HuntingNet.com Forums
Page 6 of 6
« First
4
5
6
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

HuntingNet.com Forums (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/)
-   Northeast (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/northeast-26/)
-   -   Pennsylvania hunters about to be "HOSED" (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/northeast/284937-pennsylvania-hunters-about-hosed.html)

BTBowhunter 02-06-2009 03:57 PM
RE: Pennsylvania hunters about to be "HOSED"
 
Well she is 20 years younger. Maybe he'll try to impress the youngster by letting her shoot a deer and he'll tag it for her

livbucks 02-06-2009 04:00 PM
RE: Pennsylvania hunters about to be "HOSED"
 
40 year old women only care about the bulge in the back pocket. Or so I'm told.

BTBowhunter 02-06-2009 04:04 PM
RE: Pennsylvania hunters about to be "HOSED"
 
CC: Ready to go dear?

-20 something lady: is that a deer tag in your pocket? The bulge looks kindasmall. Got any DMAPS to help whe the time comes?

livbucks 02-06-2009 04:09 PM
RE: Pennsylvania hunters about to be "HOSED"
 
Is she any good at working with leaky hydraulics?

bluebird2 02-06-2009 04:16 PM
RE: Pennsylvania hunters about to be "HOSED"
 
You poor clowns are about 10 ft. lower than whale poop.

BTBowhunter 02-06-2009 04:25 PM
RE: Pennsylvania hunters about to be "HOSED"
 
ORIGINAL: bluebird2

You poor clowns are about 10 ft. lower than whale poop.
Well, we havent sunk all the way down toaccusing someone of plagarism ( acrime by the way) without any basis in fact whatsoever.

R.S.B. 02-06-2009 04:39 PM
RE: Pennsylvania hunters about to be "HOSED"
 
ORIGINAL: bluebird2

There was absolutely nothing at all deceptive about the data I presented. The harvest data for the various states all came from this web site.
The data on the link was presented as the actual harvest from 2002 to 2006. You converted the data to deer harvested PSM using the five year average which was intentionally misleading and deceiving.

There was nothing misleading about the data. It was all done exactly the same way for each state so that isn’t in any manner misleading even though you don’t like the result of using any averages. You seem to prefer cherry picking individual years where all you are measuring is some form of bias and then comparing that to your other biased cherry pickings. Five year averages actually remove much of the bias of both high and low years and provide a more realistic picture of what typically happens. But I most certainly can and will provide the ranking of the top deer harvests states in the nation by individual year if that is what you want.

As I already pointed out Pennsylvania has always been one of the leading deer harvest states in the nation and remains so yet today. That is why Pennsylvania still also leads the nation in the number of hunters and license sales. Before I post the deer harvest rankings by year I am going to post the number of hunters for the leading states in hunters per square mile of land mass.

Hunters or licenses sold per square mile of land mass:

Ranking…………….State…………………. # of license/sq. mile
1.……………………Penna………………⠀¦â€¦20.8
2.……………………Maryland……………⠀¦..13.6
3.……………………Michigan……………⠀¦..12.7
4.……………………Wisconsin…………… ….11.9
5.……………………Ohio………………†¦â€¦..11.4
6.……………………New York……………….10.4
7.……………………New Jersey……………….9.7
8.……………………Delaware……………⠀¦â€¦9.7
9.……………………Virginia……………⠀¦â€¦..8.9
10.………………….W. Virginia……………….8.1

Now for the deer harvest rankings by year.

2002

Rank………State………………….Deer harvest/sq. mile
1.………….Penna……………………..11.5
2.………….W.Virginia………………..10.6
3.………….Maryland………………….9.4
4.………….N. Jersey…………………..8.5
5.………….Michigan………………….8.3
6.………….Wisconsin…………………6.8
7.………….New York…………………6.5
8.………….Virginia……………………5.4
9.………….Delaware…………………..5.3
10.…………Ohio……………………….5.0

