-10-2008, 07:47 AM
  #221  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul

Kroll simply pointed out that Dr Demarais failed to consider the inadequate doe harvest and also that Dr Demarais failed to consider that past studies have shown conclusively that antler size in the first year has no genetic significance.
That is why I said Kroll misrepresented Dr. Demarais's position ,because Dr. D addressed both the problem of excess doe and the genetic significance of 1.5 buck. Dr. D never claimed the decrease in rack sizes was due to a change in genetics or that he agreed that once a spike always a spike as Kroll implied.
You have produced nothing that shows a correllation between the reduction in the herd and the decrease in breeding rates. You are declaring a conclusion without any real support for it other than you "think" that HR is the cause. It's easy to be an armchair biologist when you don't have to follow the principles of good research. RSB has laid out plenty of other plausible causes for the reduced breeding and recruitment rates but you stubbornly cling to only one conclusion (theone that fits your agenda) with no proof to back you up.

I produced the PGC data that showed both breeding rates and productivity declined as the herd was reduced. Implementing ARs should have had a positive effect on breeding ,not a negative effect. Fewer deer and more food per deer should have increased breeding rates and productivity, not decrease them. RSB provided nothing to explain the statewide decrease in breeding rates and productivity. We did not have severe winters across the entire state and even with the severe winters there should have been a lot more food /OWD than in 2000 when we had at least 40% more deer.

Personally, I find it amusing that RSB offers nothing but excuses when the answer for the decreased productivity is obvious. But some times the obvious is the hardest to see when your personal biases and agenda prevent you from viewing things objectively.
bluebird2 is offline  
Old 10-10-2008, 09:21 AM
  #222  
Giant Nontypical
 
BTBowhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
Default RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul

ORIGINAL: bluebird2

Kroll simply pointed out that Dr Demarais failed to consider the inadequate doe harvest and also that Dr Demaraisfailed to consider that past studies have shown conclusively that antler size in the first year has no genetic significance.
That is why I said Kroll misrepresented Dr. Demarais's position ,because Dr. D addressed both the problem of excess doe and the genetic significance of 1.5 buck. Dr. D never claimed the decrease in rack sizes was due to a change in genetics or that he agreed that once a spike always a spike as Kroll implied.
You have produced nothing that shows a correllation between the reduction in the herd and the decrease in breeding rates. You are declaring a conclusion without any real support for it other than you "think" that HR is the cause. It's easy to be an armchair biologist when you don't have to follow the principles of good research. RSB has laid out plenty of other plausible causes for the reduced breeding and recruitment rates but you stubbornly cling to only one conclusion (theone that fits your agenda) with no proof to back you up.

I produced the PGC data that showed both breeding rates and productivity declined as the herd was reduced. Implementing ARs should have had a positive effect on breeding ,not a negative effect. Fewer deer and more food per deer should have increased breeding rates and productivity, not decrease them. RSB provided nothing to explain the statewide decrease in breeding rates and productivity. We did not have severe winters across the entire state and even with the severe winters there should have been a lot more food /OWD than in 2000 when we had at least 40% more deer.

Personally, I find it amusing that RSB offers nothing but excuses when the answer for the decreased productivity is obvious. But some times the obvious is the hardest to see when your personal biases and agenda prevent you from viewing things objectively.
You're assuming the cause and effect. Yes, both HR and a decrease in productivity per animal happened at the same time but that does not prove a cause and effect relationship. There may be one, but there is no evidence to support your THEORY. For now it's merely a theory. the problem with listening to armchair biologists is that they tend to make knee jerk judgements based on the results they want o see. Your posts are a prime example. It flies in the face of logic that less deer competing for more food wouldhave a negative effect of breeding productivitywhen there are obviously still plenty of deer out there to breed.

Your oversimplification is likeme saying it rained on Wednesday so you'd better take an umbrella next wednesday
BTBowhunter is offline  
Old 10-10-2008, 10:17 AM
  #223  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul

[quote]You're assuming the cause and effect. Yes, both HR and a decrease in productivity per animal happened at the same time but that does not prove a cause and effect relationship[/quote

It certainly does if you can't identify any other factor that would account for the decrease in breeding and productivity. What you are missing is that HR not only reduces the number of deer , it has another effect that should be obvious to every one with an open mind and it explains why breeding rates and productivity have decreased. Can you identify that effect?
bluebird2 is offline  
Old 10-10-2008, 12:05 PM
  #224  
Nontypical Buck
 
White-tail-deer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Southeast PA
Posts: 1,490
Default RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul

Would Viagra or Cialis help?
White-tail-deer is offline  
Old 10-10-2008, 12:28 PM
  #225  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul


ORIGINAL: White-tail-deer

Would Viagra or Cialis help?
Give it a try, it just might solve your problem.
bluebird2 is offline  
Old 10-12-2008, 03:07 PM
  #226  
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Default RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul

"It flies in the face of logic that less deer competing for more food wouldhave a negative effect of breeding productivitywhen there are obviously still plenty of deer out there to breed. "

Bluebirds reaction is not a "knee jerk" since the data clearly shows the rates have declined over the period of years, not simply one or two, but basically the results of the deer plan are shown quite clearly, and one need'nt cherry pick one year to point out the fact that the "improvements" that were predicted DID NOT occur.

