RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Wow Btbowhunter, just curious how old are you? Wanting to do obtusechallenges, and polls that amount to nothing more than character attackand all kinda fun stuff.

How about you actually make a post with content like the rest of us adultsand quit trolling for a fight? If you think someone is wrong, tell them why then if you wanna be taken seriously, provide some supporting evidence. You know, likeall that mumb-jumbo data and stuff Ive been posting to back MY position...Just a thought.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

My age is there for all to see.Unlike you and bluebird, I dont hide behindfake names and profiles. As for the poll, Bluebird claims I owe him an apology. If a majority of the members here agree, I'll do so.

As for providing evidence, Mr Newbie, I suggest you take some time and read some archives. I have no desire to type endlessly just to catch you up on the facts.They've been posted here over and over. Do your homework and get back to us!

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

I'll point you towards the annual reports as I did RSB. Find anything to support your position, post it and you can thank me in the privacy of a pm and I wont even tell anyone. Though I dont think you will find anything that supports you.

As for seeing your old posts, i have. Ive seen nothing supporting your position but insults wisecracks and lack of content exact as is occurring currently.

As for not "hiding" I see noone doing it anymore of less than you "BOB"...LOL But I couldnt care less, I have zero interest in getting to know you personally so why does it matter? This is a message board not an internet dating service.[:'(]

Can we discuss the issues now, or is disruption your intent?

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

"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?"

Its among the very best areas of the state, and also why they are a 4pt areawhat would you want them to be??? Theyve also steadily DROPPED and this year werent in the top. What does that have to do with anything anyway?? Ithought the numbers didnt matter and it was all about thehabitat?? The habitat never rated poor even with the previous extreme high deer numbers and the reduction was rediculous and severe according to pgcs own ow deer densitynumbers on the annual report going from 69 to an average of 25. Wasnt based on human conflict in the wmu, not the habitat, not a thing. Whos to say we couldnt have had 20% 30% etc. reduction? Noone. Its just kill the deer then when your done kill some more. 2A started out well ahead of the game numberswise, but its clear where the wmu is headed. If speaking of simply less deer than can be and should be had, itsWAAAAY past that stage. Looks like they wont be happy till they hit the previous old goal of 13 dpsm ow. They knew it was a rediculous goal noone would accept. SO they say they arent using numbers anymore, but still keep track and use other excuses till the deed is done...


"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."

WHERE? Im not talking sras, and limited access...Im talking 2A. The herd is definately declining which is inevitably when your harvest goals and allocation are both higher than what previously reduced the herd!

The harvest has also declined, even though the tags have been at all time highs for the previous 4 years ofso.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

You obviously do not have one single clue what is evaluated in the forest regeneration survey plots or you are intentionally misleading people on this one too. But, why would we expect anything else from you?

All woody plant life is recorded and used in the evaluation as per the long list of indicator species. When I next get on line in my work computer I pull that list and send it over here to post.

It includes much more then just marketable tree species. All of the good deer browse species are included in the surveyed species.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Perhaps you need to slow down on your reading of the reports because you obviously miss a lot or have some serious comprehension problems.

Though you say the units are all either good or fair you as mistaken. There are two units that have a POOR herd health rating in that report, you linked, plus another two classified as UNCERTAIN (do to low sample size) that have reproductive data in the poor category.

There are only two units (4B and 4E) that have both good herd and forest health which means that only 7.3% of the state is in category that would put it as someplace practical for a possible deer herd increase provided the public wanted more deer. The other 92.7% of the state has either poor or marginal herd and/or forest health. That means managing for more deer in those units is not the best more for the future. That is not the Game Commission saying that but the deer and their food supply telling us that. We would be absolutely STUPID not to listen to what they tell us.

Incidentally the forest health has to carry the highest weight in the total assessment of when the deer will allow higher long term deer populations.

