Big Country

OK, so you want basically the same things I want regarding our deer herd. This is a good start......

That said, do you have a better plan than the PGC has implemented?

I realize that the current plan is too broad in scope, and that we have gone too far in reducing numbers in many area`s.......

How can ANY plan work in this state with the sheer volume of hunters, and the majority mindset of said hunters?

A question.........why would the PGC want to carry less than is easily sustainable in regardess to the deer herd?

Less deer equals less hunters equals less money?

The old wives tale about auto insurance companies simply does not wash?

Although I would be willing to entertain the notion that the PGC is being stubborn at this juncture, what possible motive would they have for carrying well under the capacity in whitetails?

There simply is no legitimate motive that comes to mind.....

fellas2

bIG cOUNTRY, first I never said YOU didn't allow other hunters on your property,I said that the norm now in Greene is not to let outsiders or Joe public to hunt even if permission is asked.You are the one who stated you do not allow any public hunting on it.It's yours so you have evry right to allow who you want on it and when.What I said was you don't have any complaint about too many deer if you and other landowners don't allow public hunting.I know of many many farms that do not allow hunting at all or limit it to a few buddies and are the first to complain about deer damage.You are more than entiltled to try to manage the deer that reside on property you either pay taxes on or lease,but you don't own the deer.They're just a fringe benefit of having the luxury of being a property owner.I must agree with Cornelius08.There are nowhere near the deer today there were as little as 7-10 years ago.All of the places he named including a few more like Bristoria,Swartz,Nineveh and others contain nowhere near the deer that were there a few years back.And last year when EHD ran rampant through that area,our PGC continued to sell antlerless licenses to the very end without a care in the world of how the herd was affected.I personally know of three farms were the #'s of EHD deaths were close to 100 but they kept on selling.You are entitled to want to shoot a large,mature buck as all of us would but don't denegrate the others out there for wanting to shoot a smaller buck.They pay the same amount for their license as you do and are entitled to a deer just as much as you.A balanced and mature herd maybe something you desire,but in this state with the restrictions being put on hunters by the PCG and landowners,it's nothing but a pipe dream.Far too many guys are getting caught up in watching Bill Jordan,Tom Miranda ,and other shows trying to make this state into something it's just not capable of.All i'm looking for is a nice safe place for me and my 3 sons to hunt.

Big Country

Oh, the state itself is capable of producing much larger numbers of big bucks.......just not with the prevailing hunter mentality.

I did not say that people were not "entitled" to a deer. They are, but they could be a little more selective. Entitled is a word that Barack Obama loves to throw around......[]

fellas2

Cornelius08,you and I have a lot in common.You hit the nail directly on the head.Years ago there were just as many big bucks in Greene as there are today,just way fewer bucks (doe as well).Since the AR was instituted,I personally have only killed one legal buck,a 7 point last year,but have see a minimun of 20-25 non-legal ones.Using the PGC's theory,where did they go? What happened the the massive sets of horns they should have now? It's been quite a few years now and we should have a boatload of 5,6,and 7 year old bucks with mature antlers.If some one is shooting them,I'd like to know who and where cause it sure isn't anyone I know of.Every year the harvest in that area goes down,but these bucks are never seen or heard from so something has to be amiss.By the way,next time i'm in Greene,i'll buy you a beer if you give me a call.

fellas2

I guess my question is who wants to change the current hunters mentality ? Is it a select few landowners,is it the PGC, is it special interest groups ?
My dad always told me ,if it ain't broke don't fix it.With the years of hunting under my belt and the number of deer I've killed,I don't want to shoot the first scrub buck that walks by either,but I don't want a exercise in futility trying to find a place to hunt and when I do, waste days upon days with my sons hoping to get a a glimpse of something.We harp on the fact of getting kids involved in the sport,not just to keep the out of trouble but to share the love of the outdoors like I have for the past 40 years, but it's a tough task when things are headed in the direction they are.Soon the only people who will be able to hunt are the guys willing to pay $15.00 an acre for a lease or $1500.00 for a five day hunt on some one elses private preserve.

sproulman

this TRUE example was done over 6 day week.first week of deer.

