RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

[/size][/color][/size][/color]

What that data doesn’t show though is that as of 2006 Pennsylvania still had a lot more hunting license sold and hunters per square mile then any other state in the Union. In 2006 Pennsylvania was selling 20.8 license per square mile of land mass to the next highest state (Maryland) selling only 13.6 license per square mile.

So based on the rest of the facts Pennsylvania is still far ahead of any other state in license sales and hunters.

Now let’s go ahead and talk about just who dropped out as hunters. One of the places where Pennsylvania has lost hunters came about when it got easier for hunters to get multiple antler less licenses. Once that happened all of the wives and daughters that never hunted or had nay interest in hunting no longer had to buy a license so their husband, dad or brother could get an extra tag or two.

Another place that I have noticed a huge reduction in hunters is road hunters. I don’t see nearly as many of the guys that never hunted anyplace other then from the seat of their vehicle anymore. Maybe it is a combination of factors that caused them drop out of the hunter ranks but some of the things that come to mind are fewer deer standing along the roads, higher gas prices or the fear of being caught shooting at a fake deer as more WCO use facsimiles.

But, no matter how anyone looks at the data the fact still remains that Pennsylvania is still far ahead of any other state in the number of hunting license we sell. Perhaps our increased decline is just bringing us a slight bit closer to the national average as far as the number of hunters per capita.

Quote:

---

Seems to me, if you count everyone unhappy with pgcs irresponsible management, the huge majority, I dont think the mainstream could be considered rebels, radicals or anything else.

---

I don’t know where you got the idea that the majority of the hunters are unhappy with the Game Commission. There is nothing to establish that as a fact and it is really nothing more then an opinion.

It is true that most people wish they were seeing more deer but those that have taken the time to become educated of the facts do support the Game Commission and the present deer management plan. It is only a minority of people, made up of those that refuse to accept the facts, that are fighting the present management plan. Many of them simply never bothered to get all of the facts while other will never accept any of the facts because they aren’t what they want to believe.

Quote:

---

As for the lawsuit, all I see is one sportsmens organization being proactive and doing one of the only things they can to counter the eco-extremist initiated and run antideer agenda.

---

There is no anti-deer agenda. Anyone that makes such a comment would be the one in the EXTREMIST camp.

Those that filed the lawsuit are and have been the biggest cause of fewer deer in many parts of this state then what we could and would have today if the professional had been able to do balance the deer herd with the habitat decades ago as they tried to do. It was your lawsuit camp that brought out the public and political pressures that ruined the habitat and food supply needed to support more deer now.

Quote:

---

Seeing as there is no reasonable set of checks and balances to keep pgc "straight" and prevent selfserving irresponsible practices, I guess I dont have a problem with the lawsuit. Right or wrong, beats doing absolutely nothing but shutting out eyes and taking the lumps upon ourselves and the resource itself for very little reason other than petty self serving ones, catering to their eco-weiner interests and their timber connections which are quite strong among some of our current commissioners.

---

That too is totally incorrect. Anyone can, and always could, attend the Commission meetings and speak their comments, concerns or opinions. If they couldn’t attend the meeting they could send their comments in written form and they were then part of the information taken into consideration.

Of course there are also comments from many resource professionals entered into the record as well. The Commissioners then have to make wise decisions based on all of the information from all of the stakeholders.
That is the checks and balances process that was set up to keep the Game Commission going in the right direction for all of the publics of this Commonwealth.

Those that throw fits and file law suits are really nothing more then a handful of people that want their own way and will take what ever steps they can to get it instead of seeing things done as guided by the majority or the most highly trained and knowledgeable.

Quote:

---

I would strongly recommend others who see the gross misconduct on pgcs part to contact our legislators and let them know this. This is the effective and only course of action which IS meaningful. The legislators represent the people.

---

There you go. That has been the problem for decades and the reason we have such poor habitat and few deer today. That is and has been the problem all along. What a few vocal people want and demand is fine in some places but it isn’t fine when it involves managing resources like the deer that eat their own habitat until they can’t exist there anymore.

Quote:

---

Pgc represents themselves and whatever interests the sitting board of commissioners has at a particular moment in time. At some points in history, this was hunters and hunting. Currently it is timber and eco-fools/extremists.

