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"

Actually IF that is indeed the case, it doesnt support the program any more than if the results are what they appear to be.

"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. "

That makes it no better. And Pgc is still pgc , Alt simply represented them. Others other than Alt have also made the claim on several occassions.


"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 "

Hardly. The big buck contests around here have gone to hell in a handbag. Far fewer entries and top end is around the same if not slightly less. You are grossly generalizing.



"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"

As you are so fond of saying to others, That is your opinion.

"You continue to cling to Alts "more and bigger bucks" blooper and old, recanted estimates because it suits your negative anti everything PGC "

As should be. Pgc should be held accountable for every intentionally misleading statement and misrepresentation, because it only enforces what most already know. Pgc are liars, frauds and are catering to ecofools and others totally forsaking the hunters of this state.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

You should really stick to what you do best, throwing insults at BB.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

And forest health in 2F is still worse than in 2G and according to RSB and the PGC it is due to overbrowsing by deer. The answer to the overbrowsing is to kill more deer,so why won't the PGC let hunters kill more deer in 2F by issuing more tags? I'm sure you would support this because I know you want a healthy forest.:)

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

I guess I wasn't concise enough.
How many oaks grow in the glaciated regions of 2F?

The better answer Bob, is that it depends on where your feet are.
BB2 likes to think all habitat is of the same make-up.
We know better.;)

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

And what, exactly should you stick to? Defending your illegal doe killing activities and training young kids to ignore the law as well? If we should all stick to what we do best, maybe you need to start an "outlaws only"thread

I notice you didnt have a credible dispute for what I said about 2F.
Either you don't know 2F or you don't know what an oak tree is.

As for 2G I asked those who should know for verification of what Isaid was an opinion based on limited exposure. Unlike BB, I'm willing to admit when I don't have all the facts and ask for them I'm willing to listen to most all until they expose themselves as liars like BB has.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

Yes...there are VASTLY different habitat structures in 2f and 2g. You can bet that the areas that do have good soils are or have been farmed for many years. The areas with virtually no soils, the glaciated regions, are left to forestland.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

Yep! It was Big Joe! We had many a good time in my younger days. I did as many stockings with the big old hunkyas time allowed. Had I lived in his county instead of simply having my other home there, I would've deputied with him in a minute. A day with Big Joe was always a good time. An evening when he wasn't working and where the occasional adult beverage was involved was even better. A couple of the funniest stories I have to tell even today involve Big Joe. He is sadly missed by many!

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

The answer is your question is irrelevant because the PGC doesn't manage the herd based on the quality of the habitat or the amount of mast that it produces. That is the way the herd was managed when we had deer densities goals. Now the carrying capacity of the habitat doesn't matter and the only things that matter are herd health ,the percent regeneration and deer human conflicts.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

There are regions of both 2f and 2g where you could not grow an oak if your life depended on it. Then there are areas where oaks are indeed, as Bob said, the seemingly dominant species. It is no surprise that the privately held parcels tend to have the better soils and the public lands are owned by the state and federal gov. because they were considered wasteland that no settler wanted or could use.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

And that has absolutely nothing to do with why 2F is being managed at a higher DD than 2G.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

A hint of why that is could be found on a public land map of each unit.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

Just to confuse people like you who didn't pay attention when the new way of managing the herd as explained.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

There are areas in both 2g and 2F that are mainly northern hardwods and other areas are more predominantly oak/hickory.I couldn't tell you which has more than the other.Where I live,it's mainly oak hickory.However,there's an area called the Owl's nest in 2F that's predominantly northern hardwoods.It's pretty cool to see because there's almost a very defined line where it changes from northern hardwoods to oak/hickory forests.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

Maybe the PGC should start selling cookies. How long do they think hunters are going to foot the bill for all wildlife and get screwed when their opinion means nothing? The question should of been, How can the PGC better the relationship with their handlers that feed them. Not how can we get more money and continue to screw you all. Make sure you have peanutbutter cookies,That is the only way the PGC is going to get any more money from me.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

