Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
10-29-2008, 09:12 AM
#401
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
Bigcountry, I missed this exact wording previously, and its pretty far out there, so thought I better address it.
"As to greene county, still too many deer, and it is not limited to the private ground I hunt"
Greene has far fewer than it did, far fewer than it could have and far fewer than it should.
But 1st, your contention of "too many". 1st by all pgc measurement variables, the herd is NOT too large (and your property with 100 or the property on the other end of the county with 3 have nothing to do with it. They dont micromanage remember? Its wmu wide antlerless allocations and currently the wmu is WELLunder the cc.
Pgcs own assessment shows adequate regeneration, and also herd health. They decided based on that data to "stabilize" the much smaller herd for the last 3 years and this year as well. The citizen advisory committee, although a joke, comprised of a few "eco-weineys" which threw a monkey wrench into the works STILL ended up being a consensus of STABILIZATION. Also, pgc human conflict rating for the wmu was LOW.
THEREFORE your contention too many deer in the wmu is FAR off base.
Now, why should there be more? Because we have the best habitat type in the state, and I dont believe NOWHERE IN THE STATE can have 25 dpfsm ow.or more,responsibly. I know better.
Second. We had 69 ow dpsm back in the 90's and they STILL didnt degrade the habitat to unacceptable standards,since the habitatNEVER rated poor.Also, the people around here STILL werent crying slaughter the deer.
While I'll agree we couldve used some reduction as preventative measure generally speaking, and the herd was a bit unnecessarily high, NOTHING and I mean NOTHING warranted the rediculous extreme reduction we recieved. Which despite pgcs claim of stabilization, is STILL being reduced. Thanksto higher antlerless harvest goals and higher allocations than we had while the herd was according to pgc being reduced.
1.Most hunters from the wmu dont think there are too many.
2.Most nonhunters I speak with on a daily basis dont think there are too many.
3.Despite the inappropritate allocations, evenpgc claims there arent too many deer in the wmu, and is why they are claiming to stabilize.
4.The cac believed the herd wasnt too high in the wmu. In fact of the people surveyed by the cac members the people wanted INCREASE by a HUGE margin.
Seems you, along with maybe 1% of the farmers in the wmu, who want zero deer (most farmers are currently quite content as is here) are the only ones complaining. And the farmers in question have plenty of options to address. Dmap. Red tags. And new legislation permitting 'em to shoot deer 24/7. So i fail to see reason to keep the entire wmus herd at rediculous for the wmu lows or worse, go lower.
Btw, as for your "dodging deer", it used to be, on nice evenings in late summer early fall just before dark, you could see deer every quarter mile or so in fields etc. Now you might, if lucky, see 3 to 10 the entire way across the county from Wind Ridge to Carmichaels .
As for assesements by area, all of which Im VERY familiar with, Carmichaels area, way down too many tags for too long. Garards fort area, way down tons of hunting pressure, Kirby,down same reason, Sycamore down due to ehd and tags, Wind ridge practically dead due to ehd, Kuhntown, Down Deep Valley, Down, and on and on.... ONly place Ive heard tons and tons of deer still is Aleppo!
In my opinion still good huntable numbers in most, with exceptions maybe of a few where I think the herd should be allowed to rebound and I wouldnt dream of killing antlerless in those areas. Mostly, areas infar western part of Greene. Many landowners in the area have closed the land due to the devastating ehd. Others now allow no doe hunting for a couple years. From what Id seen, that extremely responsible of them!
And most of these arent public lands. They are mostly private unposted land that are willing to allow hunting with the asking. A couple public, and some posted that is hunted by friends and family of the landowners.
I see very little areas that the "plan" has missed. I know they exist. but are few and far between, and even exist in some of the absolute worst counties.
The excessive reduction may have taken lesser habitat areas of the state far lower, but most areas werent spared unnecessary excessive slaughter including this one.
"As to greene county, still too many deer, and it is not limited to the private ground I hunt"
Greene has far fewer than it did, far fewer than it could have and far fewer than it should.