FIRST DAY 2 SPIKES, SECOND DAY 2 SPIKES,6TH DAY SAT 3 SPIKES.this is example, may be they got 3 spikes first day.

they even were sawing off horns, yes, thats right, they are carrying HACKSAWS SO IT LOOKS LIKE DOE .

spike still has to be 3 inchs long,brown its down crews or hunters carrying HACKSAWS,that makes it doe.SEE. THAT GROUP ONLYS SHOOTS,THEY DONT LOOK AT HORN LENGTH, SO,AHHHHHHHHHHH,OUT COMES HACKSAWS.


also, THEY dont hang spikes out,i did not see 1 CAMP with spike/2point etchanging on porch, not one.

i talked to camp with 12 senior hunters,theysaid they saw groups of hunters shooting at any deer.

they also told me the kid was in truck, dad shot the small buck, called on radio for kid to come tag it.

kid was in truck with heater on and dad was hunting.

dont get me wrong, this is not what everyone is doing but a LOT are and if the WCO is not stopping hunters and talking about this stuff, its going to continue.

this also was reported to WCO.

only way to slow it down is to make the AR for all of us,i would like to see that and will be bringing it up to our reps.

did you know that most of sportsmans clubs still want the AR to stay same.

why,because most of ones i know STILL WANT TO FILL FREEZER AND THEY FOUND A WAY TO DO IT.

its called,AR for kids.[:@]

fmedic5

I admit I have only read a fraction of this thread as I just started reading it today. So, if its been touched on already, I apologize in advance. First as far as the insurance companies go, West Virginia and Michigan both are higher ranked in deer vs car accident states, we still top off the list at #3. Now insurance companies figure in all sorts of accident scenarios for all motorists, stats on single vehicle, multiple vehicle, etc all go into the mix. If you want to reduce the deer vs car issues, in most areas you need to reduce the deer heards. Many of these accidents occur in residential suburban areasnot it true rural areas (while that also happens, just drive I80 from the Deleware Water Gap to the middle of the state and you can't count the number of deer on the side of the road this time of year on one hand). Anyway, a certain Bucks County (Eastern, PA) township actually spent $500,000 (yes, of hard earned tax payers dollars)! to have snipers come in and shoot the deer from a residential area because the population is such that they were experiencing daily car vs deer accidents and people "wanted something done" until bambi and his mother were shot and then they didn't want anything done....but that is a different story for a different post. My point of all this is simple, there needs to be some change to have some results. One thing that I personally see as a benefit would be to open hunting on Sunday. I am from NY originally, I work a f/t Monday - Friday 9-5 HA! job, I cant hunt the peak rut because darkness falls before I leave work, this leaves me Saturday only. The numbers would increase and deer taken on Sunday's reported - we all know that people hunt private land on Sunday, I am not acusing anybody, but I know it happens. Deer sits until Monday for processing and nobody saw or says nothing about nothing. The number of actual deer reported would increase with the implementation of legal Sunday hunting. I don't have my own land to hunt, I don't hunt Sunday, but I am sure there are many out there that do. Plus, the HS courses harp on how each year fewer and fewer hunters buy tags (so our costs will increase) and that it is going to be a dying ( no pun intended) sport. For all those parents that want to take their kids out between school, soccor, football, etc. this time of year, they only have Saturday and any kid playing other sports wont have the exposure because of lack of time. I have rambled enough, stepping off the soap box and passing it on to the next person.

P.S. Insurance companies do not want to pay claims, they arent happy when they have to pay claims, but they do have to charge to cover those claims or they dont exist next year. It's called their Combined Ratio

Cornelius08

OK, so you want basically the same things I want regarding our deer herd. This is a good start......

