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 10-31-2008, 04:34 PM
  #441  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul



Year……………….1 ½ year old buck harvest……………….2 ½ and older bucks harvested
1998.……………………146,700.………… ……………….......34,749
1999.……………………155,429.………… ……………….......38,942
2000.……………………165,960.………… ……………….......37,261
2001.……………………159,392.………… ……………….......43,855
2002.……………………112,809.………… ……………….......52,607
2003.…………………….80,276.………… ………………........61,994
2004.…………………….62,011.………… ………………........62,399
2005.…………………….62,540.………… ………………........57,961
2006.…………………….75,762.………… ………………........59,528
2007.…………………….61,152.………… ………………........48,048

As anyone being objective can see from the comparison of the number of 1 ½ year old bucks being harvested in the years prior to 2002 and those harvested during the 2002 season it is simply not realistic to believe that 50% of the 1 ½ year old bucks were protected from harvest in that 2002 season.
We harvested 52.6K 2.5+ buck in 2002 so at least 65K buck had to be carried over from 2001. If you add the 65K buck carried over to the 1.5 buck harvested of 159K you get a PS 1.5 buck population of 224K 1.5 buck. if we had the same number of PS 1.5 buck in 2002 as in 2001 then the 2002 harvest did in fact protect 50% of the 1.5 buck.


One other thing that any objective person should be able to see is just how Bluebird cherry picks data and misrepresents it in order to make it seem like it supports his misguided agenda when in reality it doesn’t support his point if you fully evaluate and understand the real facts and the rest of the story along with the data.

Any objective person would also note how RSB tries to use data from 2G with the lowest harvest rates in the state as representative of the entire state. The simple fact is that the NC counties of 2G constitute a small percentage of the buck killed statewide and the conditions that effect the buck harvest in 2G are not representative of the rest of the state.
bluebird2 is offline  
Old 10-31-2008, 07:25 PM
  #442  
RSB
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 147
Default RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul

ORIGINAL: fellas2

Hard winters of 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 in Greene County ??? Not to my recollection.In fact,I can't remember the last hard winter we had there.
It's hard to remember the last time it snowed there and lasted for more than a couple of days.Deer manage to survive in states with 10 times worse winters than we have in PA so I don't think you can blame the winters in SW PA for that.

What kind of misrepresentation scam are you trying to pull with that post?

No where in my recent post, that you are responding to, did I say anything about hard winters in Greene County. I know Greene County isn’t normally affected by winter snows. Since the set of data was statewide and the other data for Elk County I don’t know how you could have equated the data to having anything of any significance to do with anything in Greene County.

But, since you frequently bring up Greene County I looked up the data for Greene County and unit 2A, where Greene County is located, and I simply don’t see one thing about the harvests in Greene County or unit 2A that indicate any major reduction in the deer population.

Over the past five years unit 2A has had the second highest antler less deer harvests per square mile in the entire state and the highest buck harvests per square mile in the state. That certainly doesn’t support all of or any of the yammering around being done about poor hunting or low deer numbers in Greene County.

All that is occurring in Greene County, and unit 2A, is good deer management that is working to maintain a deer harvest that safeguards the deer food supply in the unit so you can always have good deer numbers. It is presently working too. But, if the deer management were left topeople like you the habitat and deer numbers there would soon be nearly as bad as it is in parts of the northern tier.

R.S. Bodenhorn
RSB is offline  
Old 10-31-2008, 08:00 PM
  #443  
RSB
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 147
Default RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul

ORIGINAL: bluebird2

Year……………….1 ½ year old buck harvest……………….2 ½ and older bucks harvested
1998.……………………146,700.………… ……………….......34,749
1999.……………………155,429.………… ……………….......38,942
2000.……………………165,960.………… ……………….......37,261
2001.……………………159,392.………… ……………….......43,855
2002.……………………112,809.………… ……………….......52,607
2003.…………………….80,276.………… ………………........61,994
2004.…………………….62,011.………… ………………........62,399
2005.…………………….62,540.………… ………………........57,961
2006.…………………….75,762.………… ………………........59,528
2007.…………………….61,152.………… ………………........48,048

As anyone being objective can see from the comparison of the number of 1 ½ year old bucks being harvested in the years prior to 2002 and those harvested during the 2002 season it is simply not realistic to believe that 50% of the 1 ½ year old bucks were protected from harvest in that 2002 season.
We harvested 52.6K 2.5+ buck in 2002 so at least 65K buck had to be carried over from 2001. If you add the 65K buck carried over to the 1.5 buck harvested of 159K you get a PS 1.5 buck population of 224K 1.5 buck. if we had the same number of PS 1.5 buck in 2002 as in 2001 then the 2002 harvest did in fact protect 50% of the 1.5 buck.


One other thing that any objective person should be able to see is just how Bluebird cherry picks data and misrepresents it in order to make it seem like it supports his misguided agenda when in reality it doesn’t support his point if you fully evaluate and understand the real facts and the rest of the story along with the data.

