Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
That thought is funny but getting tiresome.
09-20-2008, 05:03 PM
#52
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
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."
I disagree. The changes that need made to better the sport of hunting in our state wouldnt take one additional dime. Unless you are saying maybe if they get more fundingthey won't "lean" so hard on theadded money from far too many doe tags? I dont think they are planning on cutting the allocation anytime soon, added funding or not. Audubon wouldntstand for it.
Bluebird, great points made, there are NO STATES that use management strategies Pgc employs. The reasons are clear and dont really need pointed out to most.
"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."
Then which criteria is it that necessitates herd reduction when human conflict is low, the herd and habitat are healthy? That condition exists in more than one wmu, yet they recieved severe reduction anyway. Its this statewide blanketcarpet bombing approach that most directly led it to be a miserably failed program, as has been proven by pgc's own data.
" That is where the Citizens Advisory Council comes into the deer management picture."
The cac is a very ineffectivejoke. People on it that have no business on it, hunters having very limited voice, and tiny minority stakeholders dictate that increase is a near impossibility in anywhere but nearly deer void areas. Legit suggestions arent accepted and some even vote against their own stakeholder groups!! ITs a joke and needs to be done away with. IF results are skewed, then we must "live" with itfor 5 years, until they can be once again skewed.
"The Game Commission is well on their way to having the best management of our lifetime."
Not hardly. Unless someone were born during the "alt era"or unlesschange is coming soon, thats not an accurate assessment.
My opinion is no deer= no funding.
I disagree. The changes that need made to better the sport of hunting in our state wouldnt take one additional dime. Unless you are saying maybe if they get more fundingthey won't "lean" so hard on theadded money from far too many doe tags? I dont think they are planning on cutting the allocation anytime soon, added funding or not. Audubon wouldntstand for it.
Bluebird, great points made, there are NO STATES that use management strategies Pgc employs. The reasons are clear and dont really need pointed out to most.
"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."
Then which criteria is it that necessitates herd reduction when human conflict is low, the herd and habitat are healthy? That condition exists in more than one wmu, yet they recieved severe reduction anyway. Its this statewide blanketcarpet bombing approach that most directly led it to be a miserably failed program, as has been proven by pgc's own data.
" That is where the Citizens Advisory Council comes into the deer management picture."
The cac is a very ineffectivejoke. People on it that have no business on it, hunters having very limited voice, and tiny minority stakeholders dictate that increase is a near impossibility in anywhere but nearly deer void areas. Legit suggestions arent accepted and some even vote against their own stakeholder groups!! ITs a joke and needs to be done away with. IF results are skewed, then we must "live" with itfor 5 years, until they can be once again skewed.
"The Game Commission is well on their way to having the best management of our lifetime."
Not hardly. Unless someone were born during the "alt era"or unlesschange is coming soon, thats not an accurate assessment.
My opinion is no deer= no funding.
09-20-2008, 08:15 PM
#53
Fork Horn
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 147
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
ORIGINAL: bluebird2
Please note that I said the herd was being managed based on the regeneration of the existing canopy. Since regeneration begins at the forest floor my statement was accurate. Also, since in 2008 the PGC said the herd was at or above it's goal for herd health in every WMU,except one, herd health is not a limiting factor in managing the herd. Furthermore, deer human conflicts in areas that are 90% forested should be very low ,so that should not be a limiting factor in 2F or 2G.
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.
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.
You are correct that there are few deer/human conflict in units 2G or 2F but that is the very last influence in the deer management and population equation.
The limiting factor in units 2F and 2G is the fact that the habitat (which reads as the deer food) is still poor. That simply means that the food supply is not ready to support more deer except during the years of ideal conditions. If we have another hard winter or two the habitat could hardly support the present deer number let alone even more deer. Remember that it simply doesn’t matter how good the habitat is on the ridge tops or the plateaus of the northern tier during a harsh winter. During a long drawn out and harsh winter the only habitat that counts or will support deer is what can be found in the wintering grounds habitat of the river and stream bottoms or pine and hemlock thermal cover.
You keep wanting to use, argue and hang you hat on those old deer per square mile estimates. They are no longer used because they have no value, relationship to reality or reliability. Deer management is now based on the facts the deer provide because deer have no ability toward providing false information about when there are too many, just enough or capable of having more in the population.
