|
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
Definitely some serious PGC numbers here not adding up! Let's blame the financial status for the bad math.
|
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
Dead fawns don’t result in increasing deer numbers no matter how you wish they did. Herd health is not based on fawn recruitment. It probably should be, but there presently is no way of accurately measuring the recruitment from year to year, so they have to use what is available. Fawn recruitment is the important factor and herd health is not based on recruitment and only looks at the number of embryos. That is why you can have data that indicates excellent herd health and still have almost no surviving fawns for the ye If the PGC couldn't estimate recruitment ,they couldn't tell if the herd was increasing or decreasing and they would have no idea how many antlerless tags to issue each year. WMU 2g is a prime example of how it works. After the 2006 the PGC said the herd in 2G increased by 42% so the PGC increased the antlerless allocation from 19,000 in 2006 to 26,000 in 2007. Here is a quote from the 2005-2006 AWR which explains how they use the SAK model to calculate fawn recruitment rates. The modified SAK procedure began by estimating males 2.5 years of age and older from harvest estimates and adult male harvest rates. Once the population of males 2.5 years of age and older were estimated, we determined the 1.5-year-old male population. Because protection levels of 1.5-year-old males varied among WMUs and harvest rates could also vary, we worked back in time to generate harvest rates for 1.5-year-old males. First, we determined the pre-hunt population of 1.5-year-old males in the preceding year using current year population estimate of 2.5-year-old males, survival rate from 1.5 to 2.5 years of age, and estimated harvest of 1.5-year-old males in the preceding year. Harvest rate of 1.5-year-old males from the preceding year was then calculated using the pre-hunt population and estimated harvest of 1.5-year-old males. Current year population of 1.5-year-old males was determined using a 3-year running average of harvest rates of 1.5-year-old males from the 3 previous years. Following determination of the 1.5-year-old males and males 2.5 years of age and older, calculation of female, fawn, and the total populations followed procedures similar to Skalski and Millspaugh (2002 |
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
RSB,i have 3 doe and 4 fawns and 1, 3 point buck in my yard.
my area is protected from coyotes ,so far and i allow NO HUNTING. THESE DEER STAY HERE ALL WINTER AND SOME GET HIT BY CARS. now, out in tamarack areai have relatives. they have corn planted and soybeans and deer have it nice all year getting fat and sassy. yet, NO FAWNS. they hear all kinds of coyotes barking in around june 15th area,they said doe running scared and swimming streams to get away. i saw 2 fawns killed within 1 hr at alvin bush dam in the middle of day, noon,while we were fishing in our bass tournaments,the sound was awful. 5 mother doe swam the lake to get away. the vice president of USP was a STATE EMPLOYEE working dcnr at park.his name was don clemmer,he also lives there too. he stated to us he saw it and saw it many times in tamarack area. he said barking is always heavy around time the fawns are born.. RSB , i have pictures on my trail camera of 2 coyotes attacked 3 doe while they were feeding on pipeline in my area at 10.15 pm last week. those doe did not return until 1.30 am that morning and were very spooky lifting their heads,not calm at all. these were full grown deer. i feel from what i see and hear that in wmu2g reason for lack of fawns is early doe season in oct and coyotes killing fawnsand hunters shooting what is left. ALSO, i interviewd many muzzleloader late season hunters and they said they found baby fawns in doe they killed,WE WOULD NEVER SHOOT A DOE IN LATE MUZZLELOADER SEASON, ONLY BUCKS. gary alt sat at our table with state rep hanna,he stated to SPROUL,he said, the early doe seasonin oct will REDUCE the number of fawns bigtime. he also said for this to work,HUNTERS MUST LET THE FAWNS LIVE,that aint happening. he also said,KILL OLD DOE AS THEY ARE ONES THAT HAVE 2 FAWNS OR MOST OF FAWNS. RSB, WE DONT HAVE MANY OLD DOE LEFT, MOST I SEE ARE 2 YEAR OLD OR LESS DOE. i agree with you, if doe does not have good food,they will not be healthy BUT wmu2g has had deer herd reduce so low, acorns were rotting on ground UNTIL THIS YEAR. STILL IS plenty of feed for deer that are left to be healthy.in area i hunt, i feel i have about 3 to 4 deer in a 2 mile area but you can go to 2 miles away, no deer . now, i have more hunters in my area than i ever had,i had 6 on my camera in 3 days,all scouting those 3 doe that are left. this is why i dont hunt doe but in comes other hunters and they clean area out and move on. how are we ever to manage this so we have deer if hunters kill off what is left in area and move on,we already have miles of area with feed and no deer and many more are going to be cleaned out this year as hunters go WHERE DEER ARE NOW.:eek:+ doe i see are healthy looking,but no fawns. same with SGL252,greatest habitat for deer,PGC does a great job there,but hunt there like i do for pheasants,very few sign of deer, no poo and very few buck rubs etc. locals say ITS SHOT OUT. go 5 miles away,100s of deer on the rockview prison, fawns all over,lots of deer but habitat is no where near as good as the PGC SGL252. why, its privateland and they shoot a coyote if they see one BIGGEST PREDATORS ARE COYOTE ANDFILL TAGS HUNTERS AND THROW IN BEAR ALSO and you have reason why lack of fawns.;) |
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
"You claim that 2A is not a metropolitan unit but I say horse puckey. From my perspective as compared to unit 2G it is a very metropolitan unit"
He he he. No my friend. Its not "metropolitan" by any stretch. Just because you compare it to the "wilderness" of the big woods to suit your needs STILL does not make it "metropolitan" and that isTHEE DUMBEST self serving comment Ive ever heard you make and thats saying a bunch!!! "And, buy the way I am pretty familiar with unit 2A. I have worked in Washington and Greene Counties and I have hunted in Allegheny and Washington Counties." Ive lived, worked and hunted here for 40 years. Youlive halfway across the state and made rediculous claims! (LOL) BTW, ALLEGHENY COUNTY which IS a "metro" area is in 2B NOT 2A. ALsothe only fragment of Washington county is the most rural area of the county.South of theslightly urban area. Greene, the entire county is in 2A and the biggest "city" LOL is Waynesburg Pa.....Better check out the population of that major "metropolis" LOL!!! Half of Fayette, which isnt exactly full of "city slickers"! (LOL)(LOL).....and as stated, Pgc has said HUMAN CONFLICT: LOW![8D][8D][8D] Get a grip RSB. You are reaching far and wide now! PGC doesnt consider it an urban area, and has stated such. In fact, NOONE