DennyF

Source considered, no further response required.

DougE

4evrhtn,In surance companies have zero to do with deer management.The driving force behind herd reductions were habitat issues.Yes,those habitat issues are about timber.

You mention all they have to do is cut trees.What percentage of the trees should they cut each year?

bluebird2

In other words, you have no facts to show that the studies contributed anything of value to improve the management of our herd.

xibowhunter

Wait till next year they are trying to raise license cost to 50.general and antlerless tags will cost 14.00 .IMO that a load of k wrap ,for that kind of money antlerless should be included i probably won't be able to afford to hunt anymore thats just too expensive for 11 days of hunting (archery) including the late season hunt .they are getting wayout of hand!

bluebird2

Personally ,I'd like to see them raise the antlerless tags to $50.00. Then we would know how many hunters really want to harvest multiple doe for their personal use and how many just want to kill as many deer as possible..

4evrhtn

This a pretty general question that cannot be answered with one answer.I'd be nothing but foolish to spout some number without expecting a whirlwind of disagreements in regard to an answer you want me to give.
Without infosuch as terrain, water sources, proximity to urbanized areas, high traffic areas, the last time the land was timbered, what % of browse is available,etc. You can't say clearcut 4% of all 70 yr. old tall timbered forest.However in an area such as mine the private clubs have decided to cut nearly 40% of alltheir property.Theadvantage of this will not be seen for probably 3 -5 yrs as far increasing cover and viable habitat for wildlife. I believe this was excessiveonly because the State lands surrounding these properties do not offer the undergrowth and browse the deer once residing in the clearcut areas now need. There wouldn't be an issue if the State Lands have been managed to support wildlife. But the deer won't stay in the woods where there isinadequate food sources, inadequate cover and less then favorable arrangement. It isn't like these woods didn't support twice as many deer 30 years ago. But these deer were anything but impressive in any way shape or form other than in mere numbers. The state lands can support more deer, history is evidence to that. But the habitatcouldhave been andeven more today can be much better.Even if they were to hinge cut these areas of old standing pine the habitat would be more conducive in terms of providing cover and travel corridors which offer wildlife a real and perceived sense ofsecurity.

4evrhtn

I'll be honest, I buy doe tags for myself, my girl and her boy just to save 6 doe or more likely button buck. They go in the trash right after we receive them.

DougE

In the northcentral part of the state,we have a very even aged stand of timber.Most is around 80-120 years old.Not that it matters but there are no urban areas or high traffic areas.This area of historically high deer densities still has alot of pole and saw timber with very little browse.What percentage should they cut a year?Surely you have somewhat of a figure.Would 5% a year be too little?How about 10%?

What wildlife should our state forests be managed to support?Shopuld they focus primarily on deer,bear,turkeys etc?What way would you go about doing this?

Specifically,howare our game lnads not being managed properly.I spend alot of time on several different game lands and the work that the PGC does is nothing sort of spectacular considering what little manpowere and money they have.Let's here some of your ideas andideas about funding these projects.Be specific now.

DennyF

In other words, you have no facts to show that the studies contributed anything of value to improve the management of our herd.

No, those are your words, not "other words".

It was youthat made the charge thatthese studies were of no value,therefore it is not incumbent uponme to provewhetheryour words are true or untrue.

Given your long history of making such comments, then demanding that anyone who disagrees with you, prove you wrong...try owning up to your own comments for a change. It's a nifty and well-employedstrategy you have there, but not everyone will fall for it.

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.