---

[/size][/color]

Nope, you are completely wrong here too. The Game Commission is all about what is best for the wildlife resources, their habitat and the future of hunting. The eco-fool/extremists you talk about are the ones in your camp. You are right that they are the enemy that stands in the way of a better future but that enemy is you and your camp not the Game Commission.

[color=#000000][size=2]R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

Wrong again! The same class of inferior buck that do a small percentage of the breeding in Miss. are the same class of inferior buck that will be the dominant breeds as 2.% + buck in PA.
The study did in fact show that the 4pt+ buck were in fact superior for the rate of antler development. They did not prove or disprove the difference was due to genetics.

Now that is just plain silly. In 2002 we harvested 52K ,2.5+ buck and none of them were saved by ARs and very few if any were illegal 1.5 spikes in 2001.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

RSB wrote:

"Now let’s go ahead and talk about just who dropped out as hunters. One of the places where Pennsylvania has lost hunters came about when it got easier for hunters to get multiple antler less licenses. Once that happened all of the wives and daughters that never hunted or had nay interest in hunting no longer had to buy a license so their husband, dad or brother could get an extra tag or two.

Another place that I have noticed a huge reduction in hunters is road hunters. I don’t see nearly as many of the guys that never hunted anyplace other then from the seat of their vehicle anymore. Maybe it is a combination of factors that caused them drop out of the hunter ranks but some of the things that come to mind are fewer deer standing along the roads, higher gas prices or the fear of being caught shooting at a fake deer as more WCO use facsimiles. "

Where did this information ordata come from?

"I don’t know where you got the idea that the majority of the hunters are unhappy with the Game Commission. There is nothing to establish that as a fact and it is really nothing more then an opinion. "

If you believe this, you are out of touch with the general hunting population.

Also, the number of hunters per square mile is irrelevant when you are comparing % of license sales reduction. The fact is, we are losing hunters at an alarming rate.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

RSB, your arguement about the loss of hunters is about as lame as it can get.No one ever disputed the number of hunters compared to other states,but it has nothing,and I mean nothing to do with a reduction in license sales in PENNSYLVANIA ! That is a FACT that you cannot argue with. As far as road hunters,it only renforces my arguement that there are so few deer in many areas combined with the inability to find permission to hunt on private property that many hunters have resorted to road hunting in hopes of at least seeing a deer.I'm not condoning it,just explaining it.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

Who cares how many licenses are sold. I Want a bigger deer herd. Cut out the stinkin doe slaughter. Hunters must stop taking from the system and not give something back. Build the deer herd,Give up our mulitble deer kill ego. And open your pockets and build habitate and feed the deer. But you all might have to skip your beer, all your non-hunting toys and vacations around the world. Just think if all the hunters would buy land and manage it themselves. Stop depending on the Government to take care of your needs.What we dont need is socialism in the hunting world. I bought my on land. My deer, my decision what to kill. And yes they are eating 500 lbs of food a month in the winter time. I have 30 to 40 deer on the 105 acres and they are doing just fine. In the 60's Are farm had 40 deer on it and was 112 acres in pa.Same farm today same 112 acres and it has 3 deer.Why ?the property borders gamelands.People just wont stop shooting everything they see. And they are proud of their 25 lb hambuger fawn.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

Wow,240 dpsmThat's a practical wayto manage the resource.What percentage of that farm is in the seedling/sapling stage? Also,feeding 40 deer 500 lbs of feed is nothing more than a feel good measure.That equates to about 12 lbs of food/deer per month.Hardly enoughto make a difference.I like the PGC's plan better.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

It may be just a feel good measure in your opinion , but I can assure you he feels much better than the guys in 2 G with 12 PS DPSM.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

So

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

So you feel that feeding a deer less than a8 ounces of food a day is going to make a difference?Chances are,all he's doing is attracting more deer than the habitat can handle(unless it's one big clearcur)and the preferredbrowse is non-existant.

When did you start advocating deer densities as high as 240 dpsm?

