RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

EJ, you are correct that license fees paid for gamelands. Unfortunately, the money there is to spend on them isn't enough to do all that could be done to enhance habitat. A lot of our gamelands is stuff they got cheap because it wasn't that good for much to begin with and making it good for wlidlife while trying to make it pay for itself isn't always the easiest task. I'm not saying that it couldn't be done better. I beleive it could in many places. I'm just saying that it can be a big job taking a chunk of ground that no one wants and turning it into a game paradise which is what we'd all like to see.

Iwould support for a user fee for gamelands that would be set aside strictly for maintenance and improvement of those gamelands. I'd supprt a user fee for anyone using them but we also need a higher fee for non hunters who wish to use them. even If we never have a user fee for hunters, we still should still charge non hunters who hike, bicycle, fish, birdwatch, horseback ride etc on gamelands. I pay taxes but I still have to pay launch fees tolaunch a canoe or camp or use a pavillionin a state park, why shouldnt the PGC charge non hunters to use what hunters have paid for?


I don't remember the exact percentage but I did see it just a short time ago and the PGC only holds the mineral rights for a small portion of the states gamelands.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

bob, i was in a meeting with sen wojesnack and DCNR.

dont think for minute that is not being looked at.

you will see user fees at parks soon.

maryland is doing it now.

i fish B.A.S.S tournaments in maryland.

they charge 20 dollars for season to fish in there local lake or 6 dollars daily.

you cant fish after dark, that was strange to me but they caught mexicans dumping chemicals from boats after dark.[:@]

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

All of those possibilities and pretty much every other likely avenue of combining the various duties and even the management of a combined Fish and Game Agency were evaluated by the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee. They couldn’t come up with any significant cost saves or even a reduction in management personnel even while exploring it for a cost savings. They did identify many areas where there would be some huge expenses in just merging the two agencies though.

All of that was in what one would have to view as a near perfect transition as well. History has also shown that the larger bureaucracy, and that is what it would be, are nearly always less efficient and even stacked higher on the management end of the scale then on the field level end of the scale. That would just mean more money spent with less public return.
It most certainly could be done but I seriously doubt if combining the two agencies would result in any cost saving. But, perhaps the even bigger question is who pays for the initial costs of merging the two already financially strapped agencies.


I suspect you were talking about Big Joe over in Forest County as being your friend. I used to bump into him often. The Game and Fish Officers have always worked close in their duties and most likely always will even without any official merging of the agencies. I help with fish law enforcement and fish stocking every year the same as the Fish WCO helps with game law enforcement. I have even handled first on scene pollution investigations though I really don’t carry the necessary equipment (there wouldn’t even be room for that in my vehicle with all of the wildlife handling equipment I carry with me) or have the required training to collect the water samples so they would be admissible in court. There really is a lot more to the cross training issues then most people realize.



It isn’t that I specifically want to say out of the crossbow discussions it is just that I have no strong feelings on the issue one way or the other. I have been a bow hunter for over forty years and still use a compound bow, or at least would if I had time to hunt during that busy time of the year. I very well might buy a crossbow though now that they are legal, if I can somehow save up that much money.

The real reason I am neutral on the subject has more to do with the rate at which I have already watched the number of crossbows taking over in the hunting field and that rapid increase isn’t something the Game Commission can even control. That control of crossbow inclusion was lost, to the Game Commission, with the legislature changing just one word in the law that allowed disabled hunters to use a crossbow during the archery season.


That law used to say that the Game Commission “MAY” issue a permit to anyone with a Doctor’s report explaining why they couldn’t draw a conventional bow. When someone made application WCOs investigated that person to make a determination if the person truly did qualify. If not, and many didn’t based on the ones that saw still able to play various sports and do arm and upper body physical work on their regular jobs everyday, so we sent in a report that required them to show further cause before being granted the permit. That resulted in the WCO being the bad guy, as usual it seems, the Legislature getting complaints from people that didn’t get their way and finally the Legislature changed the law to read, “The Game Commission “SHALL” issue a permit upon receiving the Doctor’s report. Who couldn’t get a doctor to sign a report saying they can’t draw a bow simply based on what ever the person told them regardless of what a physical exam indicated?


