Pennsylvanians, what lawsuit?
12-26-2008, 10:22 AM
#11
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: Pennsylvanians, what lawsuit?
Brent, the reductions over most of the state have been drastic and unsupported by science. The "science" that was supposed to monitor our progress was largely the reproductive data. Our breeding rates, timing, embryo counts per doe and number of adult does bred were all to be "barometers" to judge our progress..
Since this "Plan" Our number of adult does bred declined from 92% steadily all the way to 85%! OUr numbers of embryos per adult doe declined steadly significantly,l and breeding timing according to Pgc HAS NOT changed one bit.
So that shows there was nothing wrong with our statistics in the first place, since it correlated with that of many other states... And had no improvement as predicted even though reductions were SEVERE.
Groups like the audubon society and other environmental extremists pushed for the plan and continue pushing for fewer and fewer deer and pgc is happily complying. Our board of commissioners make the decisions and they are appointed and Ok'ed by the governors advisory council Dcnr and the senate. 2 of those 3 are far more interested in new age tree hugging and extreme biodiversity and also timber interest and have appointed like minded commissioners.
The plan has been proven to be based on nothing. We also stillhave more doe tags allocated in most areas than can meet any goals of stopping reductions. And hunter numbers are dropping by over double the national average. Pgc is financially driving itself into the ground and are preventing themselves from getting funding, are being sued, and government intervention has taken place in the form of a future audit...
Pa is quickly becoming New Jersey or California with the complete lack of caring of hunters or game animal species.
My understanding is the lawsuit is because of the "results" to date not supporting the excessive extreme reductions and the harm the plan is causing to the sport for no good reason.
Could be wrong, that is my take from following pgcs management plan and all the "ocurrances" throughout involving usp, pfsc, audubon society, dcnr and all the other players in this circus.
Since this "Plan" Our number of adult does bred declined from 92% steadily all the way to 85%! OUr numbers of embryos per adult doe declined steadly significantly,l and breeding timing according to Pgc HAS NOT changed one bit.
So that shows there was nothing wrong with our statistics in the first place, since it correlated with that of many other states... And had no improvement as predicted even though reductions were SEVERE.
Groups like the audubon society and other environmental extremists pushed for the plan and continue pushing for fewer and fewer deer and pgc is happily complying. Our board of commissioners make the decisions and they are appointed and Ok'ed by the governors advisory council Dcnr and the senate. 2 of those 3 are far more interested in new age tree hugging and extreme biodiversity and also timber interest and have appointed like minded commissioners.
The plan has been proven to be based on nothing. We also stillhave more doe tags allocated in most areas than can meet any goals of stopping reductions. And hunter numbers are dropping by over double the national average. Pgc is financially driving itself into the ground and are preventing themselves from getting funding, are being sued, and government intervention has taken place in the form of a future audit...
Pa is quickly becoming New Jersey or California with the complete lack of caring of hunters or game animal species.
My understanding is the lawsuit is because of the "results" to date not supporting the excessive extreme reductions and the harm the plan is causing to the sport for no good reason.
Could be wrong, that is my take from following pgcs management plan and all the "ocurrances" throughout involving usp, pfsc, audubon society, dcnr and all the other players in this circus.
12-26-2008, 10:23 AM
#12
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 343
RE: Pennsylvanians, what lawsuit?
ORIGINAL: sproulman
i am longtime member of USP.
i was there when it started years ago,like over 30 years ago.
they do have a DEFENSE FUND set up for donations.
USP is trying to stop the OVERHARVEST OF DOE in wmu2g.
when you see 3 deer a mile or no deer in mile or MILES,too much doe killing.
way it was brought about was terrible.
to hand out like 6 doe tags ea.in past years ,it has done what they wanted, to reduce deer to almost a few.
the DCNR is behind ALL of this, PGC just is doing what they want.
commissioners are DCNR thru and blue.
this is what is behind the USP lawsuits.
ORIGINAL: WestVirginiaBrent
I was just reading that audit thread and it's interesting, but I don't know the back story. [
]
Is someone suing the state over the antler restrictions? Is someone suing because they issue too many doe tags?
What am I looking at here?
I was just reading that audit thread and it's interesting, but I don't know the back story. [
]Is someone suing the state over the antler restrictions? Is someone suing because they issue too many doe tags?
What am I looking at here?
i was there when it started years ago,like over 30 years ago.
they do have a DEFENSE FUND set up for donations.