does or should. But you like to think far FAR outside the box! (LOL)[8D] "I have been in all of the counties that make up unit 2A and have seen how metropolitian it is as compared to unit 2G." You can comparethe huge majority of the wmus to 2G and theywill have higher populus than one of the very leastpopulated in the state! (LOL) Big deal!!Whatdoes that prove other than you wanna decieveanyone and everyone into thinking anywhere but "the big woods" is urban, and thatthere is somereason for the madness when there clearly isnt! BTW, the habitat in 2A can, and should support more deer than any of the big woods areas. The harvests are also reducing the herd in 2a. Have been, and continue to. "Now go ahead and explain to everyone how it is that the deer herd can’t increase in 2G because we have been harvesting too many does." Quite simple. Much smaller herd, takes muchsmaller harvest to reduce it. "Then go ahead and tell us again how they have reduced the deer population by 50% in 2a yet the hunters are still harvesting so many more deer. " The tag level has increased by over 15,000 since 45,000 tags reduced it previously, which is why it didnt initially decline. The harvest has NOT continued to increase either, but has decreased. PGC's own data shows that the herd decreased from 69 dpfsm-owin greene county, and 74 in Wash, down to21-30 ow, or an average of 25owdpfsm in wmu2A. Dont shoot the messenger.;) "The facts simply don’t bear out your opinions. But like a lot of others I guess you think opinions should carry more weight then facts? " he hehe. Like yours? And 2A being "metropolitan"? LOLOLOL! Or our herd not having been reduced when even Pgc says so? When EVERYONE even those satisfied with the plan admit to seeing 3 to 5 times less deer? When even the people for less deer on the cac said they believe the herd to be "decreasing"? RSB, I think Ive lost just about the last shred of respect Ive had for your "opinions". No way you can be taken seriously after your last compilation of unsubstantiated completeramblings. UNBELIEVABLE! (LOL) |
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
....This just in....From the great "metropolis" of 2a! (LOL)(LOL)
According to 2000 census. Greene County Pa ----- 40,672 Elk County Pa----------- 35,112 Now Rsb, THIS is a metropolitan area, (and not in 2A!)-- Allegheny Co.-----------1,281,666 The only other "pieces" of 2a are just that. Pieces of other counties, andWash for example is the rural part, and not to be confused with the more populated areasto the north.Id hardly call Fayette a "metropolis" either.It falls in the lower middle of the pack of wmus, andonly half of it is in the wmu 2A. Greene, only has 13 -14 counties with lower human populations and many of those are only by 1 to 2 thousand. Not bad considering we have 67 counties! Ha ha ha. Think I'll go over to my cousins place over on the other side of 2a towatch a fieldthis evening. Hope I dont get hit by one of those spoiled,rich yuppies riding around on their tractors, or get mugged by one of those rough gangs that just might pull a length of bailer twine on me!....or perhaps hassle me to buy an "eight ball" of ginseng root!(LOL)(LOL) Here ya go! ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greene_County,_Pennsylvania |
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
ole SPROUL has been at odds with RSB for longtime now,i guess we are like ,CAPT RSBcoming after me,GERONIMO:D
when my friend said,SPROUL I DROVE FROM DRIFTWOOD TO KEATING[CLINTON/CAMERON/ELK COUNTY WMU2G]AND I SAW 12 DEER IN THOSE 15 MILES,WHAT DO YOU MEAN THERE ARE NO DEER.:) I GUESS TO SOME, SEEING 12 DEER IN 15 MILES IS SEEING A LOT OF DEER:D i agree, seeing 12 deer in 15 miles is seeing a LOT OF DEER IN WMU2G NOW.[:@] |
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
You're a hoot Sproul.I hunt around Sinnemahoning and see lots of deer.In fact,I've seen over 20 in one morning alone a few times in the last three years.I also routinely see well over a dozen deer a day while hunting SGL 93 and 77 in WMU 2g.They're slow days compared to whatI see in certain parts of Moshannon state forest and on Seneca resource properties,which are open to the public.
|
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
I know you find RSB's post quite disturbing ,but let me show you what a nice guy old RSB really is. not many guys would post data that proves they don't know what they are talking about as RSB does routinely. Here is a prime example.
Unit…………………….88-92.…………..93-97.…………98-02.…………..03-07 2A………………………5.09.……………6 .62.…………..8.03.…………….9.49 2G………………………5.48.……………4 .36.…………..4.66.…………….2.35 What the data for 2G shows is that after the habitat had been overbrowsed by much higher deer densities for over 50 years, the habitat supported an antlerless harvest which is more than double the current harvest for 15 years. But, now that the deer density in 2G has been reduced by 50%, RSB is claiming the habitat is controlling the herd even though the habitat did not the control the herd at much higher DD from 1988 to 2002. Now let's look at what the data from 2A tells us. The PGC told us the habitat in 2A could only support 13 DPSM while the habitat in 2G could support 15 DPSM. from 88-92 the habitat in both 2g and 2A supported a harvest of over 5 doe/SM. But 15 years later the habitat in 2A is supporting a harvest of 9.49 DPSM, which is over 3 times the harvest rate in 2G. So after 15 years the deer in 2A didn't over browse the habitat as RSB claims the would. Furthermore, 2A has 61% regeneration with at least 3 times as many deer as 2G with 42% regeneration. So ,it is obvious that RSB and the PGC don't listen to what the deer are telling us and have no clue how to manage our herd. |
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
ORIGINAL: DougE You're a hoot Sproul.I hunt around Sinnemahoning and see lots of deer.In fact,I've seen over 20 in one morning alone a few times in the last three years.I also routinely see well over a dozen deer a day while hunting SGL 93 and 77 in WMU 2g.They're slow days compared to whatI see in certain parts of Moshannon state forest and on Seneca resource properties,which are open to the public. douge,20 deer is not a lot of deer. sinnemahoning has a lot of PRIVATELAND and a lot of camps that feed and protect deer somewhat. no doubt you saw 20 deer there.i used to see 200 there from bridge up to dam easy.i hunted the summerson property at bridge with dad when it was nothing to see 20 deer a drive. so, you see sproul has been around, i have. my privateland has about 11 deer on it,my yard has 3 doe,4 fawns, 1 buck. yet, you can drive on stateforestland and you are lucky to see many deer.if any at times. most i saw scouting this year together was 3 doe.most times its 1 deer or 2 ,mostly 1 doe. is pheasant hunting any good over your way? |
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
Sproul.I don't know what to tell you but seeing 20 deer in one area during a morning hunt is alot of deer by my standards.