Since that time about 63,000 people have received the crossbow permit and there simply isn’t anyway the Game Commission can slow that ever increasing trend. If you take all of the archery licenses sold during the 2007/2008 license year that would mean that about 24% of our archery hunters can already use a crossbow statewide. Then factor in that anyone in one of the Special Regulations units has been allowed to use a crossbow in their hunting area for years and it becomes obvious that the number of crossbows being used for hunting was a run away number that the Game Commission, or the UBP allies, really had no control over anyway. One word being changed by the State Legislature changed the abilty of the Game Commission to prevent an ever increasing number of crossbow huntersin the archery season, so perhaps the problem really started with waht some peopleare saying they want even more of.

Another factor that I think the Commissioners had to look at was that even though some of the best allies the Commission has ever had didn’t want the crossbow included there were still many others that were equally animate that they did want crossbows included in the archery season. That alone might not be a good reason for the Commission vote going the direction it did but when you combine that with real mission of the Commission being to provide as many hunting opportunities as possible without adversely affecting the resource I do believe they had to look at the possibility that the use of crossbows might allow more people an opportunity to spend more time hunting then they presently are. Isn’t that a good thing? Perhaps not if you are only looking at from the perspective of putting more hunters into a state of completion for the deer, but should that be something that the Commissioners even think about or should they be more focused on the long term future of hunting in general? That is a difficult question to answer though isn’t it? So, when I sit down and think about I really don’t see it as a slap in the face as much as I see it as trying to weight out both the short term and long affects of the decision and then making a judgment call with their vote. It is one of those dammed if you do and dammed if you don’t decisions that frequently challenge major controversial issues, you just can’t win and have to do what seems best based on all of the facts you have. If then it might have been just as easy, and maybe as wise, to just flip a coin and go with what it suggested.


As for the crossbow vote being a conflict of interest for the Commissioner with the sporting good business; it would perhaps seem that way but I don’t think I see the conflict though when I look at more of the facts of his situation. His business is deep in the heart of one of the areas where anyone has been able to use a crossbow during the archery season for a number of years. I doubt he is going to see much of an increase in his business due to his statewide inclusion of crossbows. In fact it may actually boost the business of his completion and hurt him in the really big picture.

I can say that I have some questions of the logic of not allowing the magnification of scopes though in view of the fact that so many people (about 63,000 hunters) already have the scopes and used them without incident for all these years. That was probably more of a compromise gift to the UBP allies that just kind of didn’t result in enough comprise to have any value for the cost of it. I suspect it one of those “paying too much for your whistle” decisions.


Could the need for adjustments be needed in the future for management reason? I suspect that is a possibility depending on how many new hunters, people that weren’t archery hunters before, now join the ranks. No one knows the answer to that question, but we will find out now that they are legal. If there are biological or wildlife management problems that arise they can be most likely be solved, though I am sure many will argue that point too. Time will tell.



I agree that it would be preferable to have hunters paying the full wildlife management bill and I argued for that very thign for a long time. But, the really is that it either already has, oris very rapidly approaching the point when hunters alone simply can’t afford to pay all of the costs of a quality wildlife management program. It costs more money all the times just to maintain the same programs even without new programs and research. At what point do we end up pricing hunters out of hunting.

Yet, it would be irresponsible of both the hunters and wildlife management professionals to allow our resources to become degraded out of either pride of the fear of new and more effective funding methods. At least in my opinion itwould be.

As for the voice of PETA or other non-hunting and anti-hunting groups I will say that they already have a strong voice in wildlife management. If nothing else they get a voice within the Legislature and anyone that studies the situation can surely see how much influence the State Legislature already has in the direction of wildlife management, sad as it is. That is only getting worse and to be honest with you I think working from a portion of a dedicated percentage of the sales tax (the direction I presently would prefer)would result in less outside influence then we have today instead of the more many hunters fear.