But 1st, your contention of "too many". 1st by all pgc measurement variables, the herd is NOT too large (and your property with 100 or the property on the other end of the county with 3 have nothing to do with it. They dont micromanage remember? Its wmu wide antlerless allocations and currently the wmu is WELLunder the cc.
Pgcs own assessment shows adequate regeneration, and also herd health. They decided based on that data to "stabilize" the much smaller herd for the last 3 years and this year as well. The citizen advisory committee, although a joke, comprised of a few "eco-weineys" which threw a monkey wrench into the works STILL ended up being a consensus of STABILIZATION. Also, pgc human conflict rating for the wmu was LOW.
THEREFORE your contention too many deer in the wmu is FAR off base.
Now, why should there be more? Because we have the best habitat type in the state, and I dont believe NOWHERE IN THE STATE can have 25 dpfsm ow.or more,responsibly. I know better.
Second. We had 69 ow dpsm back in the 90's and they STILL didnt degrade the habitat to unacceptable standards,since the habitatNEVER rated poor.Also, the people around here STILL werent crying slaughter the deer.
While I'll agree we couldve used some reduction as preventative measure generally speaking, and the herd was a bit unnecessarily high, NOTHING and I mean NOTHING warranted the rediculous extreme reduction we recieved. Which despite pgcs claim of stabilization, is STILL being reduced. Thanksto higher antlerless harvest goals and higher allocations than we had while the herd was according to pgc being reduced.
1.Most hunters from the wmu dont think there are too many.
2.Most nonhunters I speak with on a daily basis dont think there are too many.
3.Despite the inappropritate allocations, evenpgc claims there arent too many deer in the wmu, and is why they are claiming to stabilize.
4.The cac believed the herd wasnt too high in the wmu. In fact of the people surveyed by the cac members the people wanted INCREASE by a HUGE margin.
Seems you, along with maybe 1% of the farmers in the wmu, who want zero deer (most farmers are currently quite content as is here) are the only ones complaining. And the farmers in question have plenty of options to address. Dmap. Red tags. And new legislation permitting 'em to shoot deer 24/7. So i fail to see reason to keep the entire wmus herd at rediculous for the wmu lows or worse, go lower.
Btw, as for your "dodging deer", it used to be, on nice evenings in late summer early fall just before dark, you could see deer every quarter mile or so in fields etc. Now you might, if lucky, see 3 to 10 the entire way across the county from Wind Ridge to Carmichaels .
As for assesements by area, all of which Im VERY familiar with, Carmichaels area, way down too many tags for too long. Garards fort area, way down tons of hunting pressure, Kirby,down same reason, Sycamore down due to ehd and tags, Wind ridge practically dead due to ehd, Kuhntown, Down Deep Valley, Down, and on and on.... ONly place Ive heard tons and tons of deer still is Aleppo!
In my opinion still good huntable numbers in most, with exceptions maybe of a few where I think the herd should be allowed to rebound and I wouldnt dream of killing antlerless in those areas. Mostly, areas infar western part of Greene. Many landowners in the area have closed the land due to the devastating ehd. Others now allow no doe hunting for a couple years. From what Id seen, that extremely responsible of them!And most of these arent public lands. They are mostly private unposted land that are willing to allow hunting with the asking. A couple public, and some posted that is hunted by friends and family of the landowners.
I see very little areas that the "plan" has missed. I know they exist. but are few and far between, and even exist in some of the absolute worst counties.
The excessive reduction may have taken lesser habitat areas of the state far lower, but most areas werent spared unnecessary excessive slaughter including this one.
10-29-2008, 09:30 AM
#402
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: PA.