I hunt elk state forest and 200 acres of privately owned,dmappd and open to the public land.The guy who owns the place practically begs for hunters to hunt his property. I can't tell you about the pheasant hunting becauseI don't hunt stocked birds. |
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
ORIGINAL: bluebird2 Dead fawns don’t result in increasing deer numbers no matter how you wish they did. Herd health is not based on fawn recruitment. It probably should be, but there presently is no way of accurately measuring the recruitment from year to year, so they have to use what is available. Fawn recruitment is the important factor and herd health is not based on recruitment and only looks at the number of embryos. That is why you can have data that indicates excellent herd health and still have almost no surviving fawns for the ye If the PGC couldn't estimate recruitment ,they couldn't tell if the herd was increasing or decreasing and they would have no idea how many antlerless tags to issue each year. WMU 2g is a prime example of how it works. After the 2006 the PGC said the herd in 2G increased by 42% so the PGC increased the antlerless allocation from 19,000 in 2006 to 26,000 in 2007. Here is a quote from the 2005-2006 AWR which explains how they use the SAK model to calculate fawn recruitment rates. The modified SAK procedure began by estimating males 2.5 years of age and older from harvest estimates and adult male harvest rates. Once the population of males 2.5 years of age and older were estimated, we determined the 1.5-year-old male population. Because protection levels of 1.5-year-old males varied among WMUs and harvest rates could also vary, we worked back in time to generate harvest rates for 1.5-year-old males. First, we determined the pre-hunt population of 1.5-year-old males in the preceding year using current year population estimate of 2.5-year-old males, survival rate from 1.5 to 2.5 years of age, and estimated harvest of 1.5-year-old males in the preceding year. Harvest rate of 1.5-year-old males from the preceding year was then calculated using the pre-hunt population and estimated harvest of 1.5-year-old males. Current year population of 1.5-year-old males was determined using a 3-year running average of harvest rates of 1.5-year-old males from the 3 previous years. Following determination of the 1.5-year-old males and males 2.5 years of age and older, calculation of female, fawn, and the total populations followed procedures similar to Skalski and Millspaugh (2002 Why thank you for providing the methods that support the fact that there presently is no good way of determining fawn recruitment in this state. Anyone that takes the time to read the quote form the link you provided should be able to see that the first look at fawn recruitment doesn’t occur until the bucks that are harvested as 1 ½ years old. That is 1 ½ years after they were born. Then the second look is at the 2 ½ year old bucks so that is 2 ½ years after they were born. Then to make it all even less significant or reliable is that the recruitment estimate for those two years gets added to the previous year (which was 3 ½ years from when they were born) and the average of those three years are used as an estimate of what happened during the current year. Anyone with even half a functioning brain cell should be able to figure out from these methods that NO we don’t have a good handle on fawn recruitment. To have a good handle on fawn recruitment we would need to do ongoing annual fawn mortality studies while also monitoring the food and winter index for each year so the fawn recruitment per doe could be measured based on the numerous variables. But, the agency doesn’t have the funding to conduct those studies because the Legislature doesn’t keep the Game Commission adequately funded. Of course having you and your cohorts wasting what little money there is on stupid law suits doesn’t help the wildlife management cause much either. If we had the money being wasted to defend your goofy misguided law suits maybe we could do the research that would be needed to provide a better handle on the annual fawn recruitment, instead of having to work with estimates based on three year averages that don’t even start until a year and a half after the fawns were born. R.S.Bodenhorn |
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
You are beginning to sound more like a died in the wool USP supporter every day. Whether you realize it or not ,you just told everyone that the PGC basically has no idea how many fawns are recruited each year,which means they would have no idea how many antlerless tags are needed to reduce the herd or keep it stable. Isn't that exactly what the USP is claiming?
I, on the other hand, believe the PGC has enough data that has been accumulated over many years, to make estimates of recruitment rate that are sufficient enough to allow them to manage the herd and allocate antlerless each year. But , the problem is they are still managing the herd based only on the carrying capacity of forested habitat,which means they are managing the herd at considerably less than the true MSY carrying capacity of all of the habitat. Isn't it ironic that I have to defend the PGC from misinformation from one of it's own employees. |
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
ORIGINAL: Cornelius08 "You claim that 2A is not a metropolitan unit but I say horse puckey. From my perspective as compared to unit 2G it is a very metropolitan unit" He he he. No my friend. Its not "metropolitan" by any stretch. Just because you compare it to the "wilderness" of the big woods to suit your needs STILL does not make it "metropolitan" and that isTHEE DUMBEST self serving comment Ive ever heard you make and thats saying a bunch!!! "And, buy the way I am pretty familiar with unit 2A. I have worked in Washington and Greene Counties and I have hunted in Allegheny and Washington Counties." Ive lived, worked and hunted here for 40 years. Youlive halfway across the state and made rediculous claims! (LOL) BTW, ALLEGHENY COUNTY which IS a "metro" area is in 2B NOT 2A. ALsothe only fragment of Washington county is the most rural area of the county.South of theslightly urban area. Greene, the entire county is in 2A and the biggest "city" LOL is Waynesburg Pa.....Better check out the population of that major "metropolis" LOL!!! Half of Fayette, which isnt exactly full of "city slickers"! (LOL)(LOL).....and as stated, Pgc has said HUMAN CONFLICT: LOW![8D][8D][8D] Get a grip RSB. You are reaching far and wide now! PGC doesnt consider it an urban area, and has stated such. In fact, NOONE does or should. But you like to think far FAR outside the box! (LOL)[8D] "I have been in all of the counties that make up unit 2A and have seen how metropolitian it is as compared to unit 2G." You can comparethe huge majority of the wmus to 2G and theywill have higher populus than one of the very leastpopulated in the state! (LOL) Big deal!!Whatdoes that prove other than you wanna decieveanyone and everyone into thinking anywhere but "the big woods" is urban, and thatthere is somereason for the madness when there clearly isnt! BTW, the habitat in 2A can, and should support more deer than any of the big woods areas. The harvests are also reducing the herd in 2a. Have been, and continue to. "Now go ahead and explain to everyone how