As for the PETA types looking for and even demanding a position on the BOC that is already occurring because of the division of the hunters ranks and the USP law suit. I will start a new topic to show what they are presently up to. Please, all hunters that really care, go read it.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

Since that time about 63,000 people have received the crossbow permit and there simply isn’t anyway the Game Commission can slow that ever increasing trend.

So that number would exceed the number of votes saying yes to Xbows over those that voted no? So it was the majority who wanted to use Xbows in the state of PA. 24% of bow hunters use Xbows. And how many rifle hunters would of said yes to Xbows.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

You think if we tell the Dr.s we are to out of shape to walk more than 45yrds without gettinga blister on our feetwe could get a permit to shoot from a vehicle also? Just make everything legal in PA and get it over with.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

Why would they want inclusion? They already have em.

The bottom line is that among those who hadenough interest to say something , the correspondence was 90/10 against.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

Lets say they didn't have them allready? As RSB said,There was people that wasnothandi capped enoughto get them.

Yes, I do agree with the bottom line.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

It is almost to that point with many people and that permit too. WCOs no longer investigate that permit either do to the changes in the Legislative statute. We do find our selves arresting more people that abuse what the law allows with that permit though in recent years.

The difference with that permit is that it really isn’t an advantage for those that don’t qualify provided they actually understand the limits of what their permit allows. In many cases a person with the permit is actually more restricted then a person without the permit when it comes to being permit to harvest wildlife they have seen while in a moving vehicle and traveling from home to hunt or back.

Most hunters, if they are able to stand up and still support a firearm don’t gain anything with a permit to use a motor vehicle as their seat. All that permit entitles a hunter to do is park their vehicle, shut the engine off and then load their gun and sit in the vehicle while they wait for game to arrive. Any able bodied hunter can do about the same thing by taking a chair and setting it up right beside their parked vehicle. The only thing they can’t do that the permit holder can is sit inside their vehicle with their gun loaded.

It is not a permit to road hunt like some people think it is. It is a very needed permit for those that can’t stand anymore though otherwise they couldn’t continue to be a hunter.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

RSB

I have to admit that I had no idea that the disabled xbow permitregs had been changed from may to shall. That is huge! I cant help but recall the time when I was a county rep for UBP and was working with the Pa Sportsmen for the disabled putting on wheelchair accessable 3-D shoots when the first crossbow for disableds law was enacted. PFSTD was a primary mover and shaker in that efffort. I remember then having some lively exchanges with Harry Miller who was president of PFSTD at the time. I expressed my concerns that it would be abused and he said "better that the occasional jerk abuses the permit rather than a truly disabled guy be refused a chance to hunt archery season because he cant pull a bow any more. I eventually agreed and became a supporter for that original law. Originally the law as promoted by PFSTD and rep Godschall was intended for people who REALLY had no way to use a vertical bow. We certainly came a long way from there! It looks like my original fears have already come to pass! I knew I was seeing guys with xbows who looked perfectly healthy but as someonewho now hasa serious disability that is not always readily apparent to strangers, I've been ignoring it. I also had no idea that we had 63,000 permits already on the books. Thats a real eye opener!

As you said, add that to the SRA's where anyone can use one and maybe your point about the battle having been lost already holds at least some water. I still think it was handled very poorly. At the very least, the vote in the face of the opposition was still a display of apathy and arogancetowardinput from their funding constituents at a time when that ought to be something very important to the BOC members.


As for the studies examining the combining of the agencies not being cost effective, I'm still skeptical.Although your comment about any bureaucracy getting bigger is not lost on me;)

As for the commisioner who owns a sporting goods store and his vote, we're 100% apart on that one. IMHO,he should have abstained. I live in an SRA crossbow area and do much of my equipment business around here but I also hunt well outside of that area as well. I'd bet that at least some of his potential crossbow customers will be hunting outside of SRA's this year and I'd bet he WILL sell more crossbows now that full inclusion is a reality.

At the very least, a good conscientous public official should never take part in a decision where they stand to reap any possible financial reward as a result of that decision. I doubt this will ever come to pass, but hisneglecting to abstain and his vote in favor strikes me as possible reasonable cause for a court challenge to the decision. That certainly wouldn't be good for anyone except the lawyers now would it?