Posts: 5,195
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
fellas 2, i have 100 acres here in clinton county i dont even hunt deer on.
i had about 15 deer 2 years ago, then it went to 6 last year and i saw 2 this year.
why, because of poaching or just hunters walk right by signs.
they dont care and MOST are local hunters..
you know what 1 said to me one day.
he said,SPROUL IF YOU THINK WE ARE GOING TO LET CAMP OWNERS AND THE OUT OF TOWN HUNTERS COME IN AND KILL OUR DEER, YOU ARE CRAZY,WE ARE GOING TO GET THEM BEFORE THEM.[:@]
poaching is being done mostly by locals too,not many but i would say about 10 do it IN WESTERN CLINTON COUNTY.
out of towners that POACH do it the friday/saturday/sunday before the opening of the 2 week deer season.
a lot put feed outside their camps and shoot the deer there after dark.
some ride around and do it.
you would not believe the number of cans hanging from trees last year in 1 area I HUNTEDfilled with vanilla extract or sardine oil.
they were baiting in BEAR and i feel it was not locals doing that, it is CAMP OWNERS.
SO, I GUESS WE CAN SEE WHY NO ONE WANTS US ON PRIVATELAND.
illegal things are done there and honest owners get poached/tresspassers are on property.
ones that are doing it ARE very dangerous people,if they find out you turned them in, there goes your camp.
i had my camp burned 6 times,all i caught before it caught the floor on fire.a friend who has camp in summerson mtn saw them coming from his camp, he went to door and door was burned.
they were on motorcycles and ages run from 12 to 15.
these are kids that POACH or will be next full time POACHERS.[:@]
WHY DID THEY TRY TO BURN HIS CAMP, BECAUSE HE IS IN A GOOD HUNTING AREA AND THEY DONT WANT HIM GETTING THE BIG BUCK.
why were they burning my camp?
because i would not let them on my land to kill all doe off and i turned the poachers into the local WCO .
GOOD DAY!
i had about 15 deer 2 years ago, then it went to 6 last year and i saw 2 this year.
why, because of poaching or just hunters walk right by signs.
they dont care and MOST are local hunters..
you know what 1 said to me one day.
he said,SPROUL IF YOU THINK WE ARE GOING TO LET CAMP OWNERS AND THE OUT OF TOWN HUNTERS COME IN AND KILL OUR DEER, YOU ARE CRAZY,WE ARE GOING TO GET THEM BEFORE THEM.[:@]
poaching is being done mostly by locals too,not many but i would say about 10 do it IN WESTERN CLINTON COUNTY.
out of towners that POACH do it the friday/saturday/sunday before the opening of the 2 week deer season.
a lot put feed outside their camps and shoot the deer there after dark.
some ride around and do it.
you would not believe the number of cans hanging from trees last year in 1 area I HUNTEDfilled with vanilla extract or sardine oil.
they were baiting in BEAR and i feel it was not locals doing that, it is CAMP OWNERS.
SO, I GUESS WE CAN SEE WHY NO ONE WANTS US ON PRIVATELAND.
illegal things are done there and honest owners get poached/tresspassers are on property.
ones that are doing it ARE very dangerous people,if they find out you turned them in, there goes your camp.
i had my camp burned 6 times,all i caught before it caught the floor on fire.a friend who has camp in summerson mtn saw them coming from his camp, he went to door and door was burned.
they were on motorcycles and ages run from 12 to 15.
these are kids that POACH or will be next full time POACHERS.[:@]
WHY DID THEY TRY TO BURN HIS CAMP, BECAUSE HE IS IN A GOOD HUNTING AREA AND THEY DONT WANT HIM GETTING THE BIG BUCK.
why were they burning my camp?
because i would not let them on my land to kill all doe off and i turned the poachers into the local WCO .
GOOD DAY!
10-29-2008, 09:58 AM
#403
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New Stanton PA USA
Posts: 2,213
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
ORIGINAL: bluebird2
The 48K in 2007 was 44% of the harvest compared to the 52K 2.5 buck in 2002 which was 32% of the harvest.
OK, but what percentage of the harvest was the 48k compared to the 2002 52k percentage?
Correct me if I am wrong here, but the above stated data seems to point out that our current deer management system is indeed producing a higher percentage of closer to mature bucks?