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

OK I am not the only one feeding. Every piece of property has feeders on it, Both my neighbors feed. I just got started with the new property. Eventually by the new year I will have 4 - 200lb auto feeders going. Plus next spring each gas well sight willbe planted with standing food ,like most people do in the county.My neighbors have 400 acres with 16 feeders. They only shoot 8 pts and better. No doe themselves. Leave youth and handicapped people shoot the doe one day of the season.Their deer count is around a 160 on 400 acres. With the leaves off the trees if you drive the country roads and look up on the mountain sides and back yards the feeders are everywhere. The local feed mill sells tens of thousands lbs of feed a year to the land owners.Sure they might live in trailers and shacks,but the deereat good. It is so nice to hear land owners say to a new hunter,senior hunter hey I need a few doe taken to control the herd. Please take ONE. I wont take a doe this year yet, But will take a nice mature buck. As far as planting seedlings,no I have not.The property was select cut 3 years ago. !7 inch trees and bigger.Lots of new growth.But At least I know I have a future to look forward to. You dont if you depend on Pa.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

The information concerning the decline in road hunters comes from my observations and discussing the topic with the other officers that spend every day out there looking for, checking and talking with hunters.

I would say it is you that is most likely out of touch with the general hunting population. I am very confident that I talk to far more hunters then you do. In fact I would suspect I probably talk to more hunters in just one month then you will talk to in during an entire year. I check hunters ever day, I attend sportsmen meetings routinely, I was set up with one of the stations at the public open house for the hunters to discuss the deer program, I get invited to speak on the subject of deer in many different locations where large groups of hunters and the public attend.

I can assure that the vast majority of the people, including the hunters are supportive of the present deer management plan. They wish they were seeing more deer, but most of them understand why they aren’t and also support the objective of keeping the deer herd in balance with the habitat and food supply.

Just because a few people refuse to accept the management facts the deer themselves provide or because a few hunters refuse to become better educated about deer management or the deer/habitat relationships certainly doesn’t mean I am the one that is out in the dark here.
I know who is lost in the dark and it sure isn’t me.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

Your explanation of why road hunting has declined in recent years don’t make sense when you look at it realistically.

We had far more road hunters when deer were easier to find and nearly anyone could find one to shoot from the road. I’d have to say that some hunters have dropped out now because they were never hunters to begin with and were only out there to kill a deer as quickly and easily as possible. Many of them did just that from the roads and ended up giving hunters a black eye and bad image in the process. I am glad to see the road hunters declining and even gone from the hunter’s ranks. We didn’t and don’t need them; they did far more harm to hunting then the any benefits realized from the small amount of money their license sales provided.

Anyone that dropped out of hunting due to not being able to kill a deer was into hunting for the wrong reasons in the first places, so I am confident we will be just fine and maybe even better off without them.

Private property being posted to hunting doesn’t even enter into the road hunting equation in this area of the state since this area is almost all public land with it being almost hard to find a posted area.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

Here are some stats from the PGC Annual Job Report for 2007. Note 63 % rated the deer management as fair to poor and only 34% said it was good to excellent.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

Rsb, Thats a looootta twisting there pal! (LOL)

Probably the only person alive that would try and twist losing hunters at over twice the national average as a "good thing".

Also, the ecoextremist agenda is running the show at Elmerton. Thats a fact. It also needs to stop. If it takes usp's lawsuit, constant contacts to legislators, writing them and phone calls, etc. Whatever, then thats what should be done. It make be a bit overly dramatic, but considering our current state of affairs, losing hunters at over double the national average, and our wildlife management agency driving their financial situation straight into the ground, Id say it fits.

I really like the saying and it fits here perfectly, The only thing necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

If hunters and others do nothing, and accept the unacceptable (completely irresponsible deer management dictated by eco-extremists)then they only have themselves to blame....Reminds me, I havent contacted the fine fellows on the Senate and House for awhile. Think I'll do just that.;)

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

I didn't advocate a DD of 240 dpsm. I simply stated that he would be happier than the hunters in 2G with 12 PSDPSM. Furthermore, you have no idea how many deer the habitat can handle because you believe the PGC propaganda.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

"Here are some stats from the PGC Annual Job Report for 2007. Note 63 % rated the deer management as fair to poor and only 34% said it was good to excellent."