USP is trying to stop the OVERHARVEST OF DOE in wmu2g.
when you see 3 deer a mile or no deer in mile or MILES,too much doe killing.
way it was brought about was terrible.
to hand out like 6 doe tags ea.in past years ,it has done what they wanted, to reduce deer to almost a few.
the DCNR is behind ALL of this, PGC just is doing what they want.
commissioners are DCNR thru and blue.
this is what is behind the USP lawsuits.
ORIGINAL: bluebird2
BTB is intentionally misrepresenting the results of the Kroll study. The study did not show that all 1.5 spikes had the potential to reach the same size as a 1.5 6pt. at 4.5 years, But the study did prove that 1.5 spikes are inferior for the rate of antler development. Since very few of our buck live to 4.5 , the average 1.5spike will never live long enough to equal the 1.5 6pt. so the average 2.5 buck produced by ARs will be smaller than the average 2.5+ buck in a non-AR herd.
The current plan reduced our buck harvest by 43%, breeding rates decreased, productivity decreased, we are harvesting fewer 2.5+ buck than in the first year of ARs,antlerless harvests have decreased significantly and the number of junior license holders is decreasing.WHAT A PLAN!!!
BTB is intentionally misrepresenting the results of the Kroll study. The study did not show that all 1.5 spikes had the potential to reach the same size as a 1.5 6pt. at 4.5 years, But the study did prove that 1.5 spikes are inferior for the rate of antler development. Since very few of our buck live to 4.5 , the average 1.5spike will never live long enough to equal the 1.5 6pt. so the average 2.5 buck produced by ARs will be smaller than the average 2.5+ buck in a non-AR herd.
No management strategy will make everything better all at once. It's about helping the odds for the majority of deer in the majority of areas.
The current plan reduced our buck harvest by 43%, breeding rates decreased, productivity decreased, we are harvesting fewer 2.5+ buck than in the first year of ARs,antlerless harvests have decreased significantly and the number of junior license holders is decreasing.WHAT A PLAN!!!
I'm all for good management, but the antler restrictions come off as the state trying to use it as a slogan for some extra revenue to entice more hunters. I'm no trophy hunter but I don't shoot "scraggle" bucks either. Young bucks have the same DNA when they're young and when they're old, so from a genetic level the statewide management system is doing nothing what so ever. It may be ensuring that more survival apted bucks breed does but it's not like a buck gets some magic gene in his 4.5 year that he passes down to future bucks so why is the state managing antler size? [&:]
12-26-2008, 10:33 AM
#13
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: Pennsylvanians, what lawsuit?
"so why is the state managing antler size? "
To make deer more visible by not having them shot off asap. Having those off limits bucks parading around was the idea so that the extreme herd reductions effects would be more acceptable to some...
Also, in this wmu, there are fewer big bucks than ever in recent history. The effects of saving yearlings could not overcome the effects of 60% ow herd reduction. The over winterherd was reduced by over 50% even though the habitat in the wmu was never rated as poor and human conflict rated low. Currently in the wmu the goal is supposedly STABILIZE not reduce the deer herd yet more tags are being issued than there were when according to pgc the previously larger herd was reduced! Also, 16500 antlerless harvest reduced the smaller herd, yet the recent goals each year have been 18000!!!!!
Can you say BULL-.......!
To make deer more visible by not having them shot off asap. Having those off limits bucks parading around was the idea so that the extreme herd reductions effects would be more acceptable to some...
Also, in this wmu, there are fewer big bucks than ever in recent history. The effects of saving yearlings could not overcome the effects of 60% ow herd reduction. The over winterherd was reduced by over 50% even though the habitat in the wmu was never rated as poor and human conflict rated low. Currently in the wmu the goal is supposedly STABILIZE not reduce the deer herd yet more tags are being issued than there were when according to pgc the previously larger herd was reduced! Also, 16500 antlerless harvest reduced the smaller herd, yet the recent goals each year have been 18000!!!!!
Can you say BULL-.......!
12-26-2008, 10:38 AM
#14
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 343
RE: Pennsylvanians, what lawsuit?
I feel for you guys.
Has there ever been talk about creating Game Checking Stations? The more ticked off hunters get at the state, the less likely they are to mail their tag in, so who knows who is killing what where. I'm sure the DNR takes that into consideration but I doubt they accurately portray the numbers of unchecked deer as well.