Fellas2, one could definately look at me, and others of similar mindset as a problem for hunters looking to hunt wherever they please.
Here is how I look at it.........whether it is ground I own and pay the taxes on, or ground I lease, why in the world would I let perfect strangers do what they want on land I am paying for? Why would I let others reap the reward of my game management, hard work, foodplots, etc.?
That said, you are mistaken when you stated that I do not allow anyone else hunt. That is not true. It is not open for hunting by the masses, but there are other hunters that hunt at will.
10-29-2008, 10:09 AM
#404
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New Stanton PA USA
Posts: 2,213
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
ORIGINAL: Cornelius08
Bigcountry, I missed this exact wording previously, and its pretty far out there, so thought I better address it.
"As to greene county, still too many deer, and it is not limited to the private ground I hunt"
Greene has far fewer than it did, far fewer than it could have and far fewer than it should.
But 1st, your contention of "too many". 1st by all pgc measurement variables, the herd is NOT too large (and your property with 100 or the property on the other end of the county with 3 have nothing to do with it. They dont micromanage remember? Its wmu wide antlerless allocations and currently the wmu is WELLunder the cc.
Pgcs own assessment shows adequate regeneration, and also herd health. They decided based on that data to "stabilize" the much smaller herd for the last 3 years and this year as well. The citizen advisory committee, although a joke, comprised of a few "eco-weineys" which threw a monkey wrench into the works STILL ended up being a consensus of STABILIZATION. Also, pgc human conflict rating for the wmu was LOW.
THEREFORE your contention too many deer in the wmu is FAR off base.
Now, why should there be more? Because we have the best habitat type in the state, and I dont believe NOWHERE IN THE STATE can have 25 dpfsm ow.or more,responsibly. I know better.
Second. We had 69 ow dpsm back in the 90's and they STILL didnt degrade the habitat to unacceptable standards,since the habitatNEVER rated poor.Also, the people around here STILL werent crying slaughter the deer.
While I'll agree we couldve used some reduction as preventative measure generally speaking, and the herd was a bit unnecessarily high, NOTHING and I mean NOTHING warranted the rediculous extreme reduction we recieved. Which despite pgcs claim of stabilization, is STILL being reduced. Thanksto higher antlerless harvest goals and higher allocations than we had while the herd was according to pgc being reduced.
1.Most hunters from the wmu dont think there are too many.
2.Most nonhunters I speak with on a daily basis dont think there are too many.
3.Despite the inappropritate allocations, evenpgc claims there arent too many deer in the wmu, and is why they are claiming to stabilize.
4.The cac believed the herd wasnt too high in the wmu. In fact of the people surveyed by the cac members the people wanted INCREASE by a HUGE margin.
Seems you, along with maybe 1% of the farmers in the wmu, who want zero deer (most farmers are currently quite content as is here) are the only ones complaining. And the farmers in question have plenty of options to address. Dmap. Red tags. And new legislation permitting 'em to shoot deer 24/7. So i fail to see reason to keep the entire wmus herd at rediculous for the wmu lows or worse, go lower.
Btw, as for your "dodging deer", it used to be, on nice evenings in late summer early fall just before dark, you could see deer every quarter mile or so in fields etc. Now you might, if lucky, see 3 to 10 the entire way across the county from Wind Ridge to Carmichaels .
As for assesements by area, all of which Im VERY familiar with, Carmichaels area, way down too many tags for too long. Garards fort area, way down tons of hunting pressure, Kirby,down same reason, Sycamore down due to ehd and tags, Wind ridge practically dead due to ehd, Kuhntown, Down Deep Valley, Down, and on and on.... ONly place Ive heard tons and tons of deer still is Aleppo! In my opinion still good huntable numbers in most, with exceptions maybe of a few where I think the herd should be allowed to rebound and I wouldnt dream of killing antlerless in those areas. Mostly, areas infar western part of Greene. Many landowners in the area have closed the land due to the devastating ehd. Others now allow no doe hunting for a couple years. From what Id seen, that extremely responsible of them!