it is that the deer herd can’t increase in 2G because we have been harvesting too many does." Quite simple. Much smaller herd, takes muchsmaller harvest to reduce it. "Then go ahead and tell us again how they have reduced the deer population by 50% in 2a yet the hunters are still harvesting so many more deer. " The tag level has increased by over 15,000 since 45,000 tags reduced it previously, which is why it didnt initially decline. The harvest has NOT continued to increase either, but has decreased. PGC's own data shows that the herd decreased from 69 dpfsm-owin greene county, and 74 in Wash, down to21-30 ow, or an average of 25owdpfsm in wmu2A. Dont shoot the messenger.;) "The facts simply don’t bear out your opinions. But like a lot of others I guess you think opinions should carry more weight then facts? " he hehe. Like yours? And 2A being "metropolitan"? LOLOLOL! Or our herd not having been reduced when even Pgc says so? When EVERYONE even those satisfied with the plan admit to seeing 3 to 5 times less deer? When even the people for less deer on the cac said they believe the herd to be "decreasing"? RSB, I think Ive lost just about the last shred of respect Ive had for your "opinions". No way you can be taken seriously after your last compilation of unsubstantiated completeramblings. UNBELIEVABLE! (LOL) Maybe you live in unit 2A but you obviously have a biased opinion about the unit that can't be suported with facts. Here are the facts about unit 2A along with the other units. Unit 2A is made up of the following percentage of each of the listed counties. I will also post the human population per square mile for each of those counties. I am going to post them in descending order to make it easier for everyone to follow. County……………% of unit 2A………………..average # of people/square mile in that county Washington………….38%…………………… …………...........688.1 Greene……………….32%………………… …………............70.6 Fayette……………….17%………………… ……………...........188.2 Beaver…………………7%………………… ……………..........417.0 Westmoreland…………4%…………………… …………..........361.7 Allegheny……………..2 %……………………………….........1755 .7 No matter how you want to look at it the unit has a lot of people per square mile. Though Greene Country is the least populated area of the unit it is still mostly a significantly populated and highly developed area of the state. To further help put it all in perspective I am also going to post each unit in their ranking as far as developed area along with the percent of the unit that is farm land and then public land. The units are arranged in descending order based on the most highly developed to the least. Then go over and look at the percent of the unit that is farm land since that too is really developed land and used for an intended purpose of growing crops instead of large deer populations. Then finally look at the amount of public land which is what actually expresses the amount of area that should support good deer numbers, without conflict, if the habitat were suitable. Unit………………% developed…………………………% farm land……………….% public land 5D…………………..43.2 %……………………………….18.3 %………………………0.0 % 2B…………………..20.1 %……………………………….20.0 %………………………0.2 % 5C……………………9.9 %……………………………….43.9 %………………………0.5 % 5B……………………6.7 %……………………………….63.1 %………………………1.4 % 1A……………………4.3 %……………………………….41.2 %………………………2.8 % 5A……………………3.8 %……………………………….62.4 %………………………11.4 % 3B……………………3.3 %……………………………….19.8 %………………………20.9 % 1B……………………3.1 %……………………………….34.5 %……………………….3.6 % 4C……………………2.8 %……………………………….22.8 %………………………13.0 % 2A……………………2.7 %……………………………….35.2 %………………………..1.7 % 3D……………………2.4 %………………………………..9.2 %………………………..15.5 % 2C……………………2.3 %………………………………..21.7 %……………………….9.3 % 4E……………………2.2 %………………………………..43.0 %……………………….3.6 % 4D……………………2.0 %……………………………….26.0 %……………………….28.1 % 2D……………………1.9 %……………………………….27.2 %………………………. 2.1 % 2E……………………1.7 %……………………………….19.3 %………………………..4.8 % 3C……………………1.3 %……………………………….26.7 %………………………..3.0 % 4B……………………1.2 %……………………………….33.4 %………………………..15.1 % 4A……………………0.9 %……………………………….29.3 %………………………..14.1 % 2F……………………0.8 %………………………………...7.0 %…………………………55.6 % 2G……………………0.6 %………………………………..7.6 %…………………………49.2 % 3A……………………0.4 %……………………………….23.5 %………………………….9.6 % Now you should be able to see that unit 2A is the 10th highest developed unit in the state as far as buildings and highways. It is also the 6th highest developed in farm land of the state while being one of the lowest public land units in the state at the 5th lowest amount of public land. Based on those facts is should be obvious that unit 2A presently has the habitat, do to the farm land, private gardens, shrubs, etc. to support more deer and much higher deer harvests then the real undeveloped areas of the state. But, based on the fact that there is so little public land the deer management plan for the area has to be tailored to fit not only the habitat of the unit but also the tolerance and desires of the landowners. That is why the deer harvests were increased in the areas that make up unit 2A back almost two decades ago. Those increased deer harvest in that unit is what has allowed that habitat to stay healthy enough to support the present deer numbers. Reduce that deer harvest and you will see your habitat declining from deer damage. If that happens you will also see your deer numbers decline even as you harvest fewer deer. In fact your deer harvests will have to decline because you will have fewer deer for hunters to find and harvest. That is exactly what happened in much of the northern tier and it can happen to your area as well if you start over protecting your deer instead of their habitat. You have also claim that the deer herd in unit 2A has been reduced by 50% but there is absolutely nothing to support that opinion as I will point out with the twenty year harvest history for Greene County as compared to past fewer years of deer harvests for unit 2A. All of the years from 2003 on are the harvests for unit 2A while the prior years are harvests for Greene County. Years………………Buck harvest/sq. mile……………….Antlerless harvest/sq.mile 83-87.………………….4.71.……………… ………….........6.23 88-92.………………….5.66.……………… ………….........8.35 93-97.………………….6.39.……………… …………........10.19 98-02.………………….7.19.……………… …………........10.86 2003.…………………..4.32.…………… ……………..........9.13 2004.…………………..4.31.…………… ……………........10.22 2005.…………………..4.69.…………… ……………........10.82 2006.…………………..4.47.…………… ……………..........9.39 2007.…………………..3.64.…………… ……………..........7.90 From those harvest history facts I sure don’t see anything to support your opinion of the deer harvests in your area being over harvested during any time period. Last year’s harvest was slightly lower but based on the weather on the opening day combined with the fact your area had a significant amount of EHD mortality prior to last season people certainly should have expected a lower harvest last season. But, those factors were environmental induced deer and harvest reductions and had nothing to do with any over harvest of the deer populations. Simply your opinions have virtually no supporting facts or evidence. R.S. Bodenhorn |
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
Actually, the data you provided shows the buck harvest dropped from the 5 yr. average of 7.91 to 3.64 in 2007 ,which is a decrease of 49%,which confirms what Cornelius and others have been saying all along. Thanks again for providing the data that shows you are wrong.