Listen to the deer, they will tell us how to do it. We just need to be smart enough to do as they say we should.
Dick Bodenhorn
09-20-2008, 08:28 PM
#54
Fork Horn
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 147
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
ORIGINAL: Cornelius08
"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."
I disagree. The changes that need made to better the sport of hunting in our state wouldnt take one additional dime. Unless you are saying maybe if they get more fundingthey won't "lean" so hard on theadded money from far too many doe tags? I dont think they are planning on cutting the allocation anytime soon, added funding or not. Audubon wouldntstand for it.
Bluebird, great points made, there are NO STATES that use management strategies Pgc employs. The reasons are clear and dont really need pointed out to most.
"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."
Then which criteria is it that necessitates herd reduction when human conflict is low, the herd and habitat are healthy? That condition exists in more than one wmu, yet they recieved severe reduction anyway. Its this statewide blanketcarpet bombing approach that most directly led it to be a miserably failed program, as has been proven by pgc's own data.
" That is where the Citizens Advisory Council comes into the deer management picture."
The cac is a very ineffectivejoke. People on it that have no business on it, hunters having very limited voice, and tiny minority stakeholders dictate that increase is a near impossibility in anywhere but nearly deer void areas. Legit suggestions arent accepted and some even vote against their own stakeholder groups!! ITs a joke and needs to be done away with. IF results are skewed, then we must "live" with itfor 5 years, until they can be once again skewed.
"The Game Commission is well on their way to having the best management of our lifetime."
Not hardly. Unless someone were born during the "alt era"or unlesschange is coming soon, thats not an accurate assessment.
My opinion is no deer= no funding.
"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."
I disagree. The changes that need made to better the sport of hunting in our state wouldnt take one additional dime. Unless you are saying maybe if they get more fundingthey won't "lean" so hard on theadded money from far too many doe tags? I dont think they are planning on cutting the allocation anytime soon, added funding or not. Audubon wouldntstand for it.
Bluebird, great points made, there are NO STATES that use management strategies Pgc employs. The reasons are clear and dont really need pointed out to most.
"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."
Then which criteria is it that necessitates herd reduction when human conflict is low, the herd and habitat are healthy? That condition exists in more than one wmu, yet they recieved severe reduction anyway. Its this statewide blanketcarpet bombing approach that most directly led it to be a miserably failed program, as has been proven by pgc's own data.
" That is where the Citizens Advisory Council comes into the deer management picture."
The cac is a very ineffectivejoke. People on it that have no business on it, hunters having very limited voice, and tiny minority stakeholders dictate that increase is a near impossibility in anywhere but nearly deer void areas. Legit suggestions arent accepted and some even vote against their own stakeholder groups!! ITs a joke and needs to be done away with. IF results are skewed, then we must "live" with itfor 5 years, until they can be once again skewed.
"The Game Commission is well on their way to having the best management of our lifetime."
Not hardly. Unless someone were born during the "alt era"or unlesschange is coming soon, thats not an accurate assessment.
My opinion is no deer= no funding.
All of your comments are so far off base they could only have come from someone who is completely clueless of even the most basic principles of nature or wildlife management.
First of all the herd and habitat are not healthy. Even though the deer herd indices indicate the deer herd is presently healthy the habitat is poor in many if not most of the northern tier traditional deer range areas. It is very likely that the hear is only showing good health indicators right now because we have had another couple of mild winter years that come with ideal environmental conditions. Lets just wait and see how the herd health indicators look following a couple of those harsh winter years and see if you can sing that same tune.
The second thing that proves you are clueless is that none of the northern tier is geared toward further herd reduction at his time and hasn’t been fro the past couple of years. Pretty much everything is in a state of just holding the current herd stable until the habitat improves enough to support more deer. Once the habitat will support more deer there will be more deer and hunters will not be able to over harvest them where they truly do have suitable habitat.
Those are among the points many of you either haven’t bothered to educate your selves on or simply choose to ignore because it will not fit into your misguided agenda.
