Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
#41
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Ohio,mid
Posts: 1,275
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
wish the PGC & PAFBC & the DCNR were one unit.
As a single entity, I believe resources (people & bureaucratic) could be more wisely used.
As a single entity, I believe resources (people & bureaucratic) could be more wisely used.
I trhought the treasurers did a fine job on there own w/ doe license. I always had one when I came home from the service to huntMcKean county. Just another power play w/ PAPGC to gain control of the doe license funding.
ANY cuts would be better than none, do something...............I know deer move into cuts, I have cut, I have deer and other anuimals living in my woods because of this. No undergrowth, no deer or birds etc.
#43
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
ORIGINAL: rybohunter
I’m going to briefly summarize based on my kind of diverse, but admittedly ignorant views. I also didn’t read the entire thread, some of what I say may have been touched on.
I wish the PGC & PAFBC & the DCNR were one unit.
As a single entity, I believe resources (people & bureaucratic) could be more wisely used.
From the gamelands I’ve been to, I think the habitat on them is great. Very diverse and a job well done.
The state forests and ANF areas that I’ve been to however are nothing but huge stands of very mature forests, with little to no browse or other food supplies. I’m not a forester but it appears that more logging could be done. Maybe go from 1% to 3%? I see all the selective cuts done around my hunting areas and I see how nice the habitat is. If the forestry guys say this is as good as it gets, I have to accept that & just live with few deer in vast areas of the state that have poor habitat.
I think getting rid of our archaic licensing system should be top priority. Cut out the treasurers and all this protocol and institute a POS system where your license is like a register receipt like many other states. REQUIRE a mailed in or phone call harvest report, or you cannot purchase your license the following year. Fail to report once & get a warning, twice and you get hammered with a huge fine, & loss of license.
I’m all for a license increase IF other criteria is met. I want to see the Dept running as efficiently as possible first. No license increase to pay for a mismanaged organization. By merging groups, stream lining license sales etc, money could be better utilized. Then make a large effort to properly staff the wardens(which should now be easier since you have fish & dcnr people out patrolling) Poaching is a rampant & socially acceptable problem here in PA and needs to be curtailed.
The only regulation issue I will get into is the fines for poaching should be dramatically increased and trespass laws strictly enforced, but breaking up the “good ol boy” system will be very tough. Loss of license does nothing to someone who is already illegally taking game. Jail time & huge fines will get their attention.
I’m going to briefly summarize based on my kind of diverse, but admittedly ignorant views. I also didn’t read the entire thread, some of what I say may have been touched on.
I wish the PGC & PAFBC & the DCNR were one unit.
As a single entity, I believe resources (people & bureaucratic) could be more wisely used.
From the gamelands I’ve been to, I think the habitat on them is great. Very diverse and a job well done.
The state forests and ANF areas that I’ve been to however are nothing but huge stands of very mature forests, with little to no browse or other food supplies. I’m not a forester but it appears that more logging could be done. Maybe go from 1% to 3%? I see all the selective cuts done around my hunting areas and I see how nice the habitat is. If the forestry guys say this is as good as it gets, I have to accept that & just live with few deer in vast areas of the state that have poor habitat.
I think getting rid of our archaic licensing system should be top priority. Cut out the treasurers and all this protocol and institute a POS system where your license is like a register receipt like many other states. REQUIRE a mailed in or phone call harvest report, or you cannot purchase your license the following year. Fail to report once & get a warning, twice and you get hammered with a huge fine, & loss of license.
I’m all for a license increase IF other criteria is met. I want to see the Dept running as efficiently as possible first. No license increase to pay for a mismanaged organization. By merging groups, stream lining license sales etc, money could be better utilized. Then make a large effort to properly staff the wardens(which should now be easier since you have fish & dcnr people out patrolling) Poaching is a rampant & socially acceptable problem here in PA and needs to be curtailed.
The only regulation issue I will get into is the fines for poaching should be dramatically increased and trespass laws strictly enforced, but breaking up the “good ol boy” system will be very tough. Loss of license does nothing to someone who is already illegally taking game. Jail time & huge fines will get their attention.
I would only add a few things....
Something would need to be put in place to keep anti's off the BOC. The only thing that has kept that from happening so far is the fact that we are a political force when angered and no governer has had an interest in pissing off the hunters of this state. If DCNR were to be merged in with the PGC and PFBC, there could be a real danger of the fanatic tree hugger types having a voice about game and fish management.
Everyone could benefit fromsmaller management units in some parts of the state.
#44
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
DougE,
First, I never said "all the commission had to do was cut trees".
If the land is State Game Land and it's sole purpose is for wildlife habitat not timber profit then I would say 1% to possibly 2% can be cut if done properly. It can't be done in one big tract, and varying methods should be implemented. Hinge cutting creates bedding habitat like a sanctuary for deer to live in. This will limit access of hunters just because of the terrain it creates. Only the truly ambitious hunter will want to walk through that jungle and odds of not spooking bedded deer are minimal. There needs to be other areas designed for feeding as hinge cutting does provide browse, some light is limited due to leaving the tops and it isn't the most practical method for replanting more protein rich trees and plants. I believe this % can be used on an 80 yr cycle. But every year there must be continued cutting and replanting of different grids selected for harvest in a set rotation.
First, I never said "all the commission had to do was cut trees".