|
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
ORIGINAL: Cornelius08 ....This just in....From the great "metropolis" of 2a! (LOL)(LOL) According to 2000 census. Greene County Pa ----- 40,672 Elk County Pa----------- 35,112 Now Rsb, THIS is a metropolitan area, (and not in 2A!)-- Allegheny Co.-----------1,281,666 The only other "pieces" of 2a are just that. Pieces of other counties, andWash for example is the rural part, and not to be confused with the more populated areasto the north.Id hardly call Fayette a "metropolis" either.It falls in the lower middle of the pack of wmus, andonly half of it is in the wmu 2A. Greene, only has 13 -14 counties with lower human populations and many of those are only by 1 to 2 thousand. Not bad considering we have 67 counties! Ha ha ha. Think I'll go over to my cousins place over on the other side of 2a towatch a fieldthis evening. Hope I dont get hit by one of those spoiled,rich yuppies riding around on their tractors, or get mugged by one of those rough gangs that just might pull a length of bailer twine on me!....or perhaps hassle me to buy an "eight ball" of ginseng root!(LOL)(LOL) Here ya go! ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greene_County,_Pennsylvania You also have to consider the size of the counties. When you crowd more people into a smaller area it still comes out to a more developed and metropolitan area. As an example I will show the counties along with there population, country size in square miles and then people per square mile of land mass. County……………..population…………..siz e of county……………….people/sq.mile Greene……………..40,672.……………….. 576.…………………………70.61 Elk…………………35,112.………………. .829.…………………………42.35 Allegheny………1,281,666.………………..73 0.………………………1755.71 The fact is that Greene County, even though the least populated county in unit 2A, it still has far more people then Elk County, other areas of unit 2G, 2F, 3A or most of the other northern tier units with the exception of the area around Erie. R.S. Bodenhorn |
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
Rsb, you'vecOme full circle, post tons of text, and basically say most of which I dont disagree with and you know it. You dont care if youre right as long as you arent shown to be wrong! (LOL)
I know completely well 2A has more people than Elk, as does most counties...and that the density is higher. I also know Elk is an extremely low populus county... I also know Greene is considered a low populus county...Not to the extent of Elk of course. Point was, you said it was, and its not a metro area. IT would needFAR more building up and with the current population, would need to be about 1/10 its current size to qualify density wise. No similarities in the least. Also not treated as such by pgc from deer management standpoint, and certainly not an sra, yet you included it with a couple of the most populated wmus in the state to make a point, that didnt exist.. These things shouldnt even be arguable by any rational person, Im not arguing who has the least people in the state....Im saying 2A is not a metropolitan area, and VERY VERY VERY VERY far from it! (LOL):D |
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
Rsb, you'vecOme full circle, post tons of text, and basically say most of which I dont disagree with and you know it. You dont care if youre right as long as you arent shown to be wrong! (LOL) Bluebird2,Deaddeer, deerfly, ddear, beenthere, you'vecOme full circle, post tons of text, and basically say most of which I dont disagree with and you know it. You dont care if youre right as long as you arent shown to be wrong! (LOL) |
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
"Maybe you live in unit 2A but you obviously have a biased opinion about the unit that can't be suported with facts. "
My opinions and the facts support one another. Yours do not. "Here are the facts about unit 2A along with the other units. Unit 2A is made up of the following percentage of each of the listed counties. I will also post the human population per square mile for each of those counties. I am going to post them in descending order to make it easier for everyone to follow. County……………% of unit 2A………………..average # of people/square mile in that county Washington………….38%…………………… …………...........688.1 Greene……………….32%………………… …………............70.6 Fayette……………….17%………………… ……………...........188.2 Beaver…………………7%………………… ……………..........417.0 Westmoreland…………4%…………………… …………..........361.7 Allegheny……………..2 %……………………………….........1755 .7 " WAY WAY WAY WAY off my friend. I shouldnt have to tell such an "expert"[:'(]data analyzer (LOL) how far off that cute lil' depiction is, but I guess I do. You are taking percentages from the average. We arent talking the "average". You are averaging in the highest populations of the state!! Washington for example...Same could be said for the others as well.. The highest population centers of the countyBY FAR are in unit 2B. The most rural section is in 2A. The difference in density is FAR FARlower than the averages you depict by averaging it out also adding the HIGHEST, which are incredibly EXTREME and skyrocket the average when averaged in!! Why average them inwhen only the LOWER density areasare actually in the wmu??? 1. Because that is the only data you had, and dont know that you were not properly applying it. or 2. You knew it but hoped everyone else was too stupid to realize it. Im guessing number 1.;) "Then finally look at the amount of public land which is what actually expresses the amount of area that should support good deer numbers, without conflict, if the habitat were suitable. " That is absolutely rediculous. Human conflict is rated by Pgc, not on public land only but on a wmu-wide basis. 2A is rated as LOW and always has been. Please consult the annual reports. "Now you should be able to see that unit 2A is the 10th highest developed unit in the state as far as buildings and highways. It is also the 6th highest developed in farm land of the state while being one of the lowest public land units in the state at the 5th lowest amount of public land. " Actually its not, nor is it even close. YOU USED INCORRECT FORMULAS to come to that absolutely REDICULOUS conclusion, and are simply trying to save face for looking so extremely silly, and hope not may viewing actually know anything about the wmu in question. Your attempts to decieve are completely out of line and anyone who knows the wmu, or even doesnt but can analyze the pertinent dataand still repects your opinion after reading what You've posted is an idiot. I dont mean to be rude, but thats the only way it can be said. "Based on those facts is should be obvious that unit 2A presently has the habitat, do to the farm land, private gardens, shrubs, etc. to support more deer and much higher deer harvests then the real undeveloped areas of the state. But, based on the fact that there is so little public land the deer management plan for the area has to be tailored to fit not only the habitat of the unit but also the tolerance and desires of the landowners." Human conflict rated aslow shows that not to be the case. I live here, andhave friends family members who are land owners and know many others MANY others, and most arent "antideer" and dont support the slaughter any more than I because most of them hunt too. There are FAR FAR more who want more deer,and some who want stabilizationnot less and less....VERY few want that, but it doesnt matter one bit. Pgc doesnt want to know what people want or dont want. They do what THEY want, and their friends/family members interests. I know what people in 2A want. I live here and talk to many people every single day, and think I have just a tad bit better idea than you my friend.;) I also know of a very few who wanted less deer. They have red-tag, and few deer... There are other tools available that pgc has given them as well. If they refuse to use them, I have no sorrow for them.