Any objective person would also note how RSB tries to use data from 2G with the lowest harvest rates in the state as representative of the entire state. The simple fact is that the NC counties of 2G constitute a small percentage of the buck killed statewide and the conditions that effect the buck harvest in 2G are not representative of the rest of the state.

You use far to many if’s in your thinking and your speculations of what might have been. The way you use the word “if” is pretty much as Roger Whittaker used the word “if’ in one of his songs.

In the song he says “IF” is for children building day dreams. That is about as far as “IF” will take a person in the world of calculating deer populations too.

There is nothing in the harvest data from 2002 that comes even marginally close to suggesting half of the existing 1 ½ year old bucks had been protected, unless you are goofy enough to believe that for some strange reason the number of 1 ½ year old bucks would suddenly increased by an astronomically large number for just that one year. Take a look at the 1 ½ year old bucks harvests from the 1998 to 2001 when we weren’t protecting any 1 ½ year old bucks with anything more then a three inch spike and we were harvesting between 80 and 90% of them each year. Then explain why they would have been so low as compared to the harvest of 2002 if we had indeed come close to harvesting 50% of the 1 ½ year old bucks in the population that year. Why would the number of 1 ½ year old bucks have jumped to such a high number being available for just that one year?

The fact is the number of 1 ½ year old bucks didn’t make any large increase for just that one year and therefore your mathematical wizardry is just another bunch of horse pucky make believe.

Furthermore, there is not one thing in my post that said anything about unit 2G. You make far to many assumptions while you obviously don’t know much about the geography of Elk County as it related to the WMU lines. If you paid a bit of attention to the WMU lines you might eventually figure out that you really don’t know what you are talking about concerning where the data I used from Elk County came from.

R.S. Bodenhorn
RSB is offline  
Old 11-01-2008, 06:38 AM
  #444  
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 48
Default RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul

You have a PM Mr RSB.
FiveMiler is offline  
Old 11-01-2008, 10:30 AM
  #445  
Giant Nontypical
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: PA.
Posts: 5,195
Default RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul

here in clinton/potter/cameron countys which i hunt for 47 years.

reason for huge decline in deer numbers is too all doe tags issued in last 10 years or so.
then in came all the coyotes, they are killing off the fawns week they are born.less deer/less fawns/even less more do to coyotes.

i seen it, have seen it,have 20 witnessess to it in bass tournament.

then penn statesays bears are doing it also.

then throw in hunters now that dont care if they shoot a fawn,i saw 2 fawns in back of DCNR EMPLOYEES PERSONELTRUCK LAST YEAR, he was happy as h about it.he filled his tags.[:@]

you know what somehunters call a fawn now,FURBALL.

my dad would break gun over your head if he saw you with FAWN.he had GRIT .

lack of deer is NOT do to habitat, i agree with RSB,cant believe i said that ,that HABITAT is bad in wmu2g but reason for CRASH in the deer is not habitat, its ALL DOE/DMAP TAGS THAT WERE ISSUED FOR AT LEAST 10 YEARS.

sproul has spoken!
sproulman is offline  
Old 11-01-2008, 01:14 PM
  #446  
Typical Buck
Thread Starter
 
4evrhtn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central PA
Posts: 829
Default RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul

Holy Moses! Jimminy Christmas!
Tag has been filled. This was only the 4th buck I have seen all season after sooo many hours of seeing very little this fella came in following a doe. She came to my food plot and ate while he stood downwind of her grunting every 30 secs or so. He was 65 yds out feeding when I grunted at him, he raised his head, looked around and went back to feeding. I grunted again and he came to a scrape 35 yds from me and freshened it up and thrashed the branches above it. I grunted a third time and he came to 15 yds pissed off stomping and growling (never heard that before). The G5 striker passed through both lungs, he managed to go approx 120 yds and dropped. The doe had no clue what happened and continued to feed for another 25 minutes before moving on and allowing me to climb down. He scored 112 5/8", tooth wear indicates 2 1/2 yr old. He weighed 225 pounds live weight.Didn't scoreashigh as my 8 point last year but I didn't have 205 hours to put into shooting a buck this year.Nowgoing to Ohio on Wednesday for a week and a half, hopefully I will have another picture to post.

http://uploadpicz.com/zman/UUXQ29W.jpg

11 scoreable points, 18 1/4" inside spread, total 112 5/8"
4evrhtn is offline  
Old 11-01-2008, 03:56 PM
  #447  
Fork Horn
 
fellas2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 175
Default RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul

Just a quick question RSB,do you work for either the PGC OR DNCR ?
fellas2 is offline  
Old 11-01-2008, 05:09 PM
  #448  
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Default RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul

"But, since you frequently bring up Greene County I looked up the data for Greene County and unit 2A, where Greene County is located, and I simply don’t see one thing about the harvests in Greene County or unit 2A that indicate any major reduction in the deer population."