2003

1.………….Penna……………………..10.4
2.………….New Jersey………………..9.4
3.………….Wisconsin…………………8.9
4.………….Maryland………………….8.7
5.………….Michigan………………….8.7
6.………….W. Virginia……………….8.6
7.………….Delaware………………….6.0
8.………….Virginia……………………6.0
9.………….New York…………………5.4
10.…………Ohio………………………4.8

2004

1.………….Wisconsin…………………9.5
2.………….Maryland………………….9.4
3.………….Penna……………………..9.1
4.………….New Jersey……………….7.9
5.………….Michigan………………….7.9
6.………….Delaware………………….7.5
7.………….W.Virginia………………..7.4
8.………….Virginia……………………5.6
9.………….Ohio……………………….5.3
10.…………New York…………………4.4

2005

1.………….Maryland………………….9.5
2.………….Wisconsin…………………8.6
3.………….New Jersey………………..8.0
4.………….Penna……………………..7.9
5.………….Michigan………………….7.3
6.………….Delaware………………….7.0
7.………….W.Virginia………………..5.6
8.………….Virginia……………………5.4
9.………….Ohio………………………5.1
10.…………Missouri………………….4.2

2006

1.………….Wisconsin…………………9.3
2.………….Maryland………………….9.2
3.………….Penna……………………..8.1
4.………….Michigan………………….7.9
5.………….New Jersey………………..7.6
6.………….Delaware………………….7.3
7.………….Ohio………………………5.8
8.………….W.Virginia………………..5.7
9.………….Virginia…………………..5.6
10.…………Missouri………………….4.7

If I could find the 2007 harvest data for the other states I would gladly include that year too but so far I haven’t been able to find the 2007 data for those other states. I do know that the Pennsylvania deer harvest in 2007 was 7.2 deer per square mile. As you can see that is still higher then the average harvest for most states that make up the top ten deer harvest states in the nation. For the data available Pennsylvania has never been lower then number four in the nation. That still places it as one of the best. If not the best deer hunting state in the nation, at least for those that actually hunt instead of just snot around about not having enough deer.

Now think where the Pennsylvania deer harvests would be ranking in that nationwide high harvest category if we were still allowing hunters to shot those young bucks that are now protected with antler restrictions. As far as I know none of those states that ranked higher then Pennsylvania the past few years have antler restrictions. If they had antler restrictions comparable to those in Pennsylvania I bet Pennsylvania would still be the number one harvest state in the nation. Some of you might not think that is of any significance but I think it is very significant.

A few of you have brought up the higher number of hunters in Pennsylvania and that is certainly true. That higher population of people, including hunters, is also part of the reason we simply can’t support more deer. Every time someone clears the forest away to build a new house, a shopping mall or highway we crowd all of the remaining wildlife onto a smaller area. Every time that happens you nearly have to keep fewer deer from that point on. That is simply how the limits of space affect all wildlife populations.

So what is the answer for those of you that want to play the more or too many hunters in Pennsylvania song? Should we tell people they can only get buck license every other year, or perhaps hold a lottery for the license? I don’t think so, I think we all just learn to adapt and accept the fact that not every hunter is supposed to get a deer every year. They never were.

Here are a few other statistics for you concerning buck harvest history and the buck hunter success rates.

Years……………………….percent of hunters harvesting an antlered deer
1985-1987.…………………………….......15 %
1995-1997.…………………………….......18 %
2005-2007.…………………………….......16 %

The fact is even the buck hunter success rates haven’t made the serious decline some people want you to think they have.

The other fact, based on the hunter harvests across this nation, is that Pennsylvania is and always has been one of the best deer hunting and harvest states in this nation. If people are convinced that the hunting is better somewhere else then by all means hunt in the state you desire. No one twists any one’s arm to hunt where they don’t want to hunt, it is each hunters choice where they are going to hunt. I choose to hunt here in Pennsylvania because I know darn well it is great deer hunting for anyone that really likes to hunt.

R.S. Bodenhorn

bluebird2 02-06-2009 04:40 PM
RE: Pennsylvania hunters about to be "HOSED"
 

ORIGINAL: BTBowhunter

ORIGINAL: bluebird2

You poor clowns are about 10 ft. lower than whale poop.
Well, we havent sunk all the way down toaccusing someone of plagarism ( acrime by the way) without any basis in fact whatsoever.
You are correct. you are even lower than that since you have repeatedly accused me of lying without providing one iota of proof that i lied about anything. on the other hand I proved Alt lied, RSB lied and the PGC lied. put up or shut up.

