|
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
Wow Btbowhunter, just curious how old are you? Wanting to do obtusechallenges, and polls that amount to nothing more than character attackand all kinda fun stuff.
How about you actually make a post with content like the rest of us adultsand quit trolling for a fight? If you think someone is wrong, tell them why then if you wanna be taken seriously, provide some supporting evidence. You know, likeall that mumb-jumbo data and stuff Ive been posting to back MY position...Just a thought. |
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
ORIGINAL: Cornelius08 Wow Btbowhunter, just curious how old are you? Wanting to do obtusechallenges, and polls that amount to nothing more than character attackand all kinda fun stuff. How about you actually make a post with content like the rest of us adultsand quit trolling for a fight? If you think someone is wrong, tell them why then if you wanna be taken seriously, provide some supporting evidence. You know, likeall that mumb-jumbo data and stuff Ive been posting to back MY position...Just a thought. As for providing evidence, Mr Newbie, I suggest you take some time and read some archives. I have no desire to type endlessly just to catch you up on the facts.They've been posted here over and over. Do your homework and get back to us! |
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
I'll point you towards the annual reports as I did RSB. Find anything to support your position, post it and you can thank me in the privacy of a pm and I wont even tell anyone. Though I dont think you will find anything that supports you.
As for seeing your old posts, i have. Ive seen nothing supporting your position but insults wisecracks and lack of content exact as is occurring currently. As for not "hiding" I see noone doing it anymore of less than you "BOB"...LOL But I couldnt care less, I have zero interest in getting to know you personally so why does it matter? This is a message board not an internet dating service.[:'(] Can we discuss the issues now, or is disruption your intent? |
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
"Oh and 2A having sustained either highest the second highest deer harvests of the state year after year (only to be surpassed by special regulations unit 2B) for the past five years isn’t sufficient evidence that the high harvests aren’t harming the deer populations?"
Its among the very best areas of the state, and also why they are a 4pt areawhat would you want them to be??? Theyve also steadily DROPPED and this year werent in the top. What does that have to do with anything anyway?? Ithought the numbers didnt matter and it was all about thehabitat?? The habitat never rated poor even with the previous extreme high deer numbers and the reduction was rediculous and severe according to pgcs own ow deer densitynumbers on the annual report going from 69 to an average of 25. Wasnt based on human conflict in the wmu, not the habitat, not a thing. Whos to say we couldnt have had 20% 30% etc. reduction? Noone. Its just kill the deer then when your done kill some more. 2A started out well ahead of the game numberswise, but its clear where the wmu is headed. If speaking of simply less deer than can be and should be had, itsWAAAAY past that stage. Looks like they wont be happy till they hit the previous old goal of 13 dpsm ow. They knew it was a rediculous goal noone would accept. SO they say they arent using numbers anymore, but still keep track and use other excuses till the deed is done... "Explain to us how it is that all of the areas of the state that have had unlimited antler less harvests for the past twenty years still have increasing deer harvests and increasing deer numbers." WHERE? Im not talking sras, and limited access...Im talking 2A. The herd is definately declining which is inevitably when your harvest goals and allocation are both higher than what previously reduced the herd! The harvest has also declined, even though the tags have been at all time highs for the previous 4 years ofso. |
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
ORIGINAL: bluebird2 May I respectfully request that you try reading the AWR with some degree of objectivity. here is a quote from the 2006-2007AWR. of future forest character and client needs 2 composition groupings are The first groups tree species by preference for timber management. The second composition grouping represents the forest’s ability to regenerate the existing dominant canopy. Dominant species include those that contribute at least 2% of the State’s total-tree biomass and are able to grow into the existing 21001 3 canopy; Other High Canopy species include all others that are capable of attaining canopy dominance” (McWilliams et al. 2004:13-14). We requested ATSSR data for dominant canopy species and species capable of achieving high canopy status by WMU from the USFS and DCNR. Because of the sampling scheme used in the Pennsylvania Regeneration Study, it takes 5 years to visit all sample plots. Based on input from cooperating agencies that designed and conduct the Pennsylvania Regeneration Study, we defined forest habitat as good if 70% or more of the sampled plots contained adequate regeneration. If less than 50% of the plots contained adequate regeneration, forest habitat health was considered poor. Fair falls between cutoffs for good and poor You obviously do not have one single clue what is evaluated in the forest regeneration survey plots or you are intentionally misleading people on this one too. But, why would we expect anything else from you? All woody plant life is recorded and used in the evaluation as per the long list of indicator species. When I next get on line in my work computer I pull that list and send it over here to post. It includes much more then just marketable tree species. All of the good deer browse species are included in the surveyed species. R.S. Bodenhorn |
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