And just who did they ask?? Im guessing their usual yes-men organization they go to when seeking apat on the back! (LOL) About as far from "main stream" opinion as one can get, and they STILL didnt get a favorable response! (LOL)Like to see them ask the huntersfor real. He he he. I think they KNOW what would happen and wouldnt even waste their time.;)

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

Most people including me would like to have a bigger deer herd, at least when I am hunting for them.
But, people simply have to accept the fact that deer are a living organism and as such have to fit into the first and most basic laws of nature.

The first and most basic law of nature is that, “No living organism can exist in populations higher then it’s food supply for more then short term periods of ideal conditions.” That is nature’s rule not the Game Commission’s, deer manager’s or forester manager’s rule. Nature simply will not allow more deer then the habitat can support, for the long term. Since deer eat their habitat it is simply impossible to keep more deer for long term periods.

Planting food plots and crops is great and the best possible way to increase deer populations within an area. In some cases you can even sustain higher deer numbers over a pretty large area by creating habitat that provides food. In some area though it isn’t enough just to plant and create habitat unless it is all in the right places too.

Here in the northern tier mountainous regions of the state it simply doesn’t matter how much great habitat is on the ridges and plateaus because we get years when the snows get to deep on the high ground the deer can’t live their in the winter. When that happens the deer ALL get forced to the valleys and wintering grounds. If their isn’t enough habitat and food in those wintering grounds to sustain those deer in a healthy conditions all winter, sometime for three months or more, then some of those deer will most likely die. When the deer are forced into the wintering grounds even the deer that didn’t die have much lower fawn recruitment rates the next year. If you lose your fawn crop for a year that hurts future deer numbers even more then having some winter mortality. The bottom line is that it simply doesn’t matte how food there is on the ridges or plateaus during those years of deep snows because it is just as inaccessible to the deer as if it were on the moon.

As for you feeder and artificial feeding program you are making a big mistake. You are not benefiting the long term future and health of the deer. The professionals have a saying, “Fed wildlife is dead wildlife” and that is pretty much correct too. You will increase their numbers for a while but eventually you end up with more then the surrounding habitat can sustain and the then either they leave, end up with a disease that brings the population back down to an acceptable level or predators, including the human kind, move in and reduce their populations. Feeding programs are never a good thing for the wildlife and only benefit the people watching them or trying to kill them, and even then frequently for only relatively short time periods.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

Call me crazy RSB, but isn't the whole purpose of going deer hunting to try to kill one??? If not,they call it walking in the woods with a gun which in reality is good exercise but that's about it. Going hunting day after day and year after year without getting one is plenty of reason to give it up.I don't care what you do but if you consistently try it without sucess,almost anyone will become discouraged and quit.As far as road hunting and posted property not being connected,i'll still disagree with road hunters being able to cover far more area in a vehicle in a day than anyone can cover on foot.And if you know of "all this area is almost all public land with it being almost hard to find a posted area " ,please pm me with directions and i'sd gratefully give it a shot cause I sure can't find any.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

That is simply a ridiculous position to take and shows that you are so biased that you won't acknowledge that the habitat on the ridges and plateaus is very important , because it supports the deer in good condition before they might be forced to the valleys . Besides , deer are not managed based on the extremes in winter weather conditions . they are managed based on the average carrying capacity of the habitat during an average winter.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

[/color]

I don’t believe we are losing all that many hunters. We lost some cheaters and some that were only interested in the easy killing, but not hunters.
Most of those that were only interested in the killing are still doing it, they don’t need a license to kill them with a spotlight though, just luck enough not to get caught at it.

If you think the hunter numbers dropped in recent years just wait until next year and point of sale doesn’t allow the people that have been getting multiple license, for the extra antler less applications, get shut down to only one license. We might find out that we are closer to the number of licenses being sold in other states that already have point of sale where hunters can’t cheat so easily.

Quote:

---

Also, the ecoextremist agenda is running the show at Elmerton. Thats a fact. It also needs to stop. If it takes usp's lawsuit, constant contacts to legislators, writing them and phone calls, etc. Whatever, then thats what should be done. It make be a bit overly dramatic, but considering our current state of affairs, losing hunters at over double the national average, and our wildlife management agency driving their financial situation straight into the ground, Id say it fits.