R.S.B. 02-06-2009 04:55 PM
RE: Pennsylvania hunters about to be "HOSED"
 
ORIGINAL: bluebird2

ORIGINAL: BTBowhunter

ORIGINAL: bluebird2

You poor clowns are about 10 ft. lower than whale poop.
Well, we havent sunk all the way down toaccusing someone of plagarism ( acrime by the way) without any basis in fact whatsoever.
You are correct. you are even lower than that since you have repeatedly accused me of lying without providing one iota of proof that i lied about anything. on the other hand I proved Alt lied, RSB lied and the PGC lied. put up or shut up.

You have done nothing more then prove that you either don’t know the difference between a lie, facts with supporting data, or that you are really the liar just for saying the others lied. Predictions that don’t come true are not lies either, they are simply cases of changing events that altered the expected and normal outcome even if you are logical or honest enough to understand or acknowledge the differences.

Actually the truth being told you are the one that comes the closest to lies with your misrepresentations of reports, data and even comments made by others.

R.S. Bodenhorn

explorer_Jack 02-06-2009 05:26 PM
RE: Pennsylvania hunters about to be "HOSED"
 
ORIGINAL: R.S.B.

ORIGINAL: bluebird2

There was absolutely nothing at all deceptive about the data I presented. The harvest data for the various states all came from this web site.
The data on the link was presented as the actual harvest from 2002 to 2006. You converted the data to deer harvested PSM using the five year average which was intentionally misleading and deceiving.

There was nothing misleading about the data. It was all done exactly the same way for each state so that isn’t in any manner misleading even though you don’t like the result of using any averages. You seem to prefer cherry picking individual years where all you are measuring is some form of bias and then comparing that to your other biased cherry pickings. Five year averages actually remove much of the bias of both high and low years and provide a more realistic picture of what typically happens. But I most certainly can and will provide the ranking of the top deer harvests states in the nation by individual year if that is what you want.

As I already pointed out Pennsylvania has always been one of the leading deer harvest states in the nation and remains so yet today. That is why Pennsylvania still also leads the nation in the number of hunters and license sales. Before I post the deer harvest rankings by year I am going to post the number of hunters for the leading states in hunters per square mile of land mass.

Hunters or licenses sold per square mile of land mass:

Ranking…………….State…………………. # of license/sq. mile
1.……………………Penna………………⠀¦â€¦20.8
2.……………………Maryland……………⠀¦..13.6
3.……………………Michigan……………⠀¦..12.7
4.……………………Wisconsin…………… ….11.9
5.……………………Ohio………………†¦â€¦..11.4
6.……………………New York……………….10.4
7.……………………New Jersey……………….9.7
8.……………………Delaware……………⠀¦â€¦9.7
9.……………………Virginia……………⠀¦â€¦..8.9
10.………………….W. Virginia……………….8.1

Now for the deer harvest rankings by year.

2002

Rank………State………………….Deer harvest/sq. mile
1.………….Penna……………………..11.5
2.………….W.Virginia………………..10.6
3.………….Maryland………………….9.4
4.………….N. Jersey…………………..8.5
5.………….Michigan………………….8.3
6.………….Wisconsin…………………6.8
7.………….New York…………………6.5
8.………….Virginia……………………5.4
9.………….Delaware…………………..5.3
10.…………Ohio……………………….5.0

2003

1.………….Penna……………………..10.4
2.………….New Jersey………………..9.4
3.………….Wisconsin…………………8.9
4.………….Maryland………………….8.7
5.………….Michigan………………….8.7
6.………….W. Virginia……………….8.6
7.………….Delaware………………….6.0
8.………….Virginia……………………6.0
9.………….New York…………………5.4
10.…………Ohio………………………4.8

