Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
10-10-2008, 07:47 AM
#221
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
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.
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.
10-10-2008, 09:21 AM
#222
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
ORIGINAL: bluebird2
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.
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.
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.
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.
Your oversimplification is likeme saying it rained on Wednesday so you'd better take an umbrella next wednesday
10-10-2008, 10:17 AM
#223
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
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?
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?
10-12-2008, 03:07 PM
#226
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
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.
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.
10-12-2008, 03:57 PM
#227
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
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?
So can anyone one explain why fawn production decreased instead of increasing as predicted?
10-12-2008, 08:16 PM
#228
Fork Horn
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location:
Posts: 282
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.”
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.”
10-13-2008, 07:20 PM
#230
Fork Horn
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Wilmington, DE
Posts: 182
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.”
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.”
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.