[:'(] At any rate, its no excuse to lower the herd when the habitat is fine, the herd is healthy and the human conflict low... No excuses rsb. None exist. Thats but one reason why this program is an unbased sham and a failure here, and across most of the state, according to Pgcs own data. "You have also claim that the deer herd in unit 2A has been reduced by 50% but there is absolutely nothing to support that opinion as I will point out with the twenty year harvest history for Greene County as compared to past fewer years of deer harvests for unit 2A. All of the years from 2003 on are the harvests for unit 2A while the prior years are harvests for Greene County." Theherd density was reduced from 69dpfsm to 25 (21-30)according to PGCS annual reports. I suggest you read them and not try to circumvent thefacts by posting data that has nothing to do with anything. Even so, of the data you posted, the buck harvest during the 98-2002 period tells the tale. ALso, the rediculous harvests in the middle of your lil' chart (nice grouping of certain years too btw;)) are the reason the herd continues to decline and the harvests of 06 and 07 show that clearly. The kill didnt fall immediately because the allocation was raised 2 or 3 times to prevent that from occurring. OUr goal has supposedly been "stabilization". Your chart clearly shows that isnt the case, but a bunch of bs. "From those harvest history facts I sure don’t see anything to support your opinion of the deer harvests in your area being over harvested during any time period." Its not my opinion its fact.If the goal were stabilization only as pgc said it was for the last 3 years, then there was definately overharvest. Not even debatable. Nor is itdebatable that our habitat, herd health, and level of human conflict (even according to pgc) can sustain much higher deer densities than current level of 25 owdpfsm when we had 69 in Greenewith no problems at all. Im not asking for 69 owdpsm mind you, Im just showing how rediculous it is foryou toexpect anyone to believe we should support 25owdpsmand continuing efforts at reduction FOR ABSOLUTELY NO REASON AT ALL. |
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
ORIGINAL: BTBowhunter Rsb, you've cOme full circle, post tons of text, and basically say most of which I dont disagree with and you know it. You dont care if youre right as long as you arent shown to be wrong! (LOL) Bluebird2,Deaddeer, deerfly, ddear, beenthere, you've cOme full circle, post tons of text, and basically say most of which I dont disagree with and you know it. You dont care if youre right as long as you arent shown to be wrong! (LOL) |
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
I'll type this a bit bigger as you seem to keep missing it maybe this will help:
According to the pgc2004/05 annual wildlifereport the change in 2A population index was an estimated-7%. Now, given that fact, WHAT IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT IS HOLY was the grounds for RAISING the allocations to levels from 10,000 to 15,000 HIGHER in the following years, starting the VERY NEXT year, and harvest goals of 18,000 which was HIGHER than the 16,500 that reduced the herd in the last year??? And the goal was supposed to be stabilization... No explanation necessary, as there cannot be one. Its a sham and that proves it. These things can be pointed out left and right when analyzing the claims and data. Couple this rediculous deception with the fact that all predictions have proven false and pgcs own data shows it beyond doubt.....that pgc needstossed on their duffs andrestructure withsome non-ecoextremists. C'mon RSB, you can do it...say it with me now....Its a MISERABLY FAILED PROGRAM! (LOL) |
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
"Are you really saying you don't disagree with most of what I post??? "
I think he read a couple of Rsbs last posts and decided he was on the wrong side?:D |
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
ORIGINAL: bluebird2 You are beginning to sound more like a died in the wool USP supporter every day. Whether you realize it or not ,you just told everyone that the PGC basically has no idea how many fawns are recruited each year,which means they would have no idea how many antlerless tags are needed to reduce the herd or keep it stable. Isn't that exactly what the USP is claiming? I, on the other hand, believe the PGC has enough data that has been accumulated over many years, to make estimates of recruitment rate that are sufficient enough to allow them to manage the herd and allocate antlerless each year. But , the problem is they are still managing the herd based only on the carrying capacity of forested habitat,which means they are managing the herd at considerably less than the true MSY carrying capacity of all of the habitat. Isn't it ironic that I have to defend the PGC from misinformation from one of it's own employees. First off you can rest assured that there is nothing about the USP position that I support nor is anything I said supporting the misguided agenda of the USP. Unlike you and the other USP supporters I know full well that wildlife management is not an exact science when it comes to estimated numbers. I and every other knowledgeable person also know that professional wildlife management is and always has been a matter of catching up with what has already happened as far a changes in populations. That is management of trying to catch up with the past is true in every state that manages deer populations. Some states have an easier time doing that because they have less variance in their annual recruitment rates and deer harvests. Some states don’t have the winter variables to contend with and other states always have winter controlling factors affecting their deer populations. Both of those cases make it easier to predict the annual fawn recruitment rates. States like Pennsylvania that are located where winter conditions change from year to year always have and always will have more nature induced variables that affect annual fawn recruitment rates. Nothing is ever going to change that fact and we have to live with it, like it or not. Fawn recruitment in some parts of Pennsylvania is more predictable on an annual bases becausesome areas stillhave suitable habitat.In other areas though the fawn recruitment is almost entirely controlled by the environmental conditions of the year because the habitat has been so seriously damaged by years of deer populations that were too far out of balance with the habitat. That we could probably change if people like you would allow it to change. As far as having a better handle on the annual fawn recruitment, there is no doubt we would like to have a better handle on that estimate. But, it is you and your USP buddies that have been and still are standing in the way of having better fawn recruitment data. In fact it is you, people like you and the USP that have been standing in the way and actually preventing better deer management for the past couple of decades. Your kind have proudly stood against the State Legislature providing the funding that would be needed to develop and implement the deer research programs and projects that would lead to the answers needed for better management and then you yammer around when we don’t have better data. Well if you want the best possible deer management, just get your goons out of the way and stop fighting everything that results in having better management. When you want to see the problem look in the mirror, or drag out a group photo of you with your USP buddies, and you will be see where the problem of not having the best possible data comes from. R.S.Bodenhorn |