2004

1.………….Wisconsin…………………9.5
2.………….Maryland………………….9.4
3.………….Penna……………………..9.1
4.………….New Jersey……………….7.9
5.………….Michigan………………….7.9
6.………….Delaware………………….7.5
7.………….W.Virginia………………..7.4
8.………….Virginia……………………5.6
9.………….Ohio……………………….5.3
10.…………New York…………………4.4

2005

1.………….Maryland………………….9.5
2.………….Wisconsin…………………8.6
3.………….New Jersey………………..8.0
4.………….Penna……………………..7.9
5.………….Michigan………………….7.3
6.………….Delaware………………….7.0
7.………….W.Virginia………………..5.6
8.………….Virginia……………………5.4
9.………….Ohio………………………5.1
10.…………Missouri………………….4.2

2006

1.………….Wisconsin…………………9.3
2.………….Maryland………………….9.2
3.………….Penna……………………..8.1
4.………….Michigan………………….7.9
5.………….New Jersey………………..7.6
6.………….Delaware………………….7.3
7.………….Ohio………………………5.8
8.………….W.Virginia………………..5.7
9.………….Virginia…………………..5.6
10.…………Missouri………………….4.7

If I could find the 2007 harvest data for the other states I would gladly include that year too but so far I haven’t been able to find the 2007 data for those other states. I do know that the Pennsylvania deer harvest in 2007 was 7.2 deer per square mile. As you can see that is still higher then the average harvest for most states that make up the top ten deer harvest states in the nation. For the data available Pennsylvania has never been lower then number four in the nation. That still places it as one of the best. If not the best deer hunting state in the nation, at least for those that actually hunt instead of just snot around about not having enough deer.

Now think where the Pennsylvania deer harvests would be ranking in that nationwide high harvest category if we were still allowing hunters to shot those young bucks that are now protected with antler restrictions. As far as I know none of those states that ranked higher then Pennsylvania the past few years have antler restrictions. If they had antler restrictions comparable to those in Pennsylvania I bet Pennsylvania would still be the number one harvest state in the nation. Some of you might not think that is of any significance but I think it is very significant.

A few of you have brought up the higher number of hunters in Pennsylvania and that is certainly true. That higher population of people, including hunters, is also part of the reason we simply can’t support more deer. Every time someone clears the forest away to build a new house, a shopping mall or highway we crowd all of the remaining wildlife onto a smaller area. Every time that happens you nearly have to keep fewer deer from that point on. That is simply how the limits of space affect all wildlife populations.

So what is the answer for those of you that want to play the more or too many hunters in Pennsylvania song? Should we tell people they can only get buck license every other year, or perhaps hold a lottery for the license? I don’t think so, I think we all just learn to adapt and accept the fact that not every hunter is supposed to get a deer every year. They never were.

Here are a few other statistics for you concerning buck harvest history and the buck hunter success rates.

Years……………………….percent of hunters harvesting an antlered deer
1985-1987.…………………………….......15 %
1995-1997.…………………………….......18 %
2005-2007.…………………………….......16 %

The fact is even the buck hunter success rates haven’t made the serious decline some people want you to think they have.

The other fact, based on the hunter harvests across this nation, is that Pennsylvania is and always has been one of the best deer hunting and harvest states in this nation. If people are convinced that the hunting is better somewhere else then by all means hunt in the state you desire. No one twists any one’s arm to hunt where they don’t want to hunt, it is each hunters choice where they are going to hunt. I choose to hunt here in Pennsylvania because I know darn well it is great deer hunting for anyone that really likes to hunt.

R.S. Bodenhorn
If you look at the success rate for tags sold. You will see that PA is last place. All other states except PA and NY,NY is closer to 50%.All the other states you mentioned has a50% or better harvest rate per license sold. Michigan is way ahead of PA. Their deer number harvests have been increasing each year. So how can PA be a better place to hunt when after 1.75 million, The largest deer tags given out than any other state. Bags under 380k in deer? Again only an idiot will say that PA is the best deer hunting in the US. Look at the facts . Michigan hunters are taking 500k in deer a year and with less hunters than PA. 20 hunters PSM compared to how many deer PSM? Now again tell us that PA is the best state for hunting. Hunters X tags X deer PSM. You are so full of crap.