As for the adult breeding rates that is statewide data that resulted during periods when the sample size and areas of representation changed. That rendered the data as not be valid for comparison purposes during those year. Once this law suit is begin us perhaps the data will posted by WMU. That data will tell a different story.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

As of 2008 all but one WMU was rated at being at it's goal for herd health and both 2F and 2G were rated at their goal even though breeding rates haven't increased significantly. If the herd was above the MSY carrying capacity of the habitat when the HR plan was implemented then we should have observed a state wide significant improvement in breeding rates and productivity, and the result would not have been affected by the distribution of the does that were checked ,because the increase would have occurred across the entire state and the areas with the worst breeding rates like 2G would have increased the most. Unfortunately that didn't happen and that is why,despite your predictions , the buck harvest and total harvest have not returned to their previous levels as you claimed they would.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Here is the list of tree species used to determine forest health.

Table 5. Canopy replacement dominants and other high canopy indicator species (McWilliams et al. 2004a). Wildlife
value for all wildlife species (Carey and Gill 1980 as in Payne and Bryant 1998) and levels of browse preference by
white-tailed deer during fall and winter (Latham et al. 2005) are provided to illustrate general characteristics of
species. Blanks indicate lack of data.
Category Tree Species Wildlife Value Browse Preference
Dominants
Eastern Hemlock Fair High
Red Maple1 Good High
Sweet (Black) Birch1 Good High
Beech Good High
Ash1 Fair High
Yellow Poplar1 Fair High
Oaks1 Excellent High
White pine1 Excellent Moderate
Sugar Maple1 Good Moderate
Hickories1 Fair Low
Black cherry1 Excellent Low
Other High Canopy
Black gum1 Fair High
Other Birches1 Good Moderate/High
Other Maples (except Norway and Striped) Good Moderate/High
Cucumber tree Moderate
Willow Fair Moderate
Other Conifers Fair to Excellent Low/Moderate
Hackberry Fair Low
Aspen Good Low
Black locust Fair Low
Sweet gum Fair Low
Honeylocust Fair (is browsed)
Black walnut Fair (is browsed)
Sycamore Fair (is browsed)
Basswood1 Fair (is browsed)
Elm Fair (is browsed)
Buckeye Unknown
Butternut
Cottonwood
Balsam poplar
Kentucky coffeetree
Catalpa
1
– These species are of “medium” or “high” importance to Pennsylvania’s wood products industry (Latham et al. 2005).

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Interesting Bluebird.

Rsb attempt at discredit:
"Perhaps you need to slow down on your reading of the reports because you obviously miss a lot or have some serious comprehension problems. "

Not hardly.


Though you say the units are all either good or fair you as mistaken. There are two units that have a POOR herd health rating in that report, you linked, plus another two classified as UNCERTAIN (do to low sample size) that have reproductive data in the poor category.

"There are only two units (4B and 4E) that have both good herd and forest health which means that only 7.3% of the state is in category that would put it as someplace practical for a possible deer herd increase provided the public wanted more deer. The other 92.7% of the state has either poor or marginal herd and/or forest health."

NIce play on words and change of subject. I stated herd health and said nothing of regeneration. Not that it is even poor mind you across most of the state. YOu also state the majority of herd health as "marginal or poor". Pgc disagrees. You know that, you just like to play on words. The rating is FAIR and GOOD for the HUGE majority of the state.

"We would be absolutely STUPID not to listen to what they tell us."

We would be complete idiots to believe it without proof, yet withmuch to the contrary just because a few exreme viewed pgc employees say so with no proof.I dont mean that as a "slam", I do see your views as not the norm, even by pgcs standards.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

O.k.BLUEBIRD2 said my lack of knowledge about the doe permitt allocations in 2f......but wait make everyones date the same... plus nonresidents pay more so the states revenue will be higher. Look we have seen the herds go from seeing 50 deer a day to your lucky to see a dozen. Big bucks? your idea of a trophey might be different than mine. Check your records BLUEBIRD2 how many B&C's or P&Y's come from P.A.? compare that to midwest where the land owners set there own limits..I will take my chances in Kansas..ILL..Ohio.HEll i would bet M.D. has pa beat on quality deer harvested.Or change the gun season around and put doe season back to after gunning. All i can say is with the high price of everything now i glad my eastern shore farm is still available. Hope P.A.'s revenue is the lowest in history and we will see how fast you guys change your mind.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

My response was to BTB, not you. I agree with you that the HR which resulted from Alt's planned HR resulted in fewer antlerless tags in 2008 in 2F. The current plan is definitely driving nonresidents to hunt in other states.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Yep those are the canopy tree species used as indicators.