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
Fawn recruitment in some parts of Pennsylvania is more predictable on an annual bases because some areas still have suitable habitat. In other areas though the fawn recruitment is almost entirely controlled by the environmental conditions of the year because the habitat has been so seriously damaged by years of deer populations that were too far out of balance with the habitat. That we could probably change if people like you would allow it to change. Unit…………………….88-92.…………..93-97.…………98-02.…………..03-07 2A………………………5.09.……………6 .62.…………..8.03.…………….9.49 2G………………………5.48.……………4 .36.…………..4.66.…………….2.35 Now ,would you care to explain why the overbrowsed habitat in 2G could support an antlerless harvest of almost 5 DPSM from 1988 to 2002, and now can only support a harvest of 2.35 DPSM? |
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
ORIGINAL: Cornelius08 "Are you really saying you don't disagree with most of what I post??? " I think he read a couple of Rsbs last posts and decided he was on the wrong side?:D |
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
ORIGINAL: BTBowhunter ORIGINAL: Cornelius08 "Are you really saying you don't disagree with most of what I post??? " I think he read a couple of Rsbs last posts and decided he was on the wrong side?:D |
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
[/size][/color] WAY WAY WAY WAY off my friend. I shouldnt have to tell such an "expert" data analyzer (LOL) how far off that cute lil' depiction is, but I guess I do. You are taking percentages from the average. We arent talking the "average". You are averaging in the highest populations of the state!! Washington for example...Same could be said for the others as well.. The highest population centers of the county BY FAR are in unit 2B. The most rural section is in 2A. The difference in density is FAR FAR lower than the averages you depict by averaging it out also adding the HIGHEST, which are incredibly EXTREME and skyrocket the average when averaged in!! Why average them in when only the LOWER density areas are actually in the wmu??? 1. Because that is the only data you had, and dont know that you were not properly applying it. or 2. You knew it but hoped everyone else was too stupid to realize it. Im guessing number 1. You obviously didn’t understand what the data was, unless you are just trying to discredit the data because it doesn’t fit what you want to believe. The posted percentage of each of those listed counties is the percentage of the county that is located within WMU 2A. That is a fact based on the data available for every unit in this state and comes from the percentage of antler less license each county in the unit receives for issuance. It is therefore rounded to nearest whole percent but otherwise accurately represents the percent of each unit is represented by the posted county. As for the population per square mile, for each of those counties, that is based on the most recent population of the county being divided by the number of square miles within that county. Those are set numbers with nothing being an estimate. Nor is there a percentage of anything involved in that data what so ever. Just because you don’t like the facts doesn’t change the fact that those are the facts for the unit. No one ever said that unit 2B didn’t have more people and more development the unit 2A. But, you brought on that argument, after I simply pointed out that units 2A, 2B and 2D which are much more metropolitan than unit 2G, also has sustainable deer harvests that two to four times higher then the harvests of 2G. I could really give a rat’s butt how many or how few people unit 2A has. The fact is they are sustaining one of the highest deer harvests in this state year after year. They are doing that because they are, and have been, harvesting enough deer to pretty well protect their habitat. By having those high harvests they also have sustainable high fawn recruitment. 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. I posted the data because I thought people would be smart enough to understand it when it showed the percentage of each units that was developed, farm land and public hunting land. Yet you figured I posted it because I thought people would be to stupid to understand it? Now doesn’t that speak volumes about where you show up in that picture? That is absolutely rediculous. Human conflict is rated by Pgc, not on public land only but on a wmu-wide basis. 2A is rated as LOW and always has been. Please consult the annual reports. 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. Start harvesting fewer deer there and I suspect you will find a lot more human conflict issues from the area. 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. "Now you should be able to see that unit 2A is the 10th highest developed unit in the state as far as buildings and highways. It is also the 6th highest developed in farm land of the state while being one of the lowest public land units in the state at the 5th lowest amount of public land. " Actually its not, nor is it even close. YOU USED INCORRECT FORMULAS to come to that absolutely REDICULOUS conclusion, and are simply trying to save face for looking so extremely silly, and hope not may viewing actually know anything about the wmu in question. Your attempts to decieve are completely out of line and anyone who knows the wmu, or even doesnt but can analyze the pertinent data and still repects your opinion after reading what You've posted is an idiot. I dont mean to be rude, but thats the only way it can be said. Actually you were not only rude but wrong. Unit 2A is the 10th highest developed unit in the state, the 6th highest in farmland and the 5th from the lowest in the amount of public land. All of those facts come directly from the compilation of data available for each and every unit. I posted those facts in the prior post. Just because you don’t like it certainly doesn’t mean the data was the result of any incorrect formulas. In fact I didn’t use any formulas at all. All did was post the data for each unit. Human conflict rated as low shows that not to be the case. I live here, and have friends family members who are land owners and know many others MANY others, and most arent "antideer" and dont support the slaughter any more than I because most of them hunt too. There are FAR FAR more who want more deer, and some who want stabilization not less and less....VERY few want that, but it doesnt matter one bit. Pgc doesnt want to know what people want or dont want. They do what THEY want, and their friends/family members interests. I know what people in 2A want. I live here and talk to many people every single day, and think I have just a tad bit better idea than you my friend. I also know of a very few who wanted less deer. They have red-tag, and few deer... There are other tools available that pgc has given them as well. If they refuse to use them, I have no sorrow for them. At any rate, its no excuse to lower the herd when the habitat is fine, the herd is healthy and the human conflict low... No excuses rsb. None exist. Thats but one reason why this program is an unbased sham and a failure here, and across most of the state, according to Pgcs own data. 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. I am darn sure you don’t have even a clue about what the best management of your unit is. 