PA Fall deer Chronicles
11-17-2008 | 01:53 PM
#74
Fork Horn
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
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.
11-17-2008 | 02:31 PM
#75
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Likes: 0
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.
11-17-2008 | 03:02 PM
#77
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Likes: 0
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.
11-17-2008 | 03:04 PM
#78
Banned
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,978
Likes: 0
From:
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.
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.
11-17-2008 | 03:27 PM
#79
Thread Starter
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Likes: 0
RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
ORIGINAL: DougE
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.
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.
11-17-2008 | 03:49 PM
#80
Fork Horn
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
From:
RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
ORIGINAL: RSB
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
ORIGINAL: the outsider
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.
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.
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