That said, do you have a better plan than the PGC has implemented?

"I realize that the current plan is too broad in scope, and that we have gone too far in reducing numbers in many area`s.......

How can ANY plan work in this state with the sheer volume of hunters, and the majority mindset of said hunters?

A question.........why would the PGC want to carry less than is easily sustainable in regardess to the deer herd?

Less deer equals less hunters equals less money? "

Good question. Why dont you ask them. Its undeniable that currently that is exactly whats happening since the data and numbers show it clearly. Only things I can figure are the few who do want fewer deer yet, are simply getting their ways. Audubon/ecoextremists wants far fewer than most deem necessary as does the timber industry. These people would have been addressed to some extent with ANY reduction we would have implemented. I think that exactly who is on the board of commissioners currently has MUCH to do with the mindset and the direction we are headed. Also, less deer equal less money. Some on the board see that as a good thing short term. Some are STRONGLY in favor of alternate funding. What better way to acheive that than to make it the only option? Not saying I have all the answers, just throwing out some possibilities and there are more. Others paying the bills limits even further hunters "say" in wildlife management and more say to eco-extremists, timber etc.

"The old wives tale about auto insurance companies simply does not wash?"

Wether they play any role or not, From my perspective, Id say insurance companies are the least of our worries. I know some of the "ties" that some of the commissioners have, especially those who consistently support less and less deer and everything it takes to get that,and understand full well how theyare seeing these issues and why....and it aint the insurance companies.

"Although I would be willing to entertain the notion that the PGC is being stubborn at this juncture, what possible motive would they have for carrying well under the capacity in whitetails?"

Well, many possibilities of motives exist. Wether you may be willing toentertain them or not, doesnt dismiss the fact there are many possibilities. Its not as important why as it is to address the problems. I just care what is occurring and what our future holds.

Do I have better ideas? Absolutely. Just as a start and very significant in all regards would be smaller wmus. In my opinion, not even debatable. Its the way to manage if all things are to be considered and not just kill the deer widescale... 2nd. Put the deer where the deer can be. Thats absolutely not being done. I believe it has everything to do with whose making the decisions and whyand very little with the "measuring" techniques they are supposed to be following, but seem to only follow when it equates to fewer deer. If it does not, they ignore it, and strive for fewer anyway.

I also dont look highly upon the fact we had an eco-extremist pgc insider placed on the 2a CAC.Person wasnt from 2A, didnt own land in 2A and works with pgc. Also is seeking seat on the board. She voted FOR REDUCTION despite the huge majority of people she surveyed saying they wanted stabilization or increase and a tiny fraction only, wanted reduction. She voted reduction. Despite the fact pgc has been supposedly "stabilizing" the herd, and the fact we already had 50%+ ow herd reduction to this point.

The cacs are a huge farce. Makes any reasonable herd increase nearly impossible. Just generally speaking to make the point, If 6 people in the entire county want less deer, they can effectively prevent increase for the next 15 years as long as 2 of them go every five years and say NO to increase. Doesnt matter if every single person in the county wants more. Its just too bad... Then, if ever that huge obstacle were overcome by some miracle, pgc can just point to any vague unchallengable statitistic in regards to habitat they like, and simply say no!Herd should be scientifically evaluated first, then MAJORITY RULE as long as the desired goal isnt unacceptable. Its not majority rule. Its "If anyone wants less deer at all for any reason no matter how few" they rule.

Only "increases" that will ever be seen are on very few areas of the state that have gone past rock bottom. And thats a real shame.

fmedic5

Just to add to the smaller WMUs comment, how about making them easier to follow too. North of X South of Y East of A and West of B makes it harder to follow, I live on a border of two and still really dont understand what WMU I am in some of the outlines are do vague or are roads I cant identify.

Deeraholic66

Maybe when the pa game commission learns how to treat hunters with respect,all the hunterswont hate them so much.