You indicated it was all based on a timber product so I have to ask when was the last time you saw anyone using black gum, willow, hackberry, aspen, black locust, cottonwood, Kentucy coffee tree or catalpa for a timber product?

But, that doesn’t mean those are the only species that become part of the total habitat evaluation.

Here are some of the things required in the Job Description for those hired to do the plot evaluations.

* Record sample point information including, but not limited to, slope, aspect, terrain position, cover type, crown closure, and percent coverage of under story species, grass, forbs, ferns, and deciduous shrubs.

* Measure and record species variables including, but not limited to, species, DBH, height to 4-inch and 8-inch top, merchantable stem, percent cull, crown class, crown condition, damage/cause of death, tree history, tree class, log grades, and total height.

* Identify and estimate percent cover of herbaceous plants (ferns, shrubs, vines, and tree regeneration) on fivemil-acre plots.

* Assist in the development and implementation of data management procedures, standards, formats, and summaries for forest/vegetative inventories as directed by the forester/crew leader.

*Maintain and update index information describing plot status and history.

*Edit and correct plot tree data.

*Update plot and tree records.

* Calculate standard summaries of plot and tree data.

Why do you suppose they listedgrass, forbs, fern, deciduous shrubs, vines, etc. in the job description and requirements if they don’t evaluate anything but canopy and marketable trees like you say?

Certainly the tree species are of the most concern, (partly because of the forest value but also because woody browse comes from trees and that is what deer eat through the winter) but that isn’t the only thing they index or consider in the plot evaluations.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Now we have covered the species prevalent in densely forested regions, lets discuss edge habitat, and agricultural land, and the difference in CC between forested landscape, and mixed agricultural lands. PA, after all, isn't one contiguous forest. Much of it is fragmented and mixed ag. land and very capable of supporting much higher DD than the current plan allows. Elk county for starters, as you should know that area quite well. And let's set aside the issues of regeneration, and reasons for HRfor a while, and simply discuss what you believe the CC of the habitat to be in agricultural portions of Elk county. we'll get to the rest later.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Now that is a very good summary of why the current plan is a total failure. None of it goals have been realized other than reduce the herd to certify the forests. I've yet to see anyone from the PGC answer these glaring inconsistencies. WCO RJ won't or can't...said to ask a biologist. What will you tell us,RSB?

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

I am still waiting for the list that includes blackberry, raspberry,hobblebush ,greenthorn grasses and forbes.

A job description just describes what duties an employee may be ask to perform. It does not mean that those employees used all those skills to evaluate every plot that is surveyed. What you should have posted is the protocol which describes the actual procedure used by those doing the survey, not their job description.

Furthermore , I ask Dr. Rosenberrry if they evaluated the survey plots for the affects of competing vegetation that may prevent regeneration and he said that was not part of the criteria for the surveys.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Desperate nitpicking. Is that your best response?

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

No, my best response was actually posting the criteria used to determine successful regeneration and listing the species of trees included in the survey. ALL RSB could do is post a meaningless job description and claim I didn't know what I was talking about.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

The job description did an absolutely great job of describing what is being done.What part did you have difficulty understanding?

Yes, and your point is?

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

The job description did not describe what is being done, the survey protocol describes what is being done. What part did you have difficulty understanding?

The point is I provided the description of how the surveys are conducted ,where as RSB provided the qualifications of those doing the surveys.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

So what fundamental difference in what was to be done do you expect to see?

You are really getting desperate with your little smoke and mirror tactics

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

I don't expect to see any fundamental difference it what is being done. The PGC established the criteria based on replacement of the commercially valuable trees that were harvested so they are measuring forest health not habitat health. That is why there is no correlation between forest health and deer health.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

RSB, pgcs herd increase prevention plan is extreme and effective. That herd will not be permitted to increase and I dont care what the habitats like.