Its also quite clear that the reason was, there was nothing wrong with the herd health in most areas to begin with. If there was, it certainly would have shown drastic improvement in the several years we have been reducing the herd, in some areas by over half, and in most areas significantly. I was under the impression Pgc was to use this "health" indicating data towards managing the herd. I guess thats only the case if it would have fit within the deer slaughter agenda.

The fact Pgc has consistently been opposed to change shows that the reasons for the excessive reduction are most likely due to some of the "conspiracy theories"[:-]actually being true, like their catering to eco-extremists demands and others.

Conclusion= miserably failed program, and a management agency badly in need of restructuring. A strict set of checks and balances including performance evaluations should be part of the restructuring to prevent furthered corruption and abuse of duty towards our sportsmen and the resources of our state. Many of which arent recieving the attention they should, due to Pgc preventing themselves from gaining further funding, thanks to irresponsible choices they choose to adhere to, andbasically forced ourlegislators to take actions.
Cornelius08 is offline  
Old 10-12-2008, 03:57 PM
  #227  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul

RSB likes to blame the decrease in productivity on the decrease in the number of does checked in the areas with high productivity. But , the results from the Kinzua QDM Coop . shows that this is not the case. Fawn production dropped from 56 fawns/100 does in 2001 to 44 fawns/100 doe in 2005. During that period the herd was reduced by 48% so the food supply/doe should have doubled during the period when fawn production dropped by 14%.

So can anyone one explain why fawn production decreased instead of increasing as predicted?
bluebird2 is offline  
Old 10-12-2008, 08:16 PM
  #228  
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location:
Posts: 282
Default RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul

Has anyone else seen this? Sounds like the next thing DCNR will advocate to reduce the herd is road hunting. I hate the fact that I try to get way back in to avoid other hunters, and they open up more roads.

ADDITIONAL STATE FOREST ROADS OPEN FOR START OF DEER HUNTING SEASONS

HARRISBURG (October 1, 2008) — Deer hunters heading into Pennsylvania’s state forests Saturday for the start of archery season will find additional roads open in 17 of the 20 state forest districts, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Secretary Michael DiBerardinis announced today.

“A total of 415 miles of newly opened forest roads will be available to archery hunters when they take to the woods in search of deer on opening day,” DiBerardinis said. “By opening normally locked gates, the Bureau of Forestry hopes to improve accessibility while promoting hunting in often remote areas where hunting pressure is needed to benefit forest regeneration.”

During archery season, which closes Nov. 15, and the state’s other deer hunting seasons running into January 2009, hunters will find more than 3,030 miles of roadway open in state forestlands.

“Hunters seeking whitetail deer in our state forest will find more than 90 percent of all state forestland is now within one-half mile of an open road,” DiBerardinis said. “We view the archers and other deer hunters as invaluable partners in wildlife management and forest stewardship.”


the outsider is offline  
Old 10-13-2008, 05:00 PM
  #229  
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Default RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul

So invaluable they permit, no check that....CAUSE our ranks to dwindle at over twice the national average thanks to hunter non-friendly attitudes and half baked eco-extreme policies.
Cornelius08 is offline  
Old 10-13-2008, 07:20 PM
  #230  
Fork Horn
 
pick00l's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Wilmington, DE
Posts: 182
Default RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul


ORIGINAL: the outsider

Has anyone else seen this? Sounds like the next thing DCNR will advocate to reduce the herd is road hunting. I hate the fact that I try to get way back in to avoid other hunters, and they open up more roads.

ADDITIONAL STATE FOREST ROADS OPEN FOR START OF DEER HUNTING SEASONS

HARRISBURG (October 1, 2008) — Deer hunters heading into Pennsylvania’s state forests Saturday for the start of archery season will find additional roads open in 17 of the 20 state forest districts, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Secretary Michael DiBerardinis announced today.

“A total of 415 miles of newly opened forest roads will be available to archery hunters when they take to the woods in search of deer on opening day,” DiBerardinis said. “By opening normally locked gates, the Bureau of Forestry hopes to improve accessibility while promoting hunting in often remote areas where hunting pressure is needed to benefit forest regeneration.”

During archery season, which closes Nov. 15, and the state’s other deer hunting seasons running into January 2009, hunters will find more than 3,030 miles of roadway open in state forestlands.

“Hunters seeking whitetail deer in our state forest will find more than 90 percent of all state forestland is now within one-half mile of an open road,” DiBerardinis said. “We view the archers and other deer hunters as invaluable partners in wildlife management and forest stewardship.”
100% agree. This is sad, close the roads...create a longer walk and let the hunters enjoy it that much more.

There is a great spot I found at Hickory run. A small road was about 40-80 yards from my stand. Was not bad to hear the occasional hiker but... now I hears cars the entire time. WHY???? there are enough road trails up there. oh well. Just don't need the roads. Peace and quiet is nice.

pick00l is offline  

Quick Reply: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul


Contact Us - 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.