Then you better look again. The data shows it clearly. Also, anyone living here can tell you, and I mean ANYONE that the highest years by far were the 90's. When you could drive down the road in a several mile area and see a hundred deer on a regular basis. Now you can drive the entire length of the county and see 10 or 12. Did we have too many deer then? Probably. The numbers were a bit extreme. Now? Ha ha ha. Hardly, but by stating this obvious fact, I still never inferred "there are no deer".

"Over the past five years unit 2A has had the second highest antler less deer harvests per square mile in the entire state and the highest buck harvests per square mile in the state."

1.Thats because we we still reducing the herd.
2. Those antlerless harvests of the reduction years werewhat has led us to a smaller herd.

AlsoYou like toadd in those years like 5 years ago 4, etc. when the herd was larger, and the harvests werent sustainable long term either. That skews the data to use that "convenient bundled together" collection of yearsand you know it. When you take that into account along with usbeing the best type habitat in the state, and the fact Most of the state has been reduced to extreme unnecessary levels, your statement of where the wmu places harvestwisedoesnt amount to much in the way of what is or isnt appropriate for the area. One would onlyEXPECT one of the best areas of the state would be within top 5 in harvests![8D] If not, then we'd have a SERIOUS problem all the way around.

"That certainly doesn’t support all of or any of the yammering around being done about poor hunting or low deer numbers in Greene County."

Numbers are decent. Could be higher, especially when using pgc guidlines on acceptable herd density (of course we all know they only apply when the equal LESS deer, not more).

Wehad someareas wiped out by ehd, which havent come back even close to previously yet, no do I expect they will for at least another year or two, as long as doe tags dont increase.

Aside from that, no reason in the worldforcontinued reduction and rediculousallocation when herd is claimed to be in the stabilization mode... Yet, once again, the harvest goals and the allocation is ABOVE what they were when theherd was being reduced.

Those are my problems with this management plan in this area. Please note: No yammering involved,no comment of "poor" hunting, or anything else. Simply the direction we are clearly taking stinks, we are being lied to, and we are already below what COULD and Should be had. Thats all. Nothing more nothing less.

"But, if the deer management were left topeople like you the habitat and deer numbers there would soon be nearly as bad as it is in parts of the northern tier."

Would never happen. Absoluteimpossibility as long as herd numbers did not exceed previoushigh levels. To insure this, reasonable reductions of 10-15%and stabilization at that point would have provided theperfectbalance. Would have been within cc, and would provide the most responsible level, including a better sustained buckharvest.

With our habitat type and conditions compared to the northern tier, we would have far far too many deer by anyones standards and past human conflict acceptability before ever coming close to destroying the habitat.

This is far from simply a 2A problem. In fact there are far worse off places in the state if speaking of huntable deer numbers and not just how fewer deer we have than the habitat can responsibly hold.

This is a statewide problem. Unnecessary blanket reduction. We all know why, and it has little to do with "herd health" or the sport of hunting. And EVERYTHING to do with catering to ecoweineys and interests like timber etc.

All one need do is google terms like "Pa deer management audubon" and see howinstrumental audubon has been in this whole sham....Then see how extremely exact the deer plan mirrors their suggestions.


Who has input into the use of gamelands usage? Audubon.
Who paid for the initial, start of it all, deer study?Audubon.
Who has made gamelands and sf designated as not one, not 2, not 12, but 83 special bird areas, which entail management strategies that might not be conducive to game management, even though hunters bought the game lands? Audubon
Who has had the inside track and been part of every decision making process in regards to our deer plan? Audubon.
Who is Roxy Palone and a couple other commissioners favorite conservation organization... Audubon.
Who wants even lower deer numbers than most timbermen and farmers? Audubon.
Who is pgcs favorite "hunters" organization to ask when they want the answer they want to hear so they can have a showing of manufactured support among hunters even though many arent even hunters? PFSC. Which now added the ending ...AND CONSERVATIONISTS. Whichis basicallynonhunting extreme conservationists.. Which includes audubon.

Im just wondering if once Pallone and schliedens terms expire very soon, if we will get lucky and get "pro-hunting" representation. I doubt that it would be permitted, considering who has majority control of the governors advisory council these days, as well as a few of the Senators who are like minded. Would be nice to have at least some say for a change, like being heard when demandingresponsible deer management, which IS possible while still considering the well being and future of oursport and management toolwhich ishunting itself.
In a state with so deeply engrained a passion for huntingcompared to the rest of the nation, to have our numbers dropping at over twice the national average because of an ecoextreme agenda is completely unacceptable.
Cornelius08 is offline  
Old 11-01-2008, 05:12 PM
  #449  
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Default RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul

Fellas, yes he does. He is a Pa game commission employee. WCO. How could you tell? LOL
Cornelius08 is offline  
Old 11-01-2008, 05:18 PM
  #450  
Fork Horn
 
fellas2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 175
Default RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul

NUFF SAID ! I figures as much.I can't believe they got him to believe that baloney to the point where he recites it online.
fellas2 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.