Too many built in escape buttons for them to push to keep FEWER deer not more. TO start with on ground zero,using the "forested square mile" deer densities which take ZERO into account some of the VERY BEST deer habitat that exists period. Reverting abandonedfarm and pastureland, end habitat, brambles, other browse covered areas other than woody, and yes at least a portion of farm pasture and cropfield as well. Then they setvague unchallengable conditions that must be met. Usually if one is met another is not. If all are, then they simply structured the cac in a way to make any real widespread increase nearly impossible. Then, if the eco-weiners dont hold up their end, pgc simply raises the initial criteria. Ex. Higher herd health ratings necessary to increase herd. You said you look for that to happen in the future. And while it is FAR from needed as I stated, I wouldnt doubt for that to happen. We were promised herd growth when the habitat can support it (which is a sham in the first place) but what better way to break that promise than to raise herd health goals to prevent that from happening?

Also you mistakenly or deceptively lumped "fair health ratings and "poor" rating together. Pgc doesnt do that, neither should we. According to pgc, FAIR is ACCEPTABLE. And of course GOOD is acceptable....POOR is NOT ACCEPTABLE rating...;) THerefore the HUGE MAJORITY of our states herd health is fair and good AND acceptable.;) Just trying to clear up the spreading of inaccuracies and/or mistruths.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

The cacs are a joke put into place by an anti-deer pro-ecoextremist pgc.

It was simply one more nearlyinsurmountablehurdle for hunters to bang their heads off of. Put into place to effectively prevent any real increases to our deer herd.

Considering how it was structured, it pretty much highlights the current pgc/hunter relations....Nonexistant.

First they keep hunters voice on the committee to a minimum.

Then, and more importantly, They were set up so its near impossble for increase and EXTREMELY EASY to prevent it. No matter how many people are actually on the cac or how many people they represent all it takes is TWO to say no increase and there automatically will be NONE...No ands ifs or buts.

To illustrate clearly, if there were only 12 ecoweiners in the entire wmu and 2 of them bothered to show up every five yearsfor the cac to say "kill the deer", they could very easily prevent ANY herd growth for the next 30 years, regardless of any habitat conditions or anything else.

On the other hand, if 8 out of 10 wanted herd increase, thanks to pgcs antideer forethought in structuring, its just too darn bad for the 8! [8D]

No democracy. No majority rule. No reasonable percentage rule. Just kill those deer, and when youre done, kill some more. When the anti-deer structured cac is added to all the other "stops" pgc has implemented, its easy to see, we aint gonna willingly EVER be given a reasonable herd increase period.

Thats why we need change and a completely overhauled management agency. Solution: Write ourlegislators and tell them to NOT SUPPORT the license fee increase, and tell them you DO NOT SUPPORT our current deer plan sham. Many others have already and so far its working. Just a matter of time, the legislators "staying the course" and hope that the Marcellus cash pgc gets from"our" gamelesslands is at rock bottomminimum.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

That is the problem, the PGC doesn't evaluate the total habitat. They only evaluate forest habitat based on the regeneration of the dominant , high canopy tree species.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

You mean $$$$ trees.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Actually the PGC choose to choose the tree grouping that was not limited to commercially valuable trees.


However, it should be noted that since in the vast majority of cases ,only commercially valuable trees are harvested, those are the species that DCNR and the PGC would like to see regenerating.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Edges are highly preferred habitat for not only the white-tail deer but many other species of wildlife as well. Where their existence is of quality browse species the edges benefit deer by providing good foods that both sustain a higher deer population and a higher fawn recruitment rate. Those factors can be influential in the improvement of the current deer herd health rates where they exist in sufficient quantity and quality.

I not only believe but know that active farmland, provided it is maintained as such, is of great value to the deer during the spring and summer months. I also know that those same lands have little to no value to the deer when they are covered with two of snow for extended periods of time. That is why we have to healthy forest habitats mixed with that farmland to support high deer populations on a year round bases year after year.