I cant even believe the gall of those idiots to even ask for money considering the state of affairs. If I didnt know how "obtuse" the extremists are in that agency now, Id have thought they were joking. To even DREAM of asking without any reparative measures is absolutely rediculous. Sadly, due to to the corruption and greed of politics, the possibility exists that they will get what they are asking for and be enable to screw us for the next decade.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

Are you saying like because there is more public land in 2G and that they issue more tags in WMUs that are not for public hunting to get the private land owners to kill off the deer on their properrty ? Like in the south west and south east. Alot of private property there and tons of tags given out.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

here is a quote from bret Wallingford regarding herd health and forest health, which may help RSB, BTB and Livbucks understand my point about 2F and 2G.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

I think they sell more tags in privateland because the habitat is broken and contains richer soils ie:nutrition, so there are not only more deer there, they have higher breeding rates, lower mortality, lower predation and more cover in the form of safety zones. It simply takes more tags to get the job done.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

What is the job that needs to be done? Is it the elimination of a huntable herd? That is what we have in my area!!!

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

bb that would not make any sense what so ever no huntable herd no licsence sales no money
kinda defeat their purpose wouldnt it

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

The previous goal for 5c was 6 DPSM and for 5B it was 5 DPSM and I agree it made no sense since those WMUs have some of the best habitat in the state.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

bb i dont how many dpsm is right because i am not a wildlife bio unfortionaly i have to trust the pros
to some level

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

Here is what the experts told us the goals were in 2003.
Now the PGC has abandoned those goals and our managing the herd based on the regeneration of commercially valuable trees.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

By BTBowhunter:


Units 2F and 2G both have pockets of oaks and areas with no oaks. Both areas also have some stands that are entirely northern hardwoods. Unit 2F has more northern hardwoods (with very few oaks) then unit 2G. But, unit 2G has more area of steep, rocky outcroppings that has very few trees, or anything else, growing on the forest floor then what are found in unit 2F. All in all, and in general, unit 2G has less deer habitat then what is found in unit 2F though there are some pockets of good habitat in both units.


Bluebird said:


The reason unit 2F is, and always has been, managed at higher deer populations then unit 2G is because that different in the habitat and the ability of each to support deer within the limits of those habitats.

That fact should be evident by simply looking a the historic deer harvests for the two areas.

Here is the historic harvest data for the counties that make up those two units up until the inception of the units and then the data for the units since 2003 when the units were first established. All data is in harvests per square mile.

Area……………83-87.…………88-92.……….93-97.………..98-02.……….03-07
2F………………9.62.…………..11.35.…†¦â€¦.11.93.…………12.45.……….7.14
2G………………7.85.……………9.55.…†¦â€¦..8.00.…………..8.53.………..4.00

This should help any objective person see that unit 2F has always had more deer and also that neither unit has had excessive antler less deer harvests during any recent years compared to the harvests of the historic past. That also lends more significance to the likelihood that it has been trying to carry too many deer in recent times that caused the habitat decline that then resulted in the population decline.

As for argument of needing more antler less license an higher harvests in unit 2F I fully agree. That is probably why unit 2F has averaged 13.97 antler less license per square mile compared to only 8.26 as the six year average for unit 2G. I also believe that the failure of the ANF to issue DMAP permit’s the past two years has played into the reason the study plots in unit 2F are presently rated worse then the sample plots in unit 2G. That still doesn’t negate the total lack of habitat on the steep, rocky outcropping of unit 2G though.


Bluebird said:



That is not correct at all.

The quality of the habitat, including the availability of mast, is a great deal of what influences the herd health. The quality of the habitat, (that is regeneration since you don’t seem to know that), is entirely what influences the measure of the habitat health. Both of which are used for determining the direction for managing the herd within the quality of the habitat available to the deer within that unit.