Dick Bodenhorn
09-20-2008, 09:56 PM
#55
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 1
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
ORIGINAL: RSB
who is completely clueless
Dick Bodenhorn
who is completely clueless
Dick Bodenhorn
If we get lucky, maybe Neville will show up next& explainjust how the "automated" POS system won't actually save any money overthe existingantiquated "manual" one.
09-20-2008, 10:32 PM
#56
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
You keep wanting to use, argue and hang you hat on those old deer per square mile estimates. They are no longer used because they have no value, relationship to reality or reliability. Deer management is now based on the facts the deer provide because deer have no ability toward providing false information about when there are too many, just enough or capable of having more in the population.
If the herd was being managed based on the facts that the deer provide, then we would still have 1.5M PS deer since breeding rates,productivity and recruitment were higher when we had over 1.5M PS deer than they are now with less than 1M PS deer. For over 35 years the habitat supported a herd that produced a buck harvest that was higher than the 2007 harvest ,so the deer have proven beyond a doubt that the habitat can support a lot more deer than the PGC will allow.
First of all the herd and habitat are not healthy. Even though the deer herd indices indicate the deer herd is presently healthy the habitat is poor in many if not most of the northern tier traditional deer range areas
09-21-2008, 07:06 PM
#57
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
"All of your comments are so far off base they could only have come from someone who is completely clueless of even the most basic principles of nature or wildlife management."
Rsb, you know better than that and that is a pathetic tasteless attempt at discrediting someone whom you cannot counter with facts.You do this continually andits nothing more than a desparation tactic that doesntsupport your argument any more than the facts do.
"First of all the herd and habitat are not healthy."
Very few area of the stateare they ratedpoor. Many areas never were, and thats giving the benefit of adoubt and assuming the pgc habitat assessments are worth thepaper their written on. Id also suggest you familiarize yourself with the pgc annual reports that contain the herd health analysis. Looks pretty good to them apparently.
"It is very likely that the hear is only showing good health indicators right now because we have had another couple of mild winter years that come with ideal environmental conditions."
Hmmm. Thats interesting. Id seen you use another excuse on another board.. I believeit was that more data was comingfrom different areas of the state. That was dismissed, so now I guess the"weather" is now what you wannahang your hat on?
"Lets just wait and see how the herd health indicators look following a couple of those harsh winter years and see if you can sing that same tune. "
No. Lets not. Ive hunted for quite awhile now, and have seen bad winter come and go. Fact of the matter is, that scare tactic is nothing but just that.
"The second thing that proves you are clueless is that none of the northern tier is geared toward further herd reduction at his time and hasn’t been fro the past couple of years."
Im not clueless. Ive heard thatline. Most of the state is supposed to be in stabilization mode. The doetags tell a different tale. Lipservice is all it is.Look to other areas as well...Look at 2A...herd was reduced 7%according to pgc onI belive the 2004 annual report and that was with a 16,500 antlerless harvest using 45,000 tags. The goal since has been 18,000 antlerless harvest and the tags from 55k to 60k...!!! And we were SUPPOSEDLY IN STABILIZATION MODE!? Yeah right... Dont insult us.
"Once the habitat will support more deer there will be more deer and hunters will not be able to over harvest them where they truly do have suitable habitat."
Sorry, but thats utterly rediculous. Unless you are anticipating our hunter numbers CONTINUING to drop at over double the national average forseveral more years thanks to no change of direction with our "plan", then I guess I could agree with that statement.
Rsb, you know better than that and that is a pathetic tasteless attempt at discrediting someone whom you cannot counter with facts.You do this continually andits nothing more than a desparation tactic that doesntsupport your argument any more than the facts do.
"First of all the herd and habitat are not healthy."
Very few area of the stateare they ratedpoor. Many areas never were, and thats giving the benefit of adoubt and assuming the pgc habitat assessments are worth thepaper their written on. Id also suggest you familiarize yourself with the pgc annual reports that contain the herd health analysis. Looks pretty good to them apparently.
"It is very likely that the hear is only showing good health indicators right now because we have had another couple of mild winter years that come with ideal environmental conditions."
Hmmm. Thats interesting. Id seen you use another excuse on another board.. I believeit was that more data was comingfrom different areas of the state. That was dismissed, so now I guess the"weather" is now what you wannahang your hat on?