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. That is why they actually lowered the allocation this year. Here are the comments from the News Release that explain that fact. See, once again you are going off half cocked without any idea what really is going on in your unit. From this year's license allocation news release: WMU 2A allocation will be 55,000 to continue to stabilize the population trend, which is a decrease from last year's allocation of 60,000. The Deer Management Section noted that the deer harvest declined in 2007-08. This is a return to the allocation level from 2004-2007 until the agency can better assess population trend changes in 2008. The habitat in 2G isn’t fine like you say it is though. The most recent evaluations showed the habitat in 2A as only FAIR and the herd health as only FAIR as well. So even though you think everything is fine the deer and their habitat are saying “maybe not so fine after all.” The herd density was reduced from 69 dpfsm to 25 (21-30) according to PGCS annual reports. I suggest you read them and not try to circumvent the facts by posting data that has nothing to do with anything. Even so, of the data you posted, the buck harvest during the 98-2002 period tells the tale. ALso, the rediculous harvests in the middle of your lil' chart (nice grouping of certain years too btw) are the reason the herd continues to decline and the harvests of 06 and 07 show that clearly. The kill didnt fall immediately because the allocation was raised 2 or 3 times to prevent that from occurring. OUr goal has supposedly been "stabilization". Your chart clearly shows that isnt the case, but a bunch of bs. "From those harvest history facts I sure don’t see anything to support your opinion of the deer harvests in your area being over harvested during any time period." Its not my opinion its fact. If the goal were stabilization only as pgc said it was for the last 3 years, then there was definately overharvest. Not even debatable. Nor is it debatable that our habitat, herd health, and level of human conflict (even according to pgc) can sustain much higher deer densities than current level of 25 owdpfsm when we had 69 in Greene with no problems at all. Im not asking for 69 owdpsm mind you, Im just showing how rediculous it is for you to expect anyone to believe we should support 25 owdpsm and continuing efforts at reduction FOR ABSOLUTELY NO REASON AT ALL. It seems that they only thing that is a bunch of BS is you. Those DPFSM numbers you posted aren’t used any more and haven’t been for quite some time. 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. I suspect you have been listening to bluebird’s ramblings too much. Deer are not managed as DPFSM or DPSM either one any more and for good reason. Now deer are managed based on the information the deer and they habitat provide. So, contrary to Bluebird’s nonsense we are listening to the deer. Some people are just upset because we don’t listen to them demanding that we do the wrong thing for the future. We listened to them to long, that is want got us in this mess. [color=#000000][size=2]R.S. Bodenhorn |
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
Once again you disagree with the professional deer managers with the PGC. The data from the 2006 harvest showed the herd in 2G increased by 42% so they increased the antlerless allocation for 2007 by 37%.The PGC has the recruitment data from 2G during years with severe winters and years with mild winters so there is no need to do more research. Even after the severe winters of 2003 and 2004 it still required significant antlerless allocations and harvests to control the herd so your claim that the habitat is controlling the herd is bogus. I’m not disagreeing with the deer management team in the least. I know the difference between an increase in one year’s buck harvest verses a herd in crease though too which appears to be less then true for you. Yes the evidence does suggest that the deer herd is increasing in unit 2G the past few years. But it is only increasing because the habitat has started to improve and we have had very mild winters the past couple years. If the Game Commission had sufficient annual fawn recruitment data they wouldn’t have to work from three year averages or from deer that 1.5 to 2.5 years after they were born. The reason we don’t have that data is because of the lack of funding to get it. If you think more research isn’t needed to have better management then it speaks volumes about how misguided you truly are. No they didn’t need to harvest more antler less deer in unit 2G to control the herd after the harsh winters of 2003 and 2004. It just took that long forreality to catch up the management model becasue we have to work with recruitment from three year averages. That is just an example of what I already explained about wildlife management always playing catch up to what has already occurred. We could narrow some of those lengthy catch up problems with adequate funding to do the required research, but a bunch of your fellow USP guys have been standing in the way of progress for decades now. Now ,would you care to explain why the overbrowsed habitat in 2G could support an antlerless harvest of almost 5 DPSM from 1988 to 2002, and now can only support a harvest of 2.35 DPSM? The fact is the habitat wasn’t able to sustain those higher populations following the two back to back harsh winters. We over protected the deer for way too long but we were getting away with it because we were having mostly years with good mast and mild winters. But, nature came along with a couple of hard winters and did what they hunters had failed to do. The winters reduced both the adult deer herds and the fawn recruitment over a couple years. Plus hunters have simply gone to the areas where there are more deer that are easier to hunt. Thus the deer harvests have stayed lower then they should be. That isn’t a good thing for the long term future of deer populations within the unit, either. R.S. Bodenhorn |
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
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. |
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
No they didn’t need to harvest more antler less deer in unit 2G to control the herd after the harsh winters of 2003 and 2004. It just took that long for reality to catch up the management model becasue we have to work with recruitment from three year averages. No they didn’t need to harvest more antler less deer in unit 2G to control the herd after the harsh winters of 2003 and 2004. It just took that long for reality to catch up the management model becasue we have to work with recruitment from three year averages. The facts simply do not support your biased and misguided interpretation of the data. The harvests are controlling the herd just as they did in the past. If the harvests in 2G would be less than recruitment the herd would increase just as it has in the past. But as long as the harvests equal or exceed recruitment the herd will not increase even if the habitat improves. |
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. |
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. |
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
Here is what Dr. deCalesta had to say about predation on a QDM property in 2f.
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. |
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
|
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
ORIGINAL: BTBowhunter 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. i dont know how to put it on here,i do have it saved in the computer from the sd card.:eek: |
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 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.[:@] |
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
ORIGINAL: sproulman ORIGINAL: BTBowhunter 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. i dont know how to put it on here,i do have it saved in the computer from the sd card.:eek: |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:11 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.