RSB, when you copy and paste your pics address you need to first delete the http:// before you enter it. The http:// is already provided in the space for the address. IF not your address will go in as http://http://

I did not say much of the state is in pole timber, I said 50-60% WILL be in pole timber . Here is what I said and it is not what you claimed I said.
By cutting 1%/year the percentage of saw timber will decrease and the percentage of pole timber will increase ,since the pole timber stage is the longest stage in the production of saw timber. So despite the attempts to improve the habitat, in the long term the carrying capacity will decrease instead of improving as predicted.

Now will you please explain why breeding rates dropped by 6% in such a short period of time when you predicted they would increase significantly?

So what you posted then was really just more of your misleading mumbo jumbo double talk that had no purpose other then to mislead people with waht you were saying?

There is absolutely no reason to suspect the state will have a higher percent of pole timber in the future then there has been in the past. In fact the state has been moving more toward more mature forest then any other stage of forest composition.


At 1% cutting on the public land it is unlikely the percentage of pole timber across the state will never be much greater then it is right now. It will be monitored though and should that ever be a concern it will be adjusted so less or more can be cut.

Nor is it likely the carrying capacity will ever be lower then it is right now. The attempt to improve the habitat and thus the carrying capacity was what lead to the current deer management objectives. And, it is working too. It would work a lot better and faster if it wasn’t for the people that think they no more then the professionals always getting in the way of continuously doing the right thing for the best possible future. You are a large part of that contingent that prevents the best possible future.


That has been explained for you and others many times in the past. You just don’t like to accept the facts because they don’t fit what you want to believe.

The fact is that the breeding rates have only declined in a statewide level and then only because the areas of the highest samples shifted from before to since the inception of antler restrictions.

But, since deer are managed on a WMU level instead of on a statewide level that statewide decline has no relevance toward the breeding rates within each of those WMU. In fact once the data is all in I feel pretty confident the breeding rates will not show any significant decline in any individual management unit. With the shift in the sample sizes per management unit you can actually have improvement in every individual WMU while still having a decline in the statewide data.

Unlike you, and the other scientific management detractors, some of us are willing to accept improvements even when they aren’t the astronomical improvements some people keep demanding.

R.S. Bodenhorn

Double post deleted.

We currently have 56% of our forests in the saw timber stage because of the wide spread timbering of large areas around 1900. The goal of harvesting 1% /yr. is to reduce the amount of saw timber and increase the percentage of the other two age classes. With that in mind, please tell everyone what the percentage of our forests would be in each stage class if they had harvested 1%/ year starting in 1900.




No, you did not provide an explanation, you provided a very lame excuse that made no sense. ARs and HR were implemented in all WMU's therefore the breeding rates and productivity should have increased in every WMU. To claim that the statewide rates dropped 6% means that many individual WMUs would have had to drop more that 6% , to offset the WMUs where breeding rates increased. Since all but one WMU is at its goal for herd health, it is obvious there wasn't a significant drop in breeding rates in many WMU to account the the 6% statewide decrease.

The PGC compensated for the change in sample size by using 3 year averages, but the breeding rates still show a significant decrease. The truth is breeding rates decreased instead of increasing as you and Alt predicted and now you can't handle the truth or explain why it happened.

Now,if you want to prove to everyone that you are right and that I don't know what I am talking about, just list 10 WMUs where the breeding rate decreased by over 6%, for whatever reason? It would take an even decrease if the breeding rates improved in the other 12 WMUs . I predict that instead of supporting your position with the facts, you will come back with more smoke and mirror excuses.

I wonder when RSB is going to post the 10 WMUs where the breeding rate decreased by 10%?

Unless you are either very dense or just once again trying mislead people you already know that the breeding rates didn’t drop in ten management units, in fact I don’t think they have dropped in any management unit over the long term though they all show variances from one year to another based on a wide range of variables.

The only reason the statewide average dropped was because of the fact the areas of the state that had the highest sample size prior to antler restrictions was also the area with the states best breeding and reproductive rates. Since antler restrictions those areas experienced declines of 65% - 91% in their sample size. That decline in those traditionally good breeding and reproductive rates sample sizes shifted the bulk of the statewide sample to the areas of the state that have always had the lowest breeding and reproductive rates. Even though the breeding and reproductive rates have increase in the traditionally poor area it still wasn’t enough to compensate for the near total collapse of the data coming from old high breeding and reproductive rates areas.

If that is too complicated for you to understand perhaps you can ask one your USP accounting buddies to explain it to you. Well I guess that might not work either since it seems they don’t get it either. Oh well, I guess logic just doesn’t work with some people.

To help me prove that logic doesn’t work with some people, how about you explaining to everyone why having more a better buck/doe ratio would result in declining breeding rates or how fewer deer and more food per deer would result in declining reproductive or breeding rates. Just explain to everyone how a person capable of logical thoughts would explain the declining breeding and reproductive rates you want to believe has occurred, if it really were anything other then a change in the sample sizes.

You should just stick to posting your nonsense when I am too busy to show everyone how far you are from reality or rational thinking. Of course I see that a number of the other posters have been doing a pretty good job of exposing you for the flim-flam artist you are, too.

R.S. Bodenhorn

please explain how breeding rates are detrimed, i have read all 7 pages of this to catch up on whats happening but i don't understand how the breeding rates are figured out.

fishers are evil little Bast**ds, more then once one of my dogs or a friends dog has got into a fight with them and com out the loser, they are also very good at killing chickens and many other animals. fishers eat pheasants and rabbits, i have seen a fisher with a rabbit in its mouth well bow hunting...granted it may have not been its killer but i believe it was(on the bright side they are pretty cool to watch out in the woods, we can trap them here)

now deer need their winter habitat without it nothing else much matters, you can perfect summer range but without winter range you just end up with alot of dead deer laying around.

The fishers are part of the PGC's new FR (flock reduction) program. The turkeys are outcompeting all other bird species, so a 50% reduction is being pushed for by the Audubon and the tree huggers. Top it off with the new spur restictions, and we have a mirror image of the phenomenally successful deer program. Bonus hen tags in the spring and 1 1/4" minimum spur length should quickly and dramatically reduce the flock and provide the privileged few with a chance at a real trophy tom. Apparently fishers are very capable turkey killers, known to prey onadults as well as juvenilles, and are notorious nest raiders as well. Just what the PGC ordered. Should accomplish in quick order what the coyotes have already been doing to the turkeys and what they have done with the deer fawns as well.

Posts like that and this thread in general reflect the fact that a sad day has come for hunters in Pennsylvania.

Since I began hunting in the late 60's hunters have always been able to proudly declare that we were responsible for the recovery of many species over the years,both game and nongame. Threads like this and posts like the last one show that we have some among us that are simply so selfish that they can't be bothered caring about wildlife unless it's something they can shoot.

Make no mistake about it, The future of hunting is in the hands of people who do not hunt. For years, the general nonhunting public has hada positive and generally correct view that hunters care and support all wildlife. Posts like these do nothing more than help the PETA folks who would seek to destroy that positive image and they will benefit by pointing out the selfish hunters among us.