Under 380k in deer harvested from over 1.75 million deer tags? Can't wait to see this years harvest numbers. Yep PA is number one. The worst state to hunt for deer. Why,
Only an idiot couldn't figure it out. I will help you.

1,800,000 tags - 380,000 deer= 1.42 million tags went unused in the state of PA. What is that,Like 27% chance of filling your tag? Ny has better with 44%+ chance and all the other states you are looking at have a very strong 50%+ of doing so.

Cornelius08 02-06-2009 05:27 PM
RE: Pennsylvania hunters about to be "HOSED"
 
"As you can see that is still higher then the average harvest for most states that make up the top ten deer harvest states in the nation."

More selective calculating.Instead of seeing where Pa falls in that list, you point to "averages". Fact is, More than half of those states have HIGHER harvests psm if you were to compare Pas 2007 harvest to that 2006 list. ;)

"For the data available Pennsylvania has never been lower then number four in the nation. "

Until now. SInce its undoubtedly continued to fall, since most of those states, for the most part show stable trends. Unless significant changes took place from 06 to 07 with several of them, Pa has fallen a few spots.

"That still places it as one of the best. If not the best deer hunting state in the nation, at least for those that actually hunt instead of just snot around about not having enough deer. "

Based on what?? Youve just shown we are NOTTHE BEST in terms of harvest, also we are FAR from highest herd size, since several states have herd estimates comparable to ours BEFORE hr, and our state is far from the best qualitywise.

To summarize: Pa is a joke.

"Here are a few other statistics for you concerning buck harvest history and the buck hunter success rates.

Years……………………….percent of hunters harvesting an antlered deer
1985-1987.…………………………….......15 %
1995-1997.…………………………….......18 %
2005-2007.…………………………….......16 % "

In 2007 I believe it was 12%. Thats not shown with the strategic grouping that doesnt show trends. The very highest years are also, strategically ommitted. Try 2000. Try 2001.;) That grouping and selective comparison conveniently shows what you want it to show.

"The fact is even the buck hunter success rates haven’t made the serious decline some people want you to think they have. '

actually they have. From over 20% to less than 12.

"The other fact, based on the hunter harvests across this nation, is that Pennsylvania is and always has been one of the best deer hunting and harvest states in this nation."

Thats about the 10th time you mentioned that and each was more rediculous than the last.

"If people are convinced that the hunting is better somewhere else then by all means hunt in the state you desire."

What? I cannot hunt Pa unless Im a total arsehat that thinks its A-no.1? (LOL)(LOL)

Overruling your nonsense and highly biased loyalty based rediculous damage control efforts are the below FACTS:

Number one deer states dont have all time high nation leading hunter dissatisfaction, deer wars, management agency getting sued, legislators stepping in and hunter numbers dropping over double the national average from 2001 to 2006. Those things speak for themselves.

Cornelius08 02-06-2009 05:33 PM
RE: Pennsylvania hunters about to be "HOSED"
 
Ive often visited message boards from Ohio, and several midwestern states. They love their states deer hunting and if Pa is mentioned in a comparative manner they WILL laugh you off the board! And that is a fact!

Either that or ignore you thinking you have absolutely gone nuts and hoping you go away! (LOL)(LOL)

R.S.B. 02-06-2009 06:02 PM
RE: Pennsylvania hunters about to be "HOSED"
 

First off Michigan has about 27% more land mass then Pennsylvania and fewer people chewing up their forests so they should have more deer then we have in Pennsylvania. They also have about 39% few hunters so just their hunter success rate certainly should be higher.
New York also has more land mass and fewer hunters than we have in Pennsylvania.

What you propose we do here buy another state to make more land mass or perhaps run half of the people and hunters out of the state to make more room for the few chosen hunters?

Come on man use your head for more then just a hat rack. We have to be more realistic and deal with what is instead of just what we wish.

