HuntingNet.com Forums
Page 2 of 16
1
2
3
4
12
Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

HuntingNet.com Forums (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/)
-   Northeast (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/northeast-26/)
-   -   Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/northeast/264652-witch-doctors-should-hunters-believe.html)

bluebird2 09-24-2008 02:33 PM
RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 
Wrong again. That statement was referring to New York. You thenj took it upon yourself to apply it to all of Pennsylvania. While some parts of New York and Pennsylvania may be similar, thats a far cry from the statement you claimed.
That is not true. I simply pointed out that Alsheimer and other experts in NY said the carrying capacity of farmland and woodlots is 35-40 DPSM and then I pointed out the ridiculous low DD goals in 5C and 5B. However, 16 of our 22 WMUs have at least 20% farmland and none of those wmus had DD goals of more than 15 DPSM.

The objective of regulatory changes for the 2000-01 season was to stop the
deer population growth that had occurred in each of the 2 previous years. This
was accomplished with the increased harvest in 2000 and the population was
stabilized at a statewide post-season density of 39 deer/mi2 of forested land (23
deer/mi2 of total land). This is still 86% above the statewide goal of 21
deer/mi2 of forested land (12 deer/mi2 of total land).
Note, the herd in 2G is now 40% below the goal of 15 DPSM.

BTBowhunter 09-24-2008 04:53 PM
RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 
ORIGINAL: bluebird2

Wrong again. That statement was referring to New York. You thenj took it upon yourself to apply it to all of Pennsylvania. While some parts of New York and Pennsylvania may be similar, thats a far cry from the statement you claimed.
That is not true. I simply pointed out that Alsheimer and other experts in NY said the carrying capacity of farmland and woodlots is 35-40 DPSM and then I pointed out the ridiculous low DD goals in 5C and 5B. However, 16 of our 22 WMUs have at least 20% farmland and none of those wmus had DD goals of more than 15 DPSM.

The objective of regulatory changes for the 2000-01 season was to stop the
deer population growth that had occurred in each of the 2 previous years. This
was accomplished with the increased harvest in 2000 and the population was
stabilized at a statewide post-season density of 39 deer/mi2 of forested land (23
deer/mi2 of total land). This is still 86% above the statewide goal of 21
deer/mi2 of forested land (12 deer/mi2 of total land).
Note, the herd in 2G is now 40% below the goal of 15 DPSM.
Using 2001 data is meaningless now.

Oh and you have shown no proof or no documentation for your claim as to what the current DPSM is in 2G let alone proof that it is now at 40% less than 15 DPSM or more simply at 9 DPSM

bluebird2 09-24-2008 05:17 PM
RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 
Here is the link to the report that shows 2G had less than 10 DPSM in 2006.

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/p...e/21001-05.pdf
Using 2001 data is meaningless now.

It is only meaningless if it doesn't fit your agenda. Alt claimed the 2000 harvest kept the herd stable ,so the data from 2001 is the basis on which HR is measured. Therefore, the data from 2001 is highly relevant.

White-tail-deer 09-24-2008 05:46 PM
RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 
Here we go again.....

Screamin Steel 09-24-2008 07:57 PM
RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 
ORIGINAL: BTBowhunter




So when did Charlie Alsheimer get his PHD? Or are you bestowing those now too?

I am surprised you would choose to question that fact considering the 2007 buck harvest was down 47% from 2001. Have you forgotten Alt said they wanted to reduce the herd by 5%/year for 10 years.
Couldn't find that link, eh?

Actually Dr. Kroll's research supports my position,it is just that he rearches the wrong conclusions. He doesn't even recognize the obvious effects of high grading that occurred due to ARs in Miss.
Why not write up your own conclusions correcting Dr Kroll and submit them to all the hunting publications and we'll see who believes you over Dr deer