---

You’re full of bologna; the extremists are in your camp not the Game Commission. The Game Commission is mandated though to manage all wildlife and for all citizens of the Commonwealth, not just a few hunters that want more then nature can reasonably and realistically provide.

The people that have driven the financial situation into the ground are also the ones in your camp in cooperation with the State Legislature who have failed to fulfill their obligation of keeping a state agency financially solvent.

Quote:

---

I really like the saying and it fits here perfectly, The only thing necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

---

[/color]

Hey, that is a quote I use all the time.

If does fit and is exactly why I have spent over thirty years protecting our resources. It is also the reason I come to places like this and butt heads with nitwits so others with enough functional brain cells can learn to allow professional resource management.

Quote:

---

If hunters and others do nothing, and accept the unacceptable (completely irresponsible deer management dictated by eco-extremists) then they only have themselves to blame....Reminds me, I havent contacted the fine fellows on the Senate and House for awhile. Think I'll do just that.

---

There you go; when you want to see what is destroying the best possible future for the resources and the hunters just look in the mirror, you will then see your own worst enemy.

[color=#000000]R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

Bad winters in the northern tier mountains ???? What state are you talking about,Colorado or Montana ??? There hasn't been a bad winter in Pa in 20 years at least.Come'on,you gotta do better than that.Just out of curiosity.how old are you ?

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

"Most people including me would like to have a bigger deer herd, at least when I am hunting for them.
But, people simply have to accept the fact that deer are a living organism and as such have to fit into the first and most basic laws of nature.

The first and most basic law of nature is that, “No living organism can exist in populations higher then it’s food supply for more then short term periods of ideal conditions.” That is nature’s rule not the Game Commission’s, deer manager’s or forester manager’s rule. Nature simply will not allow more deer then the habitat can support, for the long term. Since deer eat their habitat it is simply impossible to keep more deer for long term periods."

Thats quite obvious, but none of that means diddlywhen we are WELL within those limits across much of the state, and THAT is what is being argued.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

"I don’t believe we are losing all that many hunters. We lost some cheaters and some that were only interested in the easy killing, but not hunters. "

I think that FAR too harsh and unfair a judgement. Not as "diehard", I might agree with that. But far cry from the nonsense you attempt to label them with. Id say "cheaters" wouldnt stop shooting deer just because they didnt buy a license. Or perhaps they're MORE likely to buy one, as it helps them appear "legit".... At any rate, it is interesting how fast you are to condemn our fellow hunters, yet have nothing but glowing things to say and take offense every time "ecoextremeists" are appropriately addressed as just that. Perhaps you can show me a link to one of your posts on any message board where you've stuck up for (instead of belittled) the hunters of our state as passionately as you have the enviromentalist faction?

"If you think the hunter numbers dropped in recent years just wait until next year and point of sale doesn’t allow the people that have been getting multiple license, for the extra antler less applications, get shut down to only one license. We might find out that we are closer to the number of licenses being sold in other states that already have point of sale where hunters can’t cheat so easily."

I dont attribute that to hunter numbers dropping. I know why they are dropping. A failed deer plan and a noncaring agency that tells us to forget about the deer and go hunt squirrels.

I will be interested in seeing this years license sales after last years horrendous buck harvest.

"You’re full of bologna;"

You're probably right. Ive been eating a couple sticks of deer bologna steadyfor 3 or 4 days now.:D

"the extremists are in your camp not the Game Commission. The Game Commission is mandated though to manage all wildlife and for all citizens of the Commonwealth,"

Yep. And Id say we hunters with MANY nonhunting friends acquaintances and family members also fit that description, not to mention all the others within the majority who ARE NOT squalling for less deer. Add em up.;)

Also, Ive never said otherwise about pgcs responsibilities. Im not saying they arent responsible for many species and many stakeholders. Im saying considering all that, currently, hunters are being shafted and pgc has some newfound best buds in the new age eco-extreme field. Im not saying anything about hunters are all that matter. Thats simply a cop-out you guys like to use to avoidaddressing the real issue. Btw,Pgcs boceco-extreme views are well known, as is their tight kinship with audubon, audubon paying for deer study, their help in structuring the deer management plan, the consideration now given them in say over OUR game lands usageetc.;) A BAD JOKE I TELL YA!![:@]