It doesn’t matter how mush farmland food is available during the nine or ten months of the spring through fall. If deer don’t have food that other two or three months they die before they can produce the next year’s fawns. Even if they do marginally survive with little food they don’t produce surviving fawns that year.

So the bottom line is that without healthy forests you will not have many deer, for the long term though you might during short term periods of ideal conditions, no matter how much farmland is available.

R.S Bodenhorn

PS: I’ll address some of the other comments in this thread tomorrow or when ever I get time over the next few days, if time happens to be something that is available.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

And ouragricultural areasare covered with two feetof snow for extended periods of time, how often? More often than western New York? More often than Ohio? More often than Nebraska, or Illinois, or lower Michigan? None of these states are setting management goals of 5 or 6 dpsm, as was the case inparts ofPA. Why? Are their deer suffering extensive winter kills? Were ours?

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

"Edges are highly preferred habitat for not only the white-tail deer but many other species of wildlife as well. Where their existence is of quality browse species the edges benefit deer by providing good foods that both sustain a higher deer population and a higher fawn recruitment rate. Those factors can be influential in the improvement of the current deer herd health rates where they exist in sufficient quantity and quality. "

And they are not counted asdeer habitat by pgc when speaking of deer per forested square mile. And thats rediculous.


"I not only believe but know that active farmland, provided it is maintained as such, is of great value to the deer during the spring and summer months. I also know that those same lands have little to no value to the deer when they are covered with two of snow for extended periods of time. That is why we have to healthy forest habitats mixed with that farmland to support high deer populations on a year round bases year after year. "

Agreed, but you are simply circumventing the issue. That being that most farmland is not at all considered by pgc.

"It doesn’t matter how mush farmland food is available during the nine or ten months of the spring through fall."

Sure it does.A deer can put on far more body mass and fat in farmland, leading into the winter. Not to mention corn or grain that is "missed"or dropped which deer utilize heavily even later into the year.

Also,this "habitat type" also takes some of the pressure off of the browse throughout at least part of the year, leaving more for winter. Also, the man-made openings, even after being harvested or covered in snow provide much browse in the "edge" habitat that has been created, which doesnt exist in near the amounts in solid blocks of mature or poletimber. Blackberry, greenbriar,and much other quality browse exists because of broken habitat...along the edge, as well as reverting farmland not in use etc. Most Farmland would be better quality deer habitat YEAR ROUND, than solid timber,even if man never planted a single seedonthat farmlandforyears. Also throw in the fact farmland is usually broken into far more "ownerships" than "bigwoods", and that leads to more deer friendly timbering practices.

"If deer don’t have food that other two or three months they die before they can produce the next year’s fawns. Even if they do marginally survive with little food they don’t produce surviving fawns that year. "

And according to pgcs reproduction data, it hasnt been a problem. Andnow that the herd has beenpummeled, it should be about the farthest worry from your mind.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Are you a farmer Cornelius?

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Thanks for saving me a lot of typing. You and SS hit every point I was going to make. The only thing I could think of adding would be for RSB to provide an example where severe winter weather produced a significant winterkill and decreased fawn recruitment in the southeast portion of the state over the last 45 years.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

"Are you a farmer Cornelius?"

I know exactly where you are headed, and there is no point to be made there. Nope, Im not. But I have family members and friends who are. And they arent much happier about the deer situation than I, becausethey toohunt. Being a farmer doesnt automatically make one "anti-deer". Deer season is aVERY popular event here.

And if one is, they have many options at theirdisposal. Dmap, redtag, andnew regulations where they can whack the deer 24 hrs a day.

Most I know dont suffer unacceptable losses (and thats in supposedlyone of the best deer areas of the state)andsomeeven plant a little extra just forthe deer.

Aside from crops like corn etc, Also many pasture fields, clover etc. are heavily utilized by deer and any mal-effects are not noticable. Because of the nature of the forage species themselves as well as the fact we've had MUCH higher deer numbers for a long time than we do now.