Apparently numerous experts claim the majority of habitat in PA can support 35-40 DPSM, while the PGC claimed 5C could only support 6 DPSM. So "WITCH" experts should we believe?
Another classic Deaddeer, deerfly,beenther,bluebird2, ddear, Larry darryl and darryl distortion. I challenge you to produce a link quoting a few of your "numerous experts" claiming exactly what the habitat in PA vcan support. Oh and comparing 5C to the rest of the state is bogus too. When the 6 DPSM goal was released (no longer being used BTW) it very clearly stated that this was agoal based on human/deer conflict in an SRA urban WMU
No, Alsheimer is not a PhD. he is however a well known and respected expert in the deer hunting industry as well as a strong proponent of QDM , and very involved in several ongoing deer research projects, spanning several decades. Would you feel bette if he got an online degree? I have to admit that I'm surprised that someone who obviously likes to flaunt their own involvement with QDM and all the fancy clubs you are a member of, not to mention that you are a "guide'' on a DM operation yourself, that you would even question Charlie Alsheimer's positions on deer management. Hat's off to the "alpha hunter" over there. I'm sure that you are one of those guys who likes to think that anyone who has a beef with the PGC is a disgruntled stump sitter from gun season. Travel to the midwest, probably hunt some quality private land here in PA, and shoot a nice one in a food plot every year. Want a cookie? Truth is, many of us just don't fit your stereotype, scooter. In fact, many of us complaining are still killing deer. The difference between you and us is that we realize that responsible deer management on the state level is not about you orI getting our deer, and that's not a responsible gauge of its success or failure. The PGC's own data is the gauge, measured against its own goals, objectives, and projections. It is a miserable failure, and bend it any way you want. 5 or6 dpsm is NOT a responsible mgt goal, regardles of any amount of failed regeneration. If forest regeneration is truly as bad as they claim, reducing the herd to those extreme levels won't fix it. They need to be addressing the root problems, instead of using the deer as a scapegoat. This entire issue has money at it's veryroot, and the sportsmen of PA, and the deer are getting the shaft.( and not the one you shot your last "Poper" with in a food plot in Ill.) BTW, ever heard of Prof Sharpe, of PSU? He has quite a different take on the regeneration issue than the PGC and DCNR. I can give you a link if you'd like.

DougE 09-25-2008 06:44 AM
RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 
Funny you should mention Prof Sharpe.I live close to the areas where he did his experimental lime treatments.I'm also close frineds with the district forester from DCNR in the areas where these were done.A couple months ago,I had the opportunity to walk through these areas and compare them to areasthat were not treated with lime.You want to know what the difference was?Zero,unless you want to compare the growth of bracken ferns in the treated areas.Liming studies have been done many times over the years by a variety of different agencies and the conclusions were always the same.Liming does very little for the regeneration of most species.It does nothing for oak.It's expensive and vetry impracticle to implement in most cases.

Furthermore,this area has dozensand dozens of exclosures all over the place.Why is it they seem to get excellent regeneration behind those fences?It the soil any less acidic behind a fence?The oveidence is overwheling and clear that deer are the number one cause for the dpleated state of the habitat is the northern tier.It's not even debatable.

bluebird2 09-25-2008 07:01 AM
RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 
Zero,unless you want to compare the growth of bracken ferns in the treated areas.Liming studies have been done many times over the years by a variety of different agencies and the conclusions were always the same.Liming does very little for the regeneration of most species.It does nothing for oak.It's expensive and vetry impracticle to implement in most cases.

According to the PGC the herd in 2G has been reduced to 8-9 OW DPSM and still only 42% of the plots surveyed had adequate regeneration according to the PGC. Therefore, since according to you the exclosures prove the deer are the problem, then the PGC should keep reducing the herd in 2G until they get at least 70% regeneration, if in fact they are managing the herd based on forest health. Do you agree and if so how much more should the herd be reduced?

Also, do you agree with Alsheimer that areas like Wyo. county should be managed at 35-40 DPSM?

DougE 09-25-2008 12:30 PM
RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 
BT,I know the area very well where Sharpe limed those plots.Every year I take a couple tripstowith DCNR's district forester to see what's going on.The regeneration is much better now and they didn't start to see good results until the herd was reduced to below 10 dpsm.DCNR keeps good records and has a good handle on the situation in their districts.Last year,for the first time in years,they haven't had to fence all of their timber sales.That's because of less deer,plain and simple.This area was devistaed by having to many deer for way too long andit takes very few deer to continually impact the habitat under these conditions.It is getting better and DCNR has the data and facts to prove it.

