sproulman

i dont think USP is screwing themselves.

the members are backing what they are doing,so no way they are screwing themselves.

me,I HAPPEN TO BE INVOLVED WITH LAWSUITSover years.

i always thought on people i represented that you could work it out without filing a suit, but thats not real world.

look at commercial on tv with that ole INSURANCE AGENT fart involving DEMPSEY/LENAHAN.

he keeps saying,NO,NO, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ON CLAIMS ,until clerk says, DEMSEY/LENAHAN IS ON PHONE.

he then goes,OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

that is real world and PGC/DCNR are playing same game most likely.

all i can say to PGC is OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

R.S.B.

We know you don’t understand it. You never have and most likely never will, but I will explain it for those that might be interested in the answer.

The reason the deer density numbers are no longer the largest force in deer management was because they were estimated numbers that had way to much variability in their degree of accuracy. They had such a low reliability because they were estimated numbers that came from the end result of using many other estimated numbers to reach that bottom line estimate.

By using scientific results provided by real deer and real food supplies you are using reality instead of estimates, guesses and theories.

Yes, everyone wishes the samples sizes were large enough to use each individual years of data for making management decisions but that isn’t reality either, so they use three year averages to at least be able to work with the actual trends that the deer and their food prove are reality.

But, neither your comment or my answer, in response, have anything to do with the topic so why are you going in that direction yet again?

R.S. Bodenhorn

explorer_Jack

By using scientific results provided by real deer and real food supplies you are using reality instead of estimates, guesses and theories.


How many real deer do you have?

R.S.B.

No body knows. Do you know?

There are some rather reliable estimates, but it really doesn’t matter if anyone knows how many there are. The deer and their food tell the professionals, monitoring what the deer and food supply tell them, as far is if that area can feed that number of deer, more deer or if there will have to be fewer deer.

The number of deer that can live on the food supply is determined by nature not the Game Commission. All the professions do is their best to keep that balance, at what nature allows, by using hunters instead of nature to remove the deer nature will not allow to survive in a healthy condition through the winter and into the long term future.

Would it be better to have them die each winter to feed the buzzards when they return each spring? Do you like the looks of the sun bleached bones from winter killed deer in the spring?

R.S. Bodenhorn

Cornelius08

Winterkillhasnt been a problem in Pa. Any state will recieve some in extreme years in the northern parts of the US, and its rediculous to expect otherwise. Pa has not had widespread deaths as a problem and shouldnt even be mentioned with the current herd size when double that had no maleffect for the mostpart in that regard.

R.S.B.

That is only a testament to having the harvests as closely balanced to the habitat as the professionals have been able to keep it in resent years and in some parts of the state, like yours, ever since the deer populations first started to increase.

Come up here sometime and can show you old pictures of lots and lots of dead deer and bleached bones following the winters back in the days from before annual doe season. Back then the old time Game Wardens up here piled up dead deer by the dozens to the hundreds in nearly every stream bottom. All because hunters didn’t think they should kill does so they could have more deer the next year. It works exactly the opposite though when you don’t harvest enough deer.

Deer populations and habitat are not the two separate issues you seem to think they are. Deer eat habitat and if the habitat does exist the deer don’t eat. If deer don’t eat they die.

Haven’t you ever learned or even heard about the affects of nature on populations?

R.S. Bodenhorn

bowtruck

well said good points rsb

Cornelius08

"That is only a testament to having the harvests as closely balanced to the habitat as the professionals have been able to keep it in resent years and in some parts of the state, like yours, ever since the deer populations first started to increase. "

Winterkill hasnt been a problem in Pa EVER. In extreme years, northern states like Pa, minnesota, NewYork, etc. are gonna experience SOME losses. Ours has never been an issue. That includes the years of very highest herd estimates.

"Come up here sometime and can show you old pictures of lots and lots of dead deer and bleached bones following the winters back in the days from before annual doe season."

We had wellover amillion deer. How many of those have to die tonatural mortality before it is no longer acceptable and normal natuaral mortality?? THere are always weak deer, diseased deer and injured deer that die lingering deaths. There are also normal losses especially during an overly harsh year despite herd health. You are also in the harshest environment and habitat in the state and it STILL isnt usually a problem, so what does that say about the other 90+ percent of the state?

"Back then the old time Game Wardens up here piled up dead deer by the dozens to the hundreds in nearly every stream bottom. All because hunters didn’t think they should kill does so they could have more deer the next year. It works exactly the opposite though when you don’t harvest enough deer. "

I think the "old time" wardens were probably great fellas, but those old timers also like to spin yarns and drink too much. No disrespect meant, thats just the way it is often. Such episodes as you speak have never been realized across the majority of this state, and thats a fact. Can it occur in a very isolated incident? Perhaps. And perhaps an area of such poor habitat and such a rediculous deer density (that would allow that many dead in one area) WAS indeed in need of reduction. Some areas needed it of course. Others didnt. Others needed some and got more than needed by far... Blanket reduction statewide was in no way warranted by an isolated incident during a terrible winter in one area many DECADES ago.

"Deer populations and habitat are not the two separate issues you seem to think they are. Deer eat habitat and if the habitat does exist the deer don’t eat. If deer don’t eat they die."

Having read enough of my posts, you know that I know deer and habitat are entertwined. To suggest I think otherwise is a meaningless petty jab at me and attempt to discredit based on absolutely nothing.

"Haven’t you ever learned or even heard about the affects of nature on populations?"

Of course, dont be silly. Ive never said deer numbers can be limitless.AndIve neversaid range quality isnt a factor. The basics of saying too many deer isnt good, especially through winter on marginal habitat only goes so far however. It says exactly NOTHING about how many are actually too many. And that is where our acceptance of the basic principals part ways.What IS to many??I don't see ANY evidence at all that pgc has pointed to that suggest we HAVE to have the exact numbers of deer in each wmu that we currently have. NONE. Throw in the fact that some are supposedly being stabilized yet the allocation simply in no way will allow it and we are WELL past supporting an arguement with: overpopulation of deer = winterkill.

Major tweaking needs to be done. Wmus size shrinking and numbers increasingwould be a HUGE start.

bluebird2

Knowing how many deer there are certainly matters when allocating doe tags and those allocations are not based on herd health and forest health as the PGC claims. Allocations are still based on the same population estimates as they used before but they are using herd health and forest health as a smoke screen so don't have to release the population estimates. WMU 2F and 2G are rated the same for herd health and forest health yet they are being managed at significantly different densities. If they were being managed on herd and forest health they would both be managed at the same density. When the herd in 2G increased in 2006, the PGC increased the antlerless allocation in 2g, but there wasn't a similar increase in 2F tags as I recall based on my memory.

Windwalker7

[
[/quote]




it really doesn’t matter if anyone knows how many there are. ?

R.S. Bodenhorn
[/quote]



Hmmmmmmm?????