And most of these arent public lands. They are mostly private unposted land that are willing to allow hunting with the asking. A couple public, and some posted that is hunted by friends and family of the landowners.
I see very little areas that the "plan" has missed. I know they exist. but are few and far between, and even exist in some of the absolute worst counties.
The excessive reduction may have taken lesser habitat areas of the state far lower, but most areas werent spared unnecessary excessive slaughter including this one.
Bigcountry, I missed this exact wording previously, and its pretty far out there, so thought I better address it.
"As to greene county, still too many deer, and it is not limited to the private ground I hunt"
Greene has far fewer than it did, far fewer than it could have and far fewer than it should.
But 1st, your contention of "too many". 1st by all pgc measurement variables, the herd is NOT too large (and your property with 100 or the property on the other end of the county with 3 have nothing to do with it. They dont micromanage remember? Its wmu wide antlerless allocations and currently the wmu is WELLunder the cc.
Pgcs own assessment shows adequate regeneration, and also herd health. They decided based on that data to "stabilize" the much smaller herd for the last 3 years and this year as well. The citizen advisory committee, although a joke, comprised of a few "eco-weineys" which threw a monkey wrench into the works STILL ended up being a consensus of STABILIZATION. Also, pgc human conflict rating for the wmu was LOW.
THEREFORE your contention too many deer in the wmu is FAR off base.
Now, why should there be more? Because we have the best habitat type in the state, and I dont believe NOWHERE IN THE STATE can have 25 dpfsm ow.or more,responsibly. I know better.
Second. We had 69 ow dpsm back in the 90's and they STILL didnt degrade the habitat to unacceptable standards,since the habitatNEVER rated poor.Also, the people around here STILL werent crying slaughter the deer.
While I'll agree we couldve used some reduction as preventative measure generally speaking, and the herd was a bit unnecessarily high, NOTHING and I mean NOTHING warranted the rediculous extreme reduction we recieved. Which despite pgcs claim of stabilization, is STILL being reduced. Thanksto higher antlerless harvest goals and higher allocations than we had while the herd was according to pgc being reduced.
1.Most hunters from the wmu dont think there are too many.
2.Most nonhunters I speak with on a daily basis dont think there are too many.
3.Despite the inappropritate allocations, evenpgc claims there arent too many deer in the wmu, and is why they are claiming to stabilize.
4.The cac believed the herd wasnt too high in the wmu. In fact of the people surveyed by the cac members the people wanted INCREASE by a HUGE margin.
Seems you, along with maybe 1% of the farmers in the wmu, who want zero deer (most farmers are currently quite content as is here) are the only ones complaining. And the farmers in question have plenty of options to address. Dmap. Red tags. And new legislation permitting 'em to shoot deer 24/7. So i fail to see reason to keep the entire wmus herd at rediculous for the wmu lows or worse, go lower.
Btw, as for your "dodging deer", it used to be, on nice evenings in late summer early fall just before dark, you could see deer every quarter mile or so in fields etc. Now you might, if lucky, see 3 to 10 the entire way across the county from Wind Ridge to Carmichaels .
As for assesements by area, all of which Im VERY familiar with, Carmichaels area, way down too many tags for too long. Garards fort area, way down tons of hunting pressure, Kirby,down same reason, Sycamore down due to ehd and tags, Wind ridge practically dead due to ehd, Kuhntown, Down Deep Valley, Down, and on and on.... ONly place Ive heard tons and tons of deer still is Aleppo!
In my opinion still good huntable numbers in most, with exceptions maybe of a few where I think the herd should be allowed to rebound and I wouldnt dream of killing antlerless in those areas. Mostly, areas infar western part of Greene. Many landowners in the area have closed the land due to the devastating ehd. Others now allow no doe hunting for a couple years. From what Id seen, that extremely responsible of them!And most of these arent public lands. They are mostly private unposted land that are willing to allow hunting with the asking. A couple public, and some posted that is hunted by friends and family of the landowners.