Has there ever been talk about creating Game Checking Stations? The more ticked off hunters get at the state, the less likely they are to mail their tag in, so who knows who is killing what where. I'm sure the DNR takes that into consideration but I doubt they accurately portray the numbers of unchecked deer as well.
12-26-2008, 10:55 AM
#15
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: PA.
Posts: 5,195
RE: Pennsylvanians, what lawsuit?
ORIGINAL: gygoatman
Hay sproulman if you are and your buddies are getting 6 doe tags each its time to return some of them so the PGC can reissue the to other hunters. I have been hunting in 2g for the last 5 years, thing are bad but not as bad as everybody thinks. Don't forget 85,000 acres covers a large part of 2g, and you are only seeing the deer that is standing along side a 15 or 20 mile stretch of roady.
Hay sproulman if you are and your buddies are getting 6 doe tags each its time to return some of them so the PGC can reissue the to other hunters. I have been hunting in 2g for the last 5 years, thing are bad but not as bad as everybody thinks. Don't forget 85,000 acres covers a large part of 2g, and you are only seeing the deer that is standing along side a 15 or 20 mile stretch of roady.
no, i am in woods 3 times a week, if weather lets me.
so, i know about what deer are left.
most of your DOE that are left are near roads, that is where best food is.
that is another thing we did not like about TAGS .
you have 75% of hunters not getting deer and 25% getting 6 deer.
WE WANTED 1 DEER AND YOUR DONE.
that is also one of reasons the USP is mad.
i only hunt bucks .
i actually saw more bucks killed this year than doe .
i know of about 21 buck and 18 doe killed in about a 20 mile area if you were to draw a circle on map.out of that 21 buck, only 5 were spikes this year, hunters are not seeing spikes like 3 years ago.
this area was best hunting in western clinton county for years.
12-26-2008, 11:15 AM
#16
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
RE: Pennsylvanians, what lawsuit?
Corny is not being completely accurate when he quotes figures about reproduction. He has taken a slice of time that makes the annual breeding rates look as bad as possible. The truth is that pregnantdoes haveranged fro 85% to 92% but if we take into account all the years that that fact has been studied not just the four years he wants to use, the number has gone both up and down. same for the embryos per deer. Harvests are obviously not the only influence here.
If there are less deer in most WMU's (something I think we all agree on) allowingless competition for food and habitat, it only makes sense to understand that the breeding rates and impregnation rates must have other factors causing these fluctuations.
The facts as Corny stated them, in that narrow context, are accurate. I'ts his cause and effect conclusions that are flawed.The pure numbers could be taken at first glance by someone who knows little about deer management as a sign that something may be changing. But the idea that less deer means that the breeding rates would be negatively affected is just silly. First, the percentage change over that 4 years isn't enough to draw an intelligentconclusion. Second, if you buy into Corny's overly simplistic theory, advanced by an armchair biologist who has been proven wrong time and againthat would mean that less deer competing for food in a habitat thats now a little better are not as healthy? It simply makes no sense.
If there are less deer in most WMU's (something I think we all agree on) allowingless competition for food and habitat, it only makes sense to understand that the breeding rates and impregnation rates must have other factors causing these fluctuations.
The facts as Corny stated them, in that narrow context, are accurate. I'ts his cause and effect conclusions that are flawed.The pure numbers could be taken at first glance by someone who knows little about deer management as a sign that something may be changing. But the idea that less deer means that the breeding rates would be negatively affected is just silly. First, the percentage change over that 4 years isn't enough to draw an intelligentconclusion. Second, if you buy into Corny's overly simplistic theory, advanced by an armchair biologist who has been proven wrong time and againthat would mean that less deer competing for food in a habitat thats now a little better are not as healthy? It simply makes no sense.
12-26-2008, 11:35 AM
#18
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 343
RE: Pennsylvanians, what lawsuit?
I think the problem is all those mountain lions are killing your guy's deer, lol. [8D]
Regardless, it sounds like you hunters really need to work TOGETHER with your wildlife officials. I'm on a lot of boards and have never seen another state act this disgruntled towards multiple issues.
Regardless, it sounds like you hunters really need to work TOGETHER with your wildlife officials. I'm on a lot of boards and have never seen another state act this disgruntled towards multiple issues.
12-26-2008, 12:09 PM
#19
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
RE: Pennsylvanians, what lawsuit?
ORIGINAL: WestVirginiaBrent
I think the problem is all those mountain lions are killing your guy's deer, lol. [8D]
Regardless, it sounds like you hunters really need to work TOGETHER with your wildlife officials. I'm on a lot of boards and have never seen another state act this disgruntled towards multiple issues.