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

I certainly don’t disagree with some of your comments. The point I wanted to make though is that often things are not a cut and dry in the large arena of decision making as it first appears.

I assure you that there are a lot of behind the scenes facts that get presented before the Board of Commissioners that never reach the light of view to the public. Most people have no idea the amount of Legislative input that gets forced for consideration in some decisions. Even though the Commission was originally established to minimize politics and their influence I assure you politics in wildlife management and all that surrounds it is ever present and ever increasing. One only needs to read through the different topics of this Message Board to see just how that happens.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

I agree btb, the one commissioner should not have voted. That was rediculous. If he anticipates sales and couldnt care less one way or the other about archery season otherwise...Why on earth wouldnt he vote YES to inclusion? That would like me being able to vote on wether or not I wanted, say maybe a 5 or 10 grand raise this year.DUH! Gee let me think on that for awhile...[:'(] As for Pallone and the others, typical of the bio-nutz. No surprise there. Kill deer and make money.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

I'm not a bow hunter, but feel they really got the shaft or should I say bolt. Some of their time was taken away with the inlines and worse yet was rifles being used for three days. If the BOC wan't to do anything with bow season, take away the three days of rifle or at least move it to the middle of the week. Seniors don't need the weekend to hunt, they have every day available to them. I'm a senior and find it to be an insult, that some think I need special privileges, let me quit hunting with dignity because I can't keep up with the younger hunters and my time has come.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

yes btb i realize most of what ol bluebird post is twisted its to bad all
he sees is the negatives of what pgc does and none of the positives
but he does have a valid point here or there
you can do 10 good thing and 1 bad and people will remember the 1 bad thing

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

I think a lot of hunter should stop patting themselves on the back for purchasing SGL, most were purchased before we were born. Currently other organizations are purchasing land at a higher price and selling it to the PGC at a loss to them. They should get more credit for what we are gettingthan the hunters that use them.

We seem to have a lot of cheap skates in our ranks, they don't want to give the PGC any more money, whoever feels that way it's fine with me. But, they also don't want to part with a dollar, even if we could restrict that money to where we want it to be used.

If I spend my own money to pay the taxes on my land, cut down trees and leave them lay, buy equipment to plant food plots and the seeds, fertilizer and other expenses to improve my hunting, I don't understand why a SGL hunter expects to have the same thing I have, just because he purchases a license like I do.

Times have changed guys, if all your interested in meat for you and your family to eat, there are a lot of roadkills out there and not just deer. If you can't afford the license and your family is hungry, our roads will be full of dead groundhogs and hear they are quite tasty if your wife is a decent cook.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

That is simply not true. The PGC has done a great job with turkeys and bears. They did a fine job increasing the amount of SGLs and IMHO they do a pretty good job of managing them for wildlife. They also did a fine job of managing the deer from 1980 to 2000 resulting in record buck and total harvests.

What I object to is the current deer management plan which was sold based on lies that can be documented and the lies are continuing to this day and they can also documented and that is why we have the USP lawsuit.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

who was the bio that did the good job with the bears :eek:

its good to see you were happy at one point in time
when 80 deer a day run by you

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

The same jerk that lied like a rug to sell the current deer plan.
Just like BTB all you got is cheap shots. Never saw 80 deer a day, the max. I recall is 15 -20 with a lot of days with no deer sighted. besides ,it is not about me or any other individual hunter. It is about the best management of the resource, the future of deer hunting and the future of the PGC.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

how long was alt involved with bears how long did he get with deer

the last sentence was your best yet bb

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

The PGC closed bear season the two years before Alt was hired to manage the bear and it is easy to allow a population to increase.