If the land is State Game Land and it's sole purpose is for wildlife habitat not timber profit then I would say 1% to possibly 2% can be cut if done properly. It can't be done in one big tract, and varying methods should be implemented. Hinge cutting creates bedding habitat like a sanctuary for deer to live in. This will limit access of hunters just because of the terrain it creates. Only the truly ambitious hunter will want to walk through that jungle and odds of not spooking bedded deer are minimal. There needs to be other areas designed for feeding as hinge cutting does provide browse, some light is limited due to leaving the tops and it isn't the most practical method for replanting more protein rich trees and plants. I believe this % can be used on an 80 yr cycle. But every year there must be continued cutting and replanting of different grids selected for harvest in a set rotation.
#45
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
I agree completely in regard to harvest reports, poaching and even the license increase if the money is spent to increase the quality of our hunting experience. This is why the PAGC needs to be held accountable in their spending by annual audits. It's just hard for me to believe our commission as lackadaisical as they seem when it comes to doing things in a timely manner will ever run efficiently enough to be able to submit these reports within 3 months of each year's end. We won't know what is being spent until 2 years after the fact.
#46
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
Bob,
I was going to throw in my dislike for the DCNR, but I didn't really know how I wanted to word it so I just left it out. I think the resources from the DCNR could be useful, but I am afraid of the attitude and direction they'd want to go.
I was going to throw in my dislike for the DCNR, but I didn't really know how I wanted to word it so I just left it out. I think the resources from the DCNR could be useful, but I am afraid of the attitude and direction they'd want to go.
#47
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
Does anyone know of any other state that is managing their deer herd based on the regeneration of the existing forest canopy? I've done a lot of reading on the various deer management plans in numerous states and as yet ,i have not found one that uses that criteria as a basis for managing their herd.
#48
Fork Horn
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 147
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
All the Game Commission really needs in order to greatly improve wildlife management is the adequate funding needed to have a full staff of people and to implement the best possible research and management objectives. As for habitat management that is more difficult because the Game Commission owns very little of the state’s land on which it has management control.
Bluebird’s last comments about Penna. “managing their deer herd based on the regeneration of the existing forest canopy” either shows how little he knows about Penna’s deer management program or was posted to mislead people that don’t know better.
The fact is deer are managed based on a number of different criteria many of which are actually proved by the real deer that live in each management unit.
The first and most important thing taken into consideration is if the area has the food to feed more deer or not. That is where the forest floor (not the canopy as Bluebird said) is surveyed by using established survey plots to find out what the deer food species are doing. If there are desired deer food and indicator species found in a majority of the survey plots then the unit gets a good habitat rating which ultimately indicates it could support more deer provided the deer health is also good. Only fair food supplies being found in the survey plots indicate the habitat will not allow more deer for long term periods. Thus it would be foolish to manage for even a short term population increase. Poor food supplies in the survey plots indicates that the deer numbers are still too high for the existing habitat and further reduction is desired before nature steps in and makes the population reduction without the aid of hunters.
Next what the deer tell the Biologists is used to determine what they deer have to say about the habitat they are living in. That is done by checking the reproductive rates on the adult does being killed on the highways. Adults three years and older with a reproductive rate of less then 1.50 indicate poor herd health, 1.50 - 1.70 indicates satisfactory herd health and over 1.70 indicates good herd health. Bred does two year old does are based on less then 1.10 reproductive rates being poor, 1.10 - 1.50 as satisfactory and over 1.50 as good.
Next the breeding rates for the yearling does is considered. If less then 10% of the yearly does were bred that indicates both poor herd and poor habitat health. Breeding of 10-30% is satisfactory while over 30% is a good herd and habitat health indicator.
Finally a human conflict factor gets applied. This is used primarilty in the areas where there are high numbers of people like around our cities. Since deer really aren’t wanted on, or around, our city streets those human conflict factors can be a justified reason toward attempting to reduce deer numbers to levels that are lower then the carrying capacity of the habitat. That is where the Citizens Advisory Council comes into the deer management picture. When they recommend fewer deer then the habitat could support it is likely their recommendation will be acted upon. But, if they recommend having more deer then the deer and the food supply say is wise, or even possible, for the land and food supplies then we have to listen to the deer and what they have to say over what people wish could happen.
That trying to do what people wish were possible over what the deer and habitat tell us is stupid, because it can’t work. It can’t work because nature will never allow more of any living organism then the food supply will support for more then short term periods of ideal environmental conditions. That is what everyone needs to be smart enough to recognize if we really want the best possible resource management.
The Game Commission is well on their way to having the best management of our lifetime. The way to make it better is to have adequate funding to implement both better management options and better education programs. The management is needed to do the right thing for the wildlife, the habitat and the future. The education is need to help people understand what good management really is. It is very obvious that many simply don’t have a clue about good wildlife or habitat management.
R.S.Bodenhorn
#49
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
The first and most important thing taken into consideration is if the area has the food to feed more deer or not. That is where the forest floor (not the canopy as Bluebird said) is surveyed by using established survey plots to find out what the deer food species are doing.
Therefore, in 2F and 2G the herd is being managed based on the regeneration of the existing canopy as determined by the survey plots. In 2G only 42% of the plots regenerated and in 2F if was even worse. So, how much more does the PGC have to reduce the herds in 2F and 2G in order to increase regeneration to the desired goal of over 70%?Also, why is 2F being managed at 22 PS DPSM while 2G is managed at 12 DPSM? That doesn't seem to make any sense when the regeneration is poorer in 2F than in 2G.
#50
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 179
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
We in the eastern states are the last of the strong hold of this country with our firearms. To me,sometimes I wonder if they are trying to make people give up their firearmsand the new generations not interested in hunting so less guns are purchased. It seems like this is happening sometimes when we look at the big picture of everything one can do to have a gun restriction placed against them. Just a thought that occurs.Especially with the way the PGC is manageing the animals. Why introduce all these predators to our state? Go west if you want to see these animals.