Deer/human conflicts primarily only come into play where the human populations are high and the CAC find that the public want fewer deer then the habitat health indicates is suitable for the present or higher deer numbers. In cases where the habitat would sustain more deer and the CAC recommend fewer deer, due to human conflict, the deer numbers might be reduced to less then the habitat can support. At least if it is possible to reduce the numbers in those areas. Presently there are indications that it might not be possible to reduce deer numbers where the habitat is suitable to support more deer.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

Thats absolutely nonsense. As long as there are high enough hunter numbers coupled with allocations and access, there is nowhere that cannot be reduced regardless of habitat. Only thing that could prevent it is too few hunters and/or lots of interpersed totally off limits lands.

Not the case within the majority of the state.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

So you are saying that the PGC has managed 2F at higher DD than should have been allowed and are still managing 2F at higher DDs than 2G resulting in lower regeneration rates and lower productivity. Whether you know it or not you once again,just supported what I have been saying.
The quote I posted from Brett Wallingford said specifically that herd health is independent from forest health. All but 1 WMU is at it's goal for herd health,so 2f and 2G are being managed based solely on forest health and forest health is lower in 2F than in 2G ,yet 2F is being managed at a higher deer density and you can't explain why that is and neither can Dr, rosenberry.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

I believe he told you that much of 2g is sheer slope terrain that is not suitable deer habitat. Deer simply cannot utilize a high percentage of each SM. I have been there..have you?
The actual SM of deer habitat is considerably less than what a flat map shows. It is straight up or straight down and is very hard hunting. The deer totally avoid much of it, more notably in winter when it really counts.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

That is simply pure nonsense being spread by RSB. The habitat in 2G once supported over 40 DPSM. In 2003 the habitat in 2G supported a harvest of 10K buck PSM and 20K doe PSM. But in 2007 the same habitat only produced a buck harvest of 5K buck and 6.6K doe,due entirely to over harvesting the doe in 2G.
By claiming that deer avoid steep slopes shows how little you know about deer. I have hunted several mountains that were so steep the only way i could follow the deer trails was by hanging on to trees or crawling up the slope. deer are as close to mountain goats as you can get and steep slopes don't phase them.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

Classic Bluetwist!

RSB and Greg didnt say that deer avoid steep slopes. They said that not much grows to provide feed on those steep rocky areas. Once again, you twist the meaning of facts when you know full well what was said and what it means.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

Where do mountain deer overwinter?
What terrain?
This is a factor to CC in 2g.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

But if you knew jack squat about topograhy, you would know a SM composed of steep slopes provides a lot more surface area and browse than a SM of flat land. The steep slopes I climbed following deer had the same chestnut and red oaks as the flats. You simply don't know what you are talking about.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

No, you simply don't know the terrain or habitat of 2G or 2F

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

I meant they avoid it because they have no purpose to go there. Of course they can traverse steep slopes in their travels or as escape routes from wiley blueticks. That does not mean those areas contribute to sustenance.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

So are you claiming that 2G is mostly steep slopes and those slopes don't suffer from over browsing? if so you don't know squat about deer just like BTB and RSB.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

Where deer congregate, notably winter range, is the point.
The fact that much of the terrain is not suitable for overwintering puts even more stress on what is left and yes, results in overbrowsing of those winter grounds.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

Twist and spin, twist and spin and of course.......

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

No, that is just RSB propaganda. The habitat in 2G supported almost twice as many deer as they had in 2007 and it had nothing to do with the carrying capacity of the wintering areas.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

And those high numbers, and the concentrated overbrowsing,are what gave ammo to hr.
The biologists took photos where the damage occured, and you now know why it happened, Mr 40 dpsm.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

The 40 DPSM occurred in the mid 70s. During the 80's the PGC bragged about how well they were managing the herd and how much the habitat was recovering. You simply don't know what you are talking about.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

If we logged the livin' hell outta them hills, you could have 60 dpsm for the rest of your days with no problem. We all know that isn't going to happen, so we have to adjust.