"Lets just wait and see how the herd health indicators look following a couple of those harsh winter years and see if you can sing that same tune. "
No. Lets not. Ive hunted for quite awhile now, and have seen bad winter come and go. Fact of the matter is, that scare tactic is nothing but just that.
"The second thing that proves you are clueless is that none of the northern tier is geared toward further herd reduction at his time and hasn’t been fro the past couple of years."
Im not clueless. Ive heard thatline. Most of the state is supposed to be in stabilization mode. The doetags tell a different tale. Lipservice is all it is.Look to other areas as well...Look at 2A...herd was reduced 7%according to pgc onI belive the 2004 annual report and that was with a 16,500 antlerless harvest using 45,000 tags. The goal since has been 18,000 antlerless harvest and the tags from 55k to 60k...!!! And we were SUPPOSEDLY IN STABILIZATION MODE!? Yeah right... Dont insult us.
"Once the habitat will support more deer there will be more deer and hunters will not be able to over harvest them where they truly do have suitable habitat."
Sorry, but thats utterly rediculous. Unless you are anticipating our hunter numbers CONTINUING to drop at over double the national average forseveral more years thanks to no change of direction with our "plan", then I guess I could agree with that statement.
09-21-2008, 07:15 PM
#58
Fork Horn
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 147
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
ORIGINAL: bluebird2
That simply is not true. If you will take the time to read the Annual Wildlife reports you will see that the PGC still estimates populations in each WMU based on DPSM and allocates antlerless tags based on the percent increase or decrease in deer density.
If the herd was being managed based on the facts that the deer provide, then we would still have 1.5M PS deer since breeding rates,productivity and recruitment were higher when we had over 1.5M PS deer than they are now with less than 1M PS deer. For over 35 years the habitat supported a herd that produced a buck harvest that was higher than the 2007 harvest ,so the deer have proven beyond a doubt that the habitat can support a lot more deer than the PGC will allow.
Once again that simply is not true. The breeding rates and productivity have not improved in 2f or 2G. The PGC simply accepted the fact that reducing the herd did not increase breeding rates and productivity because the herd was already below the MSY carrying capacity in 2000 before the current herd reduction plan.
You keep wanting to use, argue and hang you hat on those old deer per square mile estimates. They are no longer used because they have no value, relationship to reality or reliability. Deer management is now based on the facts the deer provide because deer have no ability toward providing false information about when there are too many, just enough or capable of having more in the population.
If the herd was being managed based on the facts that the deer provide, then we would still have 1.5M PS deer since breeding rates,productivity and recruitment were higher when we had over 1.5M PS deer than they are now with less than 1M PS deer. For over 35 years the habitat supported a herd that produced a buck harvest that was higher than the 2007 harvest ,so the deer have proven beyond a doubt that the habitat can support a lot more deer than the PGC will allow.
First of all the herd and habitat are not healthy. Even though the deer herd indices indicate the deer herd is presently healthy the habitat is poor in many if not most of the northern tier traditional deer range areas
All you are doing is trying to get me to post the real numbers so you can try twisting theminto some sort of evidencefor your misguided law suit.
It isn’t going to work. We will let the courts decide who’s numbers and management objectives make sense and who’s don’t.
R.S. Bodenhorn
09-21-2008, 07:31 PM
#59
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
All you are doing is trying to get me to post the real numbers so you can try twisting them into some sort of evidence for your misguided law suit.
Furthermore, the forests in 2G, where the herd has been reduced the most,are still rated as having poor forest health. But, since the PGC has decided not to reduce the herd even more, they are admitting that herd reduction alone is not the answer to good forest health in 2G. Even Dr. Rosenberry couldn't tell me why 2F is being managed at 22 PS DPSM while 2G is managed at 12 PS DPSM and i found that to be very disappointing.
09-21-2008, 08:13 PM
#60
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
Bluebird, Id liken lumping those years together in a strategic fashion, to sprinklingperfume on a turd to camouflage the odor.
The year by year comparisons show the continued herd decline, and the failed program for what it is beyond doubt when comparing herd health and other factors.
The year by year comparisons show the continued herd decline, and the failed program for what it is beyond doubt when comparing herd health and other factors.