I think the problem is all those mountain lions are killing your guy's deer, lol. [8D]
Regardless, it sounds like you hunters really need to work TOGETHER with your wildlife officials. I'm on a lot of boards and have never seen another state act this disgruntled towards multiple issues.
No other group haschosen this route even though many have had issues with one another and with the PGC over the years
12-26-2008, 12:13 PM
#20
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: Pennsylvanians, what lawsuit?
"Corny is not being completely accurate when he quotes figures about reproduction. He has taken a slice of time that makes the annual breeding rates look as bad as possible."
I generally give benefit of a doubt when something stupid is said, I often chalk it up to uneducated on the topic ignorance, but THAT is a flat out lie and btb knows it. The data given is the years the"plan" has realized its effects and areright on the money. The latest years available are also the years since most reduction has taken place, not 1980! (LOL)The data steadily declined and is lower than it was when we were supposedly at "terror level" with too many woods wrecking deer! (LOL).[:'(]
"The truth is that pregnantdoes haveranged fro 85% to 92% but if we take into account all the years that that fact has been studied not just the four years he wants to use"
Why on earth would we use other years??? I compared the ABSOLUTE HIGHEST POPULATION YEARS according to pgc with the modern day LOWEST! Ha ha ha... What the heck more do you want??? It is what it is. A big farce. Since 2002, the data has gone STEADILY DOWNHILL as well.
"If there are less deer in most WMU's (something I think we all agree on) allowingless competition for food and habitat, it only makes sense to understand that the breeding rates and impregnation rates must have other factors causing these fluctuations. "
I dont care the reason! It does NOT support "staying the course" that ecofruitcakes have demanded we take!
"The facts as Corny stated them, in that narrow context, are accurate. I'ts his cause and effect conclusions that are flawed.The pure numbers could be taken at first glance by someone who knows little about deer management as a sign that something may be changing."
You are full of it and most likely have"other" agendas of some sort, affiliations or what not, but that matters not to me....Wrong is wrong. The plan was SUPPOSED toproduce results. Not only did it not SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVE as was supposed to be the case... (even stayingthe SAME would be reason for failure because SAME would not justify the EXTREME measures implemented)...Not only did we get no INCREASE AT ALL....We got DECLINES FOR KRIST SAKE!!!![8D][8D][8D](LOL)
What supports continuing the extreme madness beside birdwatchers at Audubon demanding it to their close cohorts on the board at pgc???[8D][8D][8D]
I generally give benefit of a doubt when something stupid is said, I often chalk it up to uneducated on the topic ignorance, but THAT is a flat out lie and btb knows it. The data given is the years the"plan" has realized its effects and areright on the money. The latest years available are also the years since most reduction has taken place, not 1980! (LOL)The data steadily declined and is lower than it was when we were supposedly at "terror level" with too many woods wrecking deer! (LOL).[:'(]
"The truth is that pregnantdoes haveranged fro 85% to 92% but if we take into account all the years that that fact has been studied not just the four years he wants to use"
Why on earth would we use other years??? I compared the ABSOLUTE HIGHEST POPULATION YEARS according to pgc with the modern day LOWEST! Ha ha ha... What the heck more do you want??? It is what it is. A big farce. Since 2002, the data has gone STEADILY DOWNHILL as well.
"If there are less deer in most WMU's (something I think we all agree on) allowingless competition for food and habitat, it only makes sense to understand that the breeding rates and impregnation rates must have other factors causing these fluctuations. "
I dont care the reason! It does NOT support "staying the course" that ecofruitcakes have demanded we take!
"The facts as Corny stated them, in that narrow context, are accurate. I'ts his cause and effect conclusions that are flawed.The pure numbers could be taken at first glance by someone who knows little about deer management as a sign that something may be changing."
You are full of it and most likely have"other" agendas of some sort, affiliations or what not, but that matters not to me....Wrong is wrong. The plan was SUPPOSED toproduce results. Not only did it not SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVE as was supposed to be the case... (even stayingthe SAME would be reason for failure because SAME would not justify the EXTREME measures implemented)...Not only did we get no INCREASE AT ALL....We got DECLINES FOR KRIST SAKE!!!![8D][8D][8D](LOL)
What supports continuing the extreme madness beside birdwatchers at Audubon demanding it to their close cohorts on the board at pgc???[8D][8D][8D]