Alt's basic deer management plan is still in effect today and it set back deer hunting by over 30 years.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

Alt's basic deer management plan is still in effect today and it set back deer hunting by over 30 years.
[align=right]
[/align]
can you back any of that up with facts bb or is that a opinion other than the bear and alt

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

The buck harvest in 1977 was around 150K ,compared to 109K in 2007.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

R.S.B. You didn't mention the profit our game commission is making off the natural gas pipelines on "public" land. I have a question that nobody has given me a good answer to. It is this... If this is a "commonwealth" thenwhy aren't the profitsshared with the tax payers/license purchasers/Pa residentswhofund the purchasing of state game lands. Where is our royalty check from all natural gas lines, coal mining ops., timber sales, mineral excavations andnonresident license sales taking place on the land we the tax payers and license purchasers pay for. Ihonestly do not want a "royalty check" I want to see proof that theprofits made from the land went back into improving habitat responsibly and I will be completely satisfiedwith paying higher license prices.
My opinion is this... any and all profit made from taking resources from public lands should go 100% back into the same land from where it was taken for the purpose of habitat improvement. Is that what is happening??? What percentage went back into habitat directly from those revenues? We have numerous gas lines where I live and have seen no improvements made on that land in years.

In the last year how much money did the PAGC receive from
A. Natural Gas
B. Coal
C. Timber
Please be as specific as possible. Once you give me those numbers and can show the PaGC has been responsible with that money (removing my doubts) I will give you my suggestions on funding wildlife management.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

The reason the best recollection you recall is only 15-20 a day is probably the same reason you now see only 3 in a season and the same reason you are so bitter that you have resorted to the level of distortion you do. The reason is that you must absolutely suck as a hunter as well as in your level of deer knowledge.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

I believe those numbers you seek are in the annual reports, but they don't say specifically where the funds from each of those revenues was spent.

Here is a link: http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?A=523&Q=173848

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

Thanks, I have seen those reports but haven't seen how that money has been allocated, meaning= $ received from resources on Area A. % of $ from Area A went into habitat improvement in Area B, specifically what was that improvement and where is the location of the area improved?
I also haven't seen revenues from the natural gas lines which by itself could exceed current timber revenuesand coal combined.

The reason I want that info is because we have alot of coal and natural gas lines in my area and the habitat on the SGL's is very poor. If money is coming out of my back yard I want to see an improvement made in my back yard. Not 4 hours away near Pittsburgh using revenue made from my area while neglecting my area. Once the habitat is fair or Good the use the additionalrevenues to fix other areas that do not have the resources to fund their own land improvement.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

Since I don't critique the PGC plan based on my personal observations or success , your unwarranted insults are irrelevant and don't change the following facts.
1. Breeding rates decreased by 5% and you and RSB have no valid explanation, even though you may be great hunters.
2. The buck harvest decreased by 46% since ARs were implemented.
3. There is no valid evidence that rack sizes have increased.
4. Productivity has decreased along with the breeding rates and the PGC has no explanation.
5. WMUs 2F and 2G are rated the same for all criteria yet are being managed at much different DD and no one can explain why.
6. Forest health and herd health hasn't improved in 2F and 2G after more than 10 years of HR.
7. The PGC is still using population estimates to determine antlerless allocation ,while claiming they are based on herd and forest heath.
8. We are still harvesting almost twice as many antlerless deer than antlered ,which means we are still reducing the herd while the PGC claims the goal is to keep it stable.
9. There was never a problem with the B/D ratio as Alt claimed, which is why ARs didn't increase breeding rates.
10. The breeding window did not improve and we still have late born fawns just like before ARs were implemented.
11. The PGC is still issuing more antlerless tags than in 2001 when we had 1.6 M PD deer and the antlerless harvest reduced the herd by 8%.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

1. I just heard a blah go by.

2. There's another blah %

3. And ever blah HR.

4. Altdecreased blahs since AR blahs

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

This is probably what you are looking for.

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?a=523&q=173302

Now go ahead and show us where they have been irresponsible with the money.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

bluebird, i think RSB did say reason for few fawns is bad habitat.

but over last 3 years we had acorns all over place until this year and very mild winters.with very few fawns born.

as for horn size.

horns are BIGGER and AR is working somewhat but for it to work,,kids exemption must stop as too much illegal things are happening .it should be for 12 year old only then after that, he/she has to comply with the AR restriction.

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.