ORIGINAL: Cornelius08 "Hey, you are the one that came on here bashing and trying to discredit the Game Commission." No they discredit themselves by their actions. You cannot expect we hunters to jump for joy when pgc has aligned itself so staunchly with anti-deer eco-extremist factions and Have them on the Boc and doing everything in their power to keep the "power" from shifting out of their hands by keeping "prohunter" commissioners to the powerless minority etc. Rsb, before you dig yourself a deeper hole, you may wanna familiarize yourself with the latest released Pgc annual report. Some interesting findings on it are; Numbers of adult does pregnant and their steady decline which shows reducing the herd did NOTHING in that regard, as was predicted. 2003 --92% 2004-- 89% 2005--87% 2006--85% Then next, you may wanna look at page#9 on the link provided. Second chart on the page, last column to the right...titled WMU HEALTH. In that column even you should see that in EVERY SINGLE WMU the health was rated as "good" or "fair"....Not a "poor" to be seen.....Thats the result of combining columns one and two to determine overall health. Some rate poor in one, yet good in the other, when combined = fair etc. Overall, not a one rates poor... You want people to believe pgc AGREES with you, yet there it is for all to see...Simply not the case. Hardly the "doom and gloom" you speak of Rsb. Sorry. No dice. ....And instead of alot of huffing an puffing, lets see you point out something on the annual report that supports YOUR position...Good luck! (LOL) http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/pgc/reports/2007_wildlife/21001-06Z.pdf Perhaps you need to slow down on your reading of the reports because you obviously miss a lot or have some serious comprehension problems. Though you say the units are all either good or fair you as mistaken. There are two units that have a POOR herd health rating in that report, you linked, plus another two classified as UNCERTAIN (do to low sample size) that have reproductive data in the poor category. There are only two units (4B and 4E) that have both good herd and forest health which means that only 7.3% of the state is in category that would put it as someplace practical for a possible deer herd increase provided the public wanted more deer. The other 92.7% of the state has either poor or marginal herd and/or forest health. That means managing for more deer in those units is not the best more for the future. That is not the Game Commission saying that but the deer and their food supply telling us that. We would be absolutely STUPID not to listen to what they tell us. Incidentally the forest health has to carry the highest weight in the total assessment of when the deer will allow higher long term deer populations. As for the adult breeding rates that is statewide data that resulted during periods when the sample size and areas of representation changed. That rendered the data as not be valid for comparison purposes during those year. Once this law suit is begin us perhaps the data will posted by WMU. That data will tell a different story. R.S. Bodenhorn |
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
Though you say the units are all either good or fair you as mistaken. There are two units that have a POOR herd health rating in that report, you linked, plus another two classified as UNCERTAIN (do to low sample size) that have reproductive data in the poor category. |
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
Here is the list of tree species used to determine forest health.
Table 5. Canopy replacement dominants and other high canopy indicator species (McWilliams et al. 2004a). Wildlife value for all wildlife species (Carey and Gill 1980 as in Payne and Bryant 1998) and levels of browse preference by white-tailed deer during fall and winter (Latham et al. 2005) are provided to illustrate general characteristics of species. Blanks indicate lack of data. Category Tree Species Wildlife Value Browse Preference Dominants Eastern Hemlock Fair High Red Maple1 Good High Sweet (Black) Birch1 Good High Beech Good High Ash1 Fair High Yellow Poplar1 Fair High Oaks1 Excellent High White pine1 Excellent Moderate Sugar Maple1 Good Moderate Hickories1 Fair Low Black cherry1 Excellent Low Other High Canopy Black gum1 Fair High Other Birches1 Good Moderate/High Other Maples (except Norway and Striped) Good Moderate/High Cucumber tree Moderate Willow Fair Moderate Other Conifers Fair to Excellent Low/Moderate Hackberry Fair Low Aspen Good Low Black locust Fair Low Sweet gum Fair Low Honeylocust Fair (is browsed) Black walnut Fair (is browsed) Sycamore Fair (is browsed) Basswood1 Fair (is browsed) Elm Fair (is browsed) Buckeye Unknown Butternut Cottonwood Balsam poplar Kentucky coffeetree Catalpa 1 – These species are of “medium” or “high” importance to Pennsylvania’s wood products industry (Latham et al. 2005). |
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
Interesting Bluebird.
Rsb attempt at discredit: "Perhaps you need to slow down on your reading of the reports because you obviously miss a lot or have some serious comprehension problems. " Not hardly. Though you say the units are all either good or fair you as mistaken. There are two units that have a POOR herd health rating in that report, you linked, plus another two classified as UNCERTAIN (do to low sample size) that have reproductive data in the poor category. "There are only two units (4B and 4E) that have both good herd and forest health which means that only 7.3% of the state is in category that would put it as someplace practical for a possible deer herd increase provided the public wanted more deer. The other 92.7% of the state has either poor or marginal herd and/or forest health." NIce play on words and change of subject. I stated herd health and said nothing of regeneration. Not that it is even poor mind you across most of the state. YOu also state the majority of herd health as "marginal or poor". Pgc disagrees. You know that, you just like to play on words. The rating is FAIR and GOOD for the HUGE majority of the state. "We would be absolutely STUPID not to listen to what they tell us." We would be complete idiots to believe it without proof, yet withmuch to the contrary just because a few exreme viewed pgc employees say so with no proof.I dont mean that as a "slam", I do see your views as not the norm, even by pgcs standards. |
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
O.k.BLUEBIRD2 said my lack of knowledge about the doe permitt allocations in 2f......but wait make everyones date the same... plus nonresidents pay more so the states revenue will be higher. Look we have seen the herds go from seeing 50 deer a day to your lucky to see a dozen. Big bucks? your idea of a trophey might be different than mine. Check your records BLUEBIRD2 how many B&C's or P&Y's come from P.A.? compare that to midwest where the land owners set there own limits..I will take my chances in Kansas..ILL..Ohio.HEll i would bet M.D. has pa beat on quality deer harvested.Or change the gun season around and put doe season back to after gunning. All i can say is with the high price of everything now i glad my eastern shore farm is still available. Hope P.A.'s revenue is the lowest in history and we will see how fast you guys change your mind.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:01 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.