RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

RSB is blowing smoke . There are few fawns because of the over harvest of does. The deer in 2G have more food then they had in the early 90's when 2G produced a lot of fawns.

The average rack size of bucks that are harvested because it is illegal to harvest the small ones, not because our 2.5+ buck are bigger than before ARs.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

Sample size too small and sampling emphasis shifted to poorer habitat. Asked and answered. You attempted to distort the evidence and were exposed

Less deer equals less deer. Yes, Gary Alt madethemore and bigger bucks statement but he's gone and it's been estabished that statement was very misleading.

Scientific surveys of rack sizes? no. But the overwhelming evidence from taxidermists, hunters, buck contests, news reports indicates a substantial improvement to all who have their heads out of their butt

Saying it a different way won't change things. See #1

I don't have a conclusive answer to that one but I do have personal observations on those two WMU's that may be part of it. While they may be rated the same, the forest makeup is vastly different. 2F has more agriculture, and more large stands of mast producing trees. 2G is much steeper and rockier and doesn't grow the same kind of trees and plants as 2F. I admit, this observation is personal, incomplete and not scientific but anyone who has spent time in both WMU's will surely concurr that the habitat is vastly different.

Not true in 2F at least. The browse lines have faded away, Deer numbers are fewer but still good, body size seems to have improved and rack size is way better

What method do you propose they use? Do you expect them to count the deer? This subject is a major part of the USP suit. You're very long on criticism and very short on solutions on this one. There is no perfect method but deer managers all over this country agree on the methods the PGC is using

Taken at face value, that statement would make sense. Of course, in true Blueboy style,you left out the fact that male deer are a significant part of the antlerless harvest. Yes,we are still harvestingmore does than bucks butyour statement was another blatant attempt at distorting the real picture

LOL! Ask any hunter who can manage to see more than 3 deer in a season if the BD ratio isn't decidedly better now!

Even with a perfect BD ratio, there will be some late born fawns. A good BD ratio can even cause an increase in late born fawns. Often late born fawns are born to last years doe fawns. Doe fawns can breed once they attain a body weight of about 80 pounds. When the deer population has good food supply, more doe fawns reach the state where they can be bred in tgheir first year.Late born fawns in a herd with a good BD ratio are most oftendue to moredoe fawns being healthy enough to breed in their first year.

Actually, the 1.6 estimate was after 2001 and the PGC has backed off that estimate. We all understand that they are working to improve the methodolgy for estimating deer populations.

Even when Alt made his "more and bigger bucks" boner statement, we all understood why the average buck would be better. No one diputes that the average buckis better due to the average age being older yet you continue to make statements implying that the average buck hasn't improved by adding the age into the statement. In fact you have claimed the opposite by using results from a flawed study from a state with vastly different habitat and a vastly different herd structure.

You continue to cling to Alts "more and bigger bucks" blooper and old, recanted estimates because it suits your negative anti everything PGC
campaign. You are long on criticism, much of it distorted, some of it pure lies while you are painfullyshort on solutions.


You've been asked repeatedly for your solutions. Since you claim to understand deer better than most wildlife management professionals, why don't we pretend you are in charge for a minute. It should be easy for you! Go ahead, lay out your statewide plan for our deer management.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

Wrong again. Your own exampled proved beyond a doubt that was not the reason for the decrease in breeding rates. You and RSB simply can't handle the fact that the plan has failed.

So why is the PGC withholding the data that would support your claims?
Both 2F and 2G are 90% forested. Try another answer!
If that is true , then you are admitting that the habitat was not the limiting factor controling breeding rates and productivity,since neither improved as the habitat improved.

I have no problem with using population estimates. But they should hide the estimates and lie about using them to determine antlerless allocations and population goals.

I didn't leave out anything because I referred to the antlerless harvest that includes BB, rather than to the doe harvest. An antlered to antlerless ratio of around 1: 1.3 would keep the herd stable ,but the ratio in 2007 was 1: 1.9.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

It is painfully obvious that your knowledge of those two WMU's is limited to what you see on paper and on the net. Both 90% forested? Yep! Thats where the similarities stop however. Major differences exist between the two in the average terrain as well as a major difference in the resulting vegetation.

It's also noteworthy that you chose to only respond to half of the issues and even more importantly, you offered NOTHING in the way of soultions as always.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

Is that why regeneration is poorer in 2F than in 2G? I thought the plan was to reduce the herd to improve regeneration. Did 2F get an exemption from the plan? Is it now acceptable for 2F to have poor forest health but more deer? Why doesn't that apply to 2G?

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

2F has virtually no soil compared to 2G, I won't tell him why.
How many Oaks grow in 2f , BB?

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

RSB said the exact opposite!!

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

Try reading this real slow and read it over and over till it gets through. Different terrain, different species of predominant forest species will feed different levels of deer densities

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

Oaks are still the vastly dominant species in virtually all of 2F that I know and I've pretty much hunted most parts of 2F at some time over the years. You know 2G better than me but from what I've seen, oaks are not nearly as dominant in the parts of 2G that I know. Is my assessment accurate for all of 2G Greg? Sproul? Doug? RSB?

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

Lots of oaks in my area of northern 2G which encompasses all of the Tioga State Forest in Tioga County and part of the Susquehannock State Forest in eastern Potter County.