R.S. Bodenhorn

bowtruck 02-06-2009 06:02 PM
RE: Pennsylvania hunters about to be "HOSED"
 
if pa is such a joke why bother with it got ohio or one of those mid west states then ur poblem is solved

R.S.B. 02-06-2009 06:10 PM
RE: Pennsylvania hunters about to be "HOSED"
 
ORIGINAL: Cornelius08

Ive often visited message boards from Ohio, and several midwestern states. They love their states deer hunting and if Pa is mentioned in a comparative manner they WILL laugh you off the board! And that is a fact!

Either that or ignore you thinking you have absolutely gone nuts and hoping you go away! (LOL)(LOL)

Well there must still be a lot of Ohio hunters that think Pennsylvania is a pretty good state to hunt, based on the number of Ohio hunters I see hunting here in my district every year. In fact the ones I talk to tell me how much better it is here since there are so few places that hunters can get access to hunt in most parts of Ohio.

Some areas of Ohio have a lot of deer and other areas have very few, just like occurs in most other states.

If it is so good in those other states by all means go there to hunt. The Pennsylvania hunter will not mine a bit having more area without your presence based on your own argument of too many hunters compared to other states. Why don’t you just go ahead and do your part by helping to even it all out since you are obviously so unhappy hunting here?

R.S. Bodenhorn

Cornelius08 02-06-2009 06:10 PM
RE: Pennsylvania hunters about to be "HOSED"
 
"if pa is such a joke why bother with it got ohio or one of those mid west states then ur poblem is solved"

Because I can.

"First off Michigan has about 27% more land mass then Pennsylvania and fewer people chewing up their forests so they should have more deer then we have in Pennsylvania."

I can point to a helluva lot more states than Michigan as far as deer numbers. Of course Im sure you'd have a different excusefor every single one of them.

"What you propose we do here buy another state to make more land mass or perhaps run half of the people and hunters out of the state to make more room for the few chosen hunters? "

We seemed to have room for over a million and a half. So anything less than that should fit.;)

"Come on man use your head for more then just a hat rack. We have to be more realistic and deal with what is instead of just what we wish. "

Im not being unrealistic, and I havent said ANYTHING that I wish. YOU made the asnine rediculous claim Pa was one of the very best deer states, and I simply pointed out that it isnt even close. No matter HOW you judge it. Changes need made. THAT Is reality. Im not pointing to 1.5 million deer, in fact I havent offered any number. Things need to be done responsibly and in the interest of hunters to an extent. And they arent. SMALLER WMUS are needed and allocation cuts need made in many areas.

While Id like to see more deer, as they should be, where they can be had across the state, done so with RESPONSIBLE sized wmus....I am more interestedpersonally speaking, in better quality. We were promised more, and it wasnt delivered. In fact, many areas DECLINED!



germain 02-06-2009 06:11 PM
RE: Pennsylvania hunters about to be "HOSED"
 
ORIGINAL: DougE

All of the areas where I hunt around here have very easy access,yet very few places recieve much pressure.SGL 93 is an exception.It gets hunted hard but it's easy to get away from the crowds and find plenty of deer.I've been all over MSF(around PD and SB Elliot)with a district forester and I've yet to see a large area with good habitat.Some is starting to recover but no large areas could be considered even close to good.

I hunted parts of Moshannon state forest this year.I saw multiple deer in each place.Each place had extremely easyaccess and I saw a total of 4 guys the entire season,including the first day.

Parker dam is a wasteland of pole timber,with very little value to wildlife and a very low carrying capacity.You're correct that there's few deer and that's the way it should be.


So then you agree 90% of the mosh state forest sucks for deer hunting.That's a big chunk of land.

Maverick 1 02-06-2009 06:13 PM
RE: Pennsylvania hunters about to be "HOSED"
 
Michigan has fewer people chewing up their forest??? I would really love to know what you mean by that one D i c k. Care to explain yourself?

explorer_Jack 02-06-2009 06:14 PM
RE: Pennsylvania hunters about to be "HOSED"
 
ORIGINAL: R.S.B.

First off Michigan has about 27% more land mass then Pennsylvania and fewer people chewing up their forests so they should have more deer then we have in Pennsylvania. They also have about 39% few hunters so just their hunter success rate certainly should be higher.