I see very little areas that the "plan" has missed. I know they exist. but are few and far between, and even exist in some of the absolute worst counties.
The excessive reduction may have taken lesser habitat areas of the state far lower, but most areas werent spared unnecessary excessive slaughter including this one.
I am glad that you know more about my land and the land surrounding it than I do.
There is one fundimental difference between your thoughts on deer herds and hunting, and my thoughts on the same...........
You seem to want high densities at any cost, and I want a balanced, mature herd.
I make no apologies for wanting to hunt big, mature bucks. I will go as far to say that I have always questioned why an adult hunter, with a few bucks under his/her belt, would EVER shoot another small buck? If you want meat, shoot a doe.
10-29-2008, 10:39 AM
#405
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
Correct me if I am wrong here, but the above stated data seems to point out that our current deer management system is indeed producing a higher percentage of closer to mature bucks?
10-29-2008, 10:48 AM
#406
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New Stanton PA USA
Posts: 2,213
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
ORIGINAL: bluebird2
ARs always produce a higher percentage of 2.5+ buck in the herd , but it is a meaningless figure to the hunters in the field. To them the meaningful figure is the number of 2.5+ buck available to be harvested and that number was less in 2007 than in 2002, the first year of ARs.
Correct me if I am wrong here, but the above stated data seems to point out that our current deer management system is indeed producing a higher percentage of closer to mature bucks?
It may be a meaningless number to YOU, but please do not attempt to portray it as a meaningless number to ALL hunters.
10-29-2008, 10:56 AM
#407
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
"I am glad that you know more about my land and the land surrounding it than I do. "
Dont know about your little 600 acre honeyhole, but Ive hunted every single corner of Greene county for the last 30 years. Family did long before that.
"You seem to want high densities at any cost, and I want a balanced, mature herd. "
Oh no no no. Dont try and paint me with the ol' irresponsible deer behind every tree brush!! I have repeated stated I want the deer inline with habitat. But on the other end, I think if it is well below that point, it should be increased, and anytime thats mentioned doesnt make one wrong, it should be common sense, but currently with pgc, sadly,it isnt.They care about taking us below what is acceptable habitatwise, but dont care HOW MUCH lower. Huntings well beingis not even a consideration. THAT is why we are losing hunters at over double the national average. It also not about "my opinions" as Ive shown you, we are within pgc pre-set guidelines as far as herd size goes.
"I make no apologies for wanting to hunt big, mature bucks."
Nor doI. And I understand you have no way ofknowing who you are talking to, but if you did, you'd realize you are preaching to thechoir. I havent shot dink bucks in years. Long before ar. As for ar, If it can be shown non-detrimental. Great I support it. if it cant, Id like to see some other way of protect more bucks. But at any rate, My problem is with EXCESSIVE UNNECESSARY reductions. There is ZERO way we, who hunt in Greene county can have MORE BIG BUCKS than we did pre-deer plan, when currently our deer density is less than half the previous overwinterdensity!!! ITSI-M-P-O-S-S-I-B-L-E. And I have a big problem with that as well. The herd had not damaged the habitat, and its debatable if they would have. But this aint the northwoods, and this area can support far more deer than currently IN BALANCE WITH THE HABITAT. And if you also support ar, it will save more bucks that get to actually be born in the first place.
"I will go as far to say that I have always questioned why an adult hunter, with a few bucks under his/her belt, would EVER shoot another small buck? If you want meat, shoot a doe."
I shootwhat I consider a decent buck, or none at all. Currently if I want meat, I dont need to shoot a doe. Dad killed a ten point. And hunting bud, killed a decent 8 - 17" inside spread. That I passed on and let him shoot.
Id also give myself about 70% odds on the last two weeks of archery coming. I will probably lower standards a littleat the end, but still well above the barely legal minimum. I dont rifle hunt andusually take a bow then too, if necessary.
Alpha and proud of it chief.