"The people that have driven the financial situation into the ground are also the ones in your camp in cooperation with the State Legislature who have failed to fulfill their obligation of keeping a state agency financially solvent. "

They are fulfilling their duty to the people of this state. They are also acting as "check and balance" system. The job they were appointed to do btw. To insinuate they should bepaid regardless of wether they are doing their job or not is utterly rediculous. While it might be fun to fantasize about it, in real lifewe simply cant shun responsibility and expect to be rewarded for it. Pgc is finding this out the hard way.

"Hey, that is a quote I use all the time.

If does fit and is exactly why I have spent over thirty years protecting our resources. It is also the reason I come to places like this and butt heads with nitwits so others with enough functional brain cells can learn to allow professional resource management."

Im sure wecan allappreciate your service in law enforcement. Unfortunately, that doesnt help your case in this debate, as it has nothing to do with it. As forthe other issue of being here butting heads, Its your time and you may spend it as you like, but you arent fooling a soul. It generally takes someone MORE educated on the topic and unbiased to change my mind on an issue such as this. I also dont blindly take someones word forthings. I look in depth and evaluate the facts. The facts showa MISERABLY failed deer program is being clung to by a very non-hunter friendly management agency to appeaseother interests. Among them, extreme,obtuse ones. This "agenda" is far and beyond "responsible"management basics of keeping herd in line with habitat and human conflict issues.

As far as those with functional braincells, you havent a chance at swaying them.Most that fit that description dont subscribe to lip service but want proof. We've provided much to show why change is needed. Pgc has shown NOTHING that supports "staying the course". The plan is a proven failure using THEIR OWN preset guidelines. Funny how these guidelines only matter when they equal less deer. Otherwise they become nonexistent.[8D]

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

But hey....as Doug keeps alluding to.....at least the DCNR doesn't have to spend $3 million to fence in new cuts. What a concept eh?

BTW. I agree with you 100 percent. Enough is enough.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

What do you live in a hole in the ground all winter and only come out in the spring or what?

We have years with mild winter that have no adverse affects on the deer and then years with hard winters that have seriously hard affects on the deer. That is exactly the reason the deer herds in areas that are on the fringe of the winter severity conditions have deer populations that fluctuate as they do in the northern tier of this state.

More southern areas have stable deer populations that are only affected and controlled by the food supply and hunter harvests. Areas in the more northern zones have few deer even though they also have very low deer harvests because the winters limit the number of deer that can survive year round there.

Pennsylvania is one of the states on fringe of where we can have high deer numbers as long as the good environmental conditions last but then when we have a year or two with the harsh environmental conditions the deer numbers crash for a few years. That is something that people will just have to accept because that is the way it is.


You might not think the winters in Pennsylvania are a factor, but the deer sure to prove that the winters are a factor.

Here are a few pictures of some Elk County winter conditions and how deer deal with it.

Nearly a hundred deer were locked into about four hundred yards of wintering grounds habitat trying to live on hemlock and rhododendron during the 2003/2004 winter.

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s141/RBODENHORN/Deer-winter2004.jpg

The affects on rhododendron toward the end of the winter.



Hemlock in a wintering grounds that was heavily browsed by deer during the 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 winters. The picture was taken in the winter of 2006 after two full years of time to recover with mild winters.

The hemlocks in that wintering ground still haven’t fully recovered to the point they could support many deer through a harsh winter should another winter come along that forced all of the area deer to winter there again this winter.

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s141/RBODENHORN/IMG_0282.jpg

Do you still think we don’t have winter influences on the number of deer that can live in many parts of this state? Come on up to this part of the state during or after a harsh winter and I’ll take you out and show you lots of evidence that proves winters are a serious factor, including winter killed deer.

Your question concerning my age has little to due with this discussion, but I will tell you that I could retire any time I wanted and likely have kids older then many of you debating this topic.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

Ok, you have expressed a lot of opinions about your displeasure.