In this wmu the reverting farm fields and pastures etc outnumber active crop fields but it doesnt really matter, even those these provide great deer food and habitat, they arent counted either...

Fact is a very few wanted so many less deer. Most were fine as it was. SOme saw need for some reduction. Very few approve of the extremes we've gone to.

And like it or not, deer utilize the farmland. To not consider it is simply anti-deer pgc doin' their thing and business as usual.

Bluebird, sorry, didnt mean to "talk for you" but I saw some points to be made and couldnt resist the "easy pickens". It was just hangin' there likea fat juicy apple hanging overone of our starving Pennsylvania does noses.LOLOL.;)

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

You weren't talking for me, you were talking for the vast majority of PA hunters who know that the habitat can support a lot more deer than the PGC will allow. I really appreciate the fact that you and SS did such a good job explaining why our areas of mixed farmland and forests can support a lot more deer than the PGC says it can support.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

That's what I thought. Because no full time farmer would want 30 - 40 DPSM.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

If the farmer and his family were hunters,do you believe you statement would be true? If the farmer wasn't a hunter how many,ground hogs, rabbits ,squirrels ,geese and crows do you think he would want feeding on his crops? How much does the average farmer spend to control weeds,corn borer and alfalfa leaf hopper? Do you think the average farmer would pay an equal amount to a hunter to control the deer,crows,groundhogs or geese on his land or would he be more likely to charge the hunter for controlling those species.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

That statement is simply false. Many farms are becoming prime deer hunting real estate, as the buck fever in the midwest spreads eastward, and especially with deer herds so low on much of the public land. A farmer with a good deer population stands to make a profit from the potential revenue that hunting can generate. Leases and trespass fees are becoming as much a part of deer hunting today, as thirty- thirties and Woolrich plaid were years ago. Not to mention, as Cornelius said earlier, a high percentage of farmers are deer hunters as well, and for most, it is a family affair. I have to say i've heard as many farmers complaining about the low deer numbers as anyone. I know of atleast three farms that have temporarily restricted doe hunting, to allow the deer to increase. All three are large grain and dairy operations. All three at some point in time did kill for crop damage, and atleast one of them was previously enrolled in a red tag program. All three farmers hunt themselves. All three regret killing as many deer as they did over the last ten years. 35-40 dpsm? maybe at one time. Maybe it was higher. At this point it's only speculation. But Alsheimer's figure is not excessivefor a good agricultural area. What do you suppose DD are in Buffalo Co, WI, or Pike Co, ILL?

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Pgc wants us to believe every farmer wants less deer, every home owner wants less deer, every timberman wants less deer and over half the hunters want less deer. Guess thats why they have been sued, petitioned relentlessly (including by farmers and timbermen who hunt), gonna be audited, and cannot get a dime increase thanks to government intervention on our behalf.

Cant support their fatally flawed program and extreme herd reduction with the data and facts, so have to go the "human conflict route". Problem is,here, even by pgcs own assessment a few years ago on the annual report, the human conflict was listed as "LOW". And to my personal knowledge, always was... Yet the herd is still being "beaten" by obscene tag numbers previously and ever since.

Like I said, farmers who do want fewer deer have options. IF they dont want 35-40 dpsm, thats fine. Dmap, redtags,and the new shoot'em up legislation they have recently been given will effectively prevent that condition on their square milage, and probably a few of the surrounding to boot.;) Farmers who want fewer deer own very tiny percentage of this state, and not an acceptable excuse to hold tens of thousands of square miles far below cc.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Apparently you don’t understand that with the present deer management objectives and program all habitat available to the deer is taken into consideration. Obviously from his comments Bluebird either doesn’t understand it or wants to misrepresent it too. So I will once again explain how it works so people can see that you guys are mistaken in your opinions and your comments.

Under the old system of managing deer based on the over winter deer per square mile densities on forest land your argument that only forested habitat was considered would have been correct but that is not how it is done today.