"Dont know about your little 600 acre honeyhole, but Ive hunted every single corner of Greene county for the last 30 years. Family did long before that.
"You seem to want high densities at any cost, and I want a balanced, mature herd. "
Oh no no no. Dont try and paint me with the ol' irresponsible deer behind every tree brush!! I have repeated stated I want the deer inline with habitat. But on the other end, I think if it is well below that point, it should be increased, and anytime thats mentioned doesnt make one wrong, it should be common sense, but currently with pgc, sadly,it isnt.They care about taking us below what is acceptable habitatwise, but dont care HOW MUCH lower. Huntings well beingis not even a consideration. THAT is why we are losing hunters at over double the national average. It also not about "my opinions" as Ive shown you, we are within pgc pre-set guidelines as far as herd size goes.
"I make no apologies for wanting to hunt big, mature bucks."
Nor doI. And I understand you have no way ofknowing who you are talking to, but if you did, you'd realize you are preaching to thechoir. I havent shot dink bucks in years. Long before ar. As for ar, If it can be shown non-detrimental. Great I support it. if it cant, Id like to see some other way of protect more bucks. But at any rate, My problem is with EXCESSIVE UNNECESSARY reductions. There is ZERO way we, who hunt in Greene county can have MORE BIG BUCKS than we did pre-deer plan, when currently our deer density is less than half the previous overwinterdensity!!! ITSI-M-P-O-S-S-I-B-L-E. And I have a big problem with that as well. The herd had not damaged the habitat, and its debatable if they would have. But this aint the northwoods, and this area can support far more deer than currently IN BALANCE WITH THE HABITAT. And if you also support ar, it will save more bucks that get to actually be born in the first place.
"I will go as far to say that I have always questioned why an adult hunter, with a few bucks under his/her belt, would EVER shoot another small buck? If you want meat, shoot a doe."
I shootwhat I consider a decent buck, or none at all. Currently if I want meat, I dont need to shoot a doe. Dad killed a ten point. And hunting bud, killed a decent 8 - 17" inside spread. That I passed on and let him shoot.
Id also give myself about 70% odds on the last two weeks of archery coming. I will probably lower standards a littleat the end, but still well above the barely legal minimum. I dont rifle hunt andusually take a bow then too, if necessary.
Alpha and proud of it chief.
10-29-2008, 10:59 AM
#408
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
The statement of increased percentage aloneis meaningless like bt said bigcountry.
IF we have 100 bucks and 30% of them are good buck, we have 30.
If we drop the total bucks to start with to due to less born due to reduction and less button buck to40, yet increase the PERCENTAGE of good bucks to 50%. You havent gained a thing, and actually have far fewer good bucks at 20, compared to 30 previously.
Just random figures to illistrate how in itself, higher PERCENTAGE is meaningless if it is still lower in total.
IF we have 100 bucks and 30% of them are good buck, we have 30.
If we drop the total bucks to start with to due to less born due to reduction and less button buck to40, yet increase the PERCENTAGE of good bucks to 50%. You havent gained a thing, and actually have far fewer good bucks at 20, compared to 30 previously.
Just random figures to illistrate how in itself, higher PERCENTAGE is meaningless if it is still lower in total.
10-29-2008, 11:03 AM
#409
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: PA.
Posts: 5,195
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
2 years after the AR went into affect we did start seeing bigger horn bucks,so you said 2002,that would be 2004.
in 2006 i saw real nice bucks,then in 2007,last year,i saw LESS bucks, and only few real large racks.
this year, so far has been TERRIBLE here in WMU2G IN CLINTON COUNTY.
I HAVE NOT SEEN ABUCK.