I think you're taking Alsheimer's comments way to generally.Could Wyoming county support 35-40 dpsm?Probably but at the expense of more damage to the habitat,

BTBowhunter 09-25-2008 12:35 PM
RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 
ORIGINAL: Screamin Steel

ORIGINAL: BTBowhunter




So when did Charlie Alsheimer get his PHD? Or are you bestowing those now too?

I am surprised you would choose to question that fact considering the 2007 buck harvest was down 47% from 2001. Have you forgotten Alt said they wanted to reduce the herd by 5%/year for 10 years.
Couldn't find that link, eh?

Actually Dr. Kroll's research supports my position,it is just that he rearches the wrong conclusions. He doesn't even recognize the obvious effects of high grading that occurred due to ARs in Miss.
Why not write up your own conclusions correcting Dr Kroll and submit them to all the hunting publications and we'll see who believes you over Dr deer

Apparently numerous experts claim the majority of habitat in PA can support 35-40 DPSM, while the PGC claimed 5C could only support 6 DPSM. So "WITCH" experts should we believe?
Another classic Deaddeer, deerfly,beenther,bluebird2, ddear, Larry darryl and darryl distortion. I challenge you to produce a link quoting a few of your "numerous experts" claiming exactly what the habitat in PA vcan support. Oh and comparing 5C to the rest of the state is bogus too. When the 6 DPSM goal was released (no longer being used BTW) it very clearly stated that this was agoal based on human/deer conflict in an SRA urban WMU
No, Alsheimer is not a PhD. he is however a well known and respected expert in the deer hunting industry as well as a strong proponent of QDM , and very involved in several ongoing deer research projects, spanning several decades. Would you feel bette if he got an online degree? I have to admit that I'm surprised that someone who obviously likes to flaunt their own involvement with QDM and all the fancy clubs you are a member of, not to mention that you are a "guide'' on a DM operation yourself, that you would even question Charlie Alsheimer's positions on deer management. Hat's off to the "alpha hunter" over there. I'm sure that you are one of those guys who likes to think that anyone who has a beef with the PGC is a disgruntled stump sitter from gun season. Travel to the midwest, probably hunt some quality private land here in PA, and shoot a nice one in a food plot every year. Want a cookie? Truth is, many of us just don't fit your stereotype, scooter. In fact, many of us complaining are still killing deer. The difference between you and us is that we realize that responsible deer management on the state level is not about you orI getting our deer, and that's not a responsible gauge of its success or failure. The PGC's own data is the gauge, measured against its own goals, objectives, and projections. It is a miserable failure, and bend it any way you want. 5 or6 dpsm is NOT a responsible mgt goal, regardles of any amount of failed regeneration. If forest regeneration is truly as bad as they claim, reducing the herd to those extreme levels won't fix it. They need to be addressing the root problems, instead of using the deer as a scapegoat. This entire issue has money at it's veryroot, and the sportsmen of PA, and the deer are getting the shaft.( and not the one you shot your last "Poper" with in a food plot in Ill.) BTW, ever heard of Prof Sharpe, of PSU? He has quite a different take on the regeneration issue than the PGC and DCNR. I can give you a link if you'd like.
For the record, I never questioned nor criticized Charlie Alsheimers positions on anything. I have nothing but respect for him.

As for the rest of your post, I'm sorry you didn't get your deer.
Have you ever considered anger management counseling?

Cornelius08 09-25-2008 01:13 PM
RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
 
Screaminsteel, good stuff. I too have read Dr. Sharps position on the regeneration issue and much to the game commissions dismay, it makes far more sense then their own. Its nice to have seen someone who actually knew what they were talking about, and without an agenda, address that issue.

I find your post, Doug, interesting to say the least. You went to the area of the experiment, and say the Professor is a liar?? Whom are we to believe? A highly acclaimed well respected man with strong credentials or a highlybiased, pgc supportinganonymousmessage board poster with none? [:-]


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:00 PM.
Page 2 of 16
1
2
3
4
12
Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page


Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.