Now all habitat available to the deer is being considered because the health of the deer is part of the management direction. Since deer herd health is determined by the adult doe reproductive rates obviously all of the habitat available to the doe being examined is being considered. If that doe had good enough food, whether it was forest habitat, farm crop habitat or someone’s garden or shrubs it was all considered as food eaten by that doe and used by her to either be healthy enough or not healthy enough to produce the number fawns she was carrying.

So deer herd health is presently being evaluated for ALL existing habitat all over the state. At least that is true on the surface though there is still more to it that the deer might not be able to tell us with just that reproductive rate data. Since the reproductive rate data only counts the number of fawns that dead doe was carrying at the time she died it doesn’t really tell us if those fawns were going to be born at the required weight to have survived after they were born. It doesn’t matter how many were born if the majority of them die within days of being born, When that happens they are just as none existent as if they had never been born. That is why other factors, such as forest health, also need to be factored into that same equation when determining if all is well or if things are still too tentative to allow the herd to increase.

But the fact is that all deer habitat and food is now part of the total deer management equation and not just forested habitat as a few of you are advocating.

You also seem to place a lot more credence to the word “acceptable” deer herd health then I do. What is acceptable to man might very well not be so acceptable to the deer this year should we have a bad winter with deep prolonged periods of snow cover. All that acceptable means is that the adult does were within a mid range level of reproductive rates. What those reproductive rates don’t tell you though is if those fawns are at the correct birth weight to survive after they are born. If they die a day or two after they are born, as often happens in marginal habitat, then having that “acceptable” rating didn’t help the deer population at all.

It is also concerning that the deer that get sampled are the ones living in the best habitat areas along the roads running through the farmlands and areas where hunters have always had the best access for keeping the deer numbers within the closest balance to the existing habitat. The deer that live far back in the remote areas, that never get their reproductive data sampled, might tell a very different story about just how acceptable their health and reproductive rates are.

“Acceptable” is a human definition and in this case simply based on a reproductive rate that is less then good even though it came from the deer sampled in the best areas. It might very well be that a high percentage of the deer living in the unit where the habitat isn’t as good wouldn’t agree with the acceptable rating if don’t find the habitat as acceptable as you do.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

That is a half truth. Forest health is the otherhalf of the deer mgt equation, and recent evidence is showing that the two are not as closely relative as once thought. The problem, is that the PGC is putting more emphasis on the forest health than the herd health. A WMU with fair or good herd health is not permitted to increase unless forest health is also at it's goal. We are seeing from the data, that the two have not increased in tandem, as the plan projected. In fact in some areas, breeding rates have decreased. The recent wildlife report presents a solid case against the plan.
Are you implying that through our deer mgt practices, we can completely take nature out of the equation? Is that what we are trying to do here? Odd, severe winters have been a part of our climate for thousands of years. You constantly reference these killer winters, and assume deer cannot paw through moderately deep snows, to reach mast and agricultural food sources underneath. Deer actually do quite well, as long as a thick ice crust does not develop. Such weather events are comparatively rare, and cannot be a determing factor in determining CC. Mother nature always holds the ace, after all. As far as deer fetal studies, are you implying that though we can accurately determine conception dates of fetuses, we lack the technology to weight the fetus, measure that weight against a known average, and project, based on the health of the adult doe, the approximate birth weight of the fawn? Incredible. I'll concede to you on the limited data base leaning toward deer sampling in more populated areas, but it would be a simple matter for the PGC to initiate similar studies in more remote pockets of habitat, incorporating bait sites, use of tranquilizers, or in some cases limited harvests for the sake of science. More than likely, cooperation with universities, and sportsmen's groups could even offset the costs of further research. There really are no valid excuses why their fetal sampling is still confined to populated areas. Claim lack of funds, but if they don't make more effort to please their customer, and stop telling us half truths to defend their flawed plan, they are just not going to get those funds. And our legislators will make sure of it.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

RSB says: "Apparently you don’t understand that with the present deer management objectives and program all habitat available to the deer is taken into consideration."

No itis not. Far from it. And you either dont understand my position or intentionally try to distort it.Pgc is quite decietful when they post deer density figures on their annual reports etc. When they say for example 20 dpfsm, that number is LESS than that, because they do not consider all the available habitat, especially in broken habitat and farm country.ITs very deceptive in thatItbloats the figure, and thats the intent. When all habitat were considered, the more realistic actual numbers are then seen LOWER, in some cases significantly so.