I BLAME THIS TO THE brown its down with kids tag groups.
i feel they are killing most small bucks which is reducing the large rack bucks numbers.also coyotes and the fawn killer hunters are too.
i seen more small bucks killed last year in clinton county than i did in 2004,2005,2006.
actually more small bucks than doe,like 1 gang had 7 spikes and 2 doe.
they had 7 kids in crew of 20 hunters, so, they got 7 spikes.
if we dont stop the AR exemption for kids, its not going to work.
if stopped,i believe that the number of hunters would INCREASE bigtime,you would have older buck,out of state lic sales would go up a lot.
of course, the BROWN ITS DOWN CREWS WITH KIDS TAG would now have to LOOK at horns, no more shooting and calling on radio or waiting for drive to be over so kid tag can be on the little buck and i believe the comment,I HAVE A FREEZER FULL OF MEAT SPROUL would end.
dont for 1 minute think that this AR rule is not being abused,it is and we should be real mad over it.[:@]
time to stop it,make it AR for all.
as paul harvey said,GOOD DAY!
in 2006 i saw real nice bucks,then in 2007,last year,i saw LESS bucks, and only few real large racks.
this year, so far has been TERRIBLE here in WMU2G IN CLINTON COUNTY.
I HAVE NOT SEEN ABUCK.
I BLAME THIS TO THE brown its down with kids tag groups.
i feel they are killing most small bucks which is reducing the large rack bucks numbers.also coyotes and the fawn killer hunters are too.
i seen more small bucks killed last year in clinton county than i did in 2004,2005,2006.
actually more small bucks than doe,like 1 gang had 7 spikes and 2 doe.
they had 7 kids in crew of 20 hunters, so, they got 7 spikes.
if we dont stop the AR exemption for kids, its not going to work.
if stopped,i believe that the number of hunters would INCREASE bigtime,you would have older buck,out of state lic sales would go up a lot.
of course, the BROWN ITS DOWN CREWS WITH KIDS TAG would now have to LOOK at horns, no more shooting and calling on radio or waiting for drive to be over so kid tag can be on the little buck and i believe the comment,I HAVE A FREEZER FULL OF MEAT SPROUL would end.
dont for 1 minute think that this AR rule is not being abused,it is and we should be real mad over it.[:@]
time to stop it,make it AR for all.
as paul harvey said,GOOD DAY!
10-29-2008, 11:22 AM
#410
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 48
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
You know, I've worked with WCOs on many cases involving baiting, illegal treestands on SGLs, hunters killing deer in one WMU and tagging it with a tag from another WMU, poaching etc. Some of these occurances were found while I was hunting, other infractions were heard being talked about on portable radios. In every case, it was important to document what you seen, what you heard, and what you know. In just about every case, I had to give up my hunting time, back out of the area, and notify the authorities. Small things like making note of communications on certain channels, license plate numbers, vehicle make and model, can all make the investigation much easier to a WCO. Nonchalantly taking notice to small details helps alot. When I hear things going on on the radio nearby, I make a beeline to my vehicle and stand there with the trunk open making like I'm getting ready to pack it in, while waiting for the suspicious party to drive by. When they do, I non chalantly fall in behind them. After I get a plate number, I turn off. Very simple.
Nailing these slobs has to start with us. WCOs can't be everywhere, but they sure can be somewhere through our eyes and ears. I'm not doubtingSproul one bit concerning a camp that had 7 spikes hanging. But in order for this kind of activity to be noticed, LEO has to know about it. I don't know much about the WCOs in Clinton County. But I can tell you that the WCOs in 3 counties that I hunt regularly would have a field day with a crew that had 7 spikes hanging, and would probably walk away with several citations having been written out on that day. If there were infractions in that camp, they'd surely find them. They have their methods, all they need is a few clues.
Nailing these slobs has to start with us. WCOs can't be everywhere, but they sure can be somewhere through our eyes and ears. I'm not doubtingSproul one bit concerning a camp that had 7 spikes hanging. But in order for this kind of activity to be noticed, LEO has to know about it. I don't know much about the WCOs in Clinton County. But I can tell you that the WCOs in 3 counties that I hunt regularly would have a field day with a crew that had 7 spikes hanging, and would probably walk away with several citations having been written out on that day. If there were infractions in that camp, they'd surely find them. They have their methods, all they need is a few clues.