Do you have anything that helps support your opinions that it th ecurrent deer management is wrong other then the fact that you don't like nor understand the reasons or need for the current deer management program?

The professionals have provided a lot of facts, that the deer provided, that do support the current direction. What have you provided that proves them wrong other than you and many other hunters would like to see more deer? You are entitled to your opinions but that certainly doesn’t make your opinions correct.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

Statewide breeding rates and productivity have decreased instead of increasing as predicted. The breeding window has not changed and we still have late born fawns. The number of 8 pt. buck has not doubled, buck harvests did not return to normal and we do not have more and bigger buck than ever before. Therefore the plan failed to produce the predicted and your claims have been proven to be wrong.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

Well I'm 52. And I did a good bit of snowmobiling in the McKean/Potter/Tioga county areas during the winters of 2003 and 2004. And sure as heck, Mr Bodenhorn is right about the prolonged snow and the profound effects it had on the deer. I have a bunch of pictures of deer that were yarded up during that period of time. They really had it rough right up until March. Don't know if they starved, but they surely had it rough enough to absorb or abort fetuses, which had to have hurt recruitment badly.

Unfortunately,these conditions weren't reflected in PGC Anterless allocations during theimmediate followingseasons and the herd was brought tolevels that were well below goal in many areas.And that would be my beef right there. They waited to long to cut allocations.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

Why would they wantto cut allocations and just add more deer to already overbrowsed habitat?

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

How about making an effort to reverse thehabitat situation other than killing deer?????

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

For example?

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

Oh , I don't know,how about harvesting some of the mature timber to allow new undergrowth that the deer can actually eat !

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

They do harvest timber.How much would you like them to harvest per year?

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

Apparently they don't harvest that much if the deer situation is as bad as it is.If the mature timber is harvestable,what is to stop from doubling or tripling the amount and using the funds to put back into the system.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

Actually,the plan is to cut 1% a year which would put us on a 100 year rotation.If they bumped it up to 3% like you want,that means that all out foprests would be cut over the next thirty years and we'd have pole timber with a very low deer density for many,many years.That's kind of the situaton we're in now and theyare trying to fix it.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

The percentage of pole timber will increase whether they cut a 1% or 3%. A bigger problem is that almost half of DCNR land is off limits to timbering.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

It will eventually increase more if they cut 3%/year.DCNR is hacking it down fairly aggressively around here.Problem is,up until the last two years,they had to fence almost every timber sale or the deer cleaned it up.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

"Do you have anything that helps support your opinions that it th ecurrent deer management is wrong other then the fact that you don't like nor understand the reasons or need for the current deer management program? "

I understand it far better than you apparently. Fact is it was FAR from needed AS IMPLEMENTED. Its nothing more than an extreme program brought about by ecoextremists.

"The professionals have provided a lot of facts, that the deer provided, that do support the current direction."

Yeah. Such as we'd have more and bigger bucks, we'd have improved breeding rates,higher fawns per doe, andmore... How much of that has occurred?? LOL Even by Pgcs numbers....NADA. There is also a difference between general direction and exactly what has been done. In areas where needed, getting the herd more in line with habitat may be common sense "direction", but the extremes actually implemented in most cases are complete unsupported nonsense.

"What have you provided that proves them wrong other than you and many other hunters would like to see more deer? You are entitled to your opinions but that certainly doesn’t make your opinions correct"

Ive provided far more than enough to counter the "nothing" that you have provided to SUPPORT the program. Therefore, we hafta assume an eco-extreme agenda isin play with our "program". How else do you explain clinging to a MISERABLY PROVEN FAILED PROGRAM, which you cannot even point to one stinkin' shred of evidence, that its working AT ALL,statewide or at least over most of thestate,yet much evidence to the contrary exists??

Many areas of the state have and have had ZERO habitat issues and low human conflict yet were severely reduced. Others had SOME issues but were far overkilled. Prove to me otherwise?....I thought not.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

If the deer have been over browsing SFL for over 50 years preventing regeneration, why didn't the number of forested acres of SFL decrease by over 50%? In fact,why didn't it decrease at all?

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

How would you know this? You don't even know who I am.