Despite your attempts to discredit...I know all about the herd health, as you could easily tell by my posts stating pgcs data which shows that there isnt a problem and in most areas never was. When breeding rates overall havent gone up but declined, shows there never was.


"Since the reproductive rate data only counts the number of fawns that dead doe was carrying at the time she died it doesn’t really tell us if those fawns were going to be born at the required weight to have survived after they were born."

Pgc uses the data of embryocounts etc. as herd health indicators. Once again, obviously due tosome apparent antideeragenda, even more extreme than pgc's own, you dont agree with them, and Im surprised you claim to agree with their deer program when you seldom if ever agree with them on ANYTHING. I agree with most basic principals, yet dont support the unwarranted slaughter that goes above and beyondsimply to cater tooutside interests. I also agree that generally speaking the herd health indicators they use are acceptable. I doagree with pgc, thatin an unhealthy herd, less embryos would be carried in the first place, than is found to currently be the case.

"You also seem to place a lot more credence to the word “acceptable” deer herd health then I do."

Thats because Im well awarePgc isVERY conservative in their data collection and analysiswhen consideringthe variablesthat could be seen as supporting more deer to exist. (LOL)

"What is acceptable to man might very well not be so acceptable to the deer this year should we have a bad winter with deep prolonged periods of snow cover."

Acceptable is acceptable.Man, In this case PGC has determined what they deem acceptable and not acceptable towards those deer. Not my term and not my parameters. Pgcrates "fair" as acceptable. That doesnt mean that rating will never improve. Itjust means we will wait and see, not take extreme measures.

"All that acceptable means is that the adult does were within a mid range level of reproductive rates."

And thats fine and dandy. we didnt need to rape the herd by over 50% in some areas when that was the case all along based on those herd health criteria.

"What those reproductive rates don’t tell you though is if those fawns are at the correct birth weight to survive after they are born. If they die a day or two after they are born, as often happens in marginal habitat, then having that “acceptable” rating didn’t help the deer population at all. "

Thats your theory and nothing more. To insinuate that on average habitat and herd health this would be a problem is absurd. IF you were speaking solely of the worst of the worst, Id venture a grudging maybe. But then these days, according to pgc data that isnt the case much of anywhere. In many places it never was. Again, you are only emphasizing your problems with pgcs deer management. Your concerns would be better voiced to Rosenberry, though I dont think he will be any more concerned with this doom and gloom theory than I.

"It is also concerning that the deer that get sampled are the ones living in the best habitat areas along the roads running through the farmlands and areas where hunters have always had the best access for keeping the deer numbers within the closest balance to the existing habitat. The deer that live far back in the remote areas, that never get their reproductive data sampled, might tell a very different story about just how acceptable their health and reproductive rates are."

Again...another problem YOU have withPGCS deer plan. Sounds to me like you should join USP. Isnt that why they are suing the commission?Insufficient reproductive dataetc. to support the program?Honestly seemsto melike you agree with them 100%, only the end product you disagree on. You wanna see fewer deer they want more. But you both agree on theunacceptable management of the deer herd and techniques being utilized. I actually dont have that problem with them so much as a problem with overkill that isnt supported by the data, and basically going above and beyond to cater to people like audubon etc.

"It might very well be that a high percentage of the deer living in the unit where the habitat isn’t as good wouldn’t agree with the acceptable rating if don’t find the habitat as acceptable as you do."

They have no problems with it anywhere in the wmu where Im from. Period. Never a poor rating. Fair, but Id put it with the best in the state. Apparently pgc did as well when they made it a 4 point area instead of 3. Herd was very healthy previously, and habitat just peachy. Now that we've since been sniped down by over 50-60% owdd, Id say we have as much toworry about deer herd health here now, as does the manon the moon....We are now supposed to be in stabilization mode...Yet the obscene allocation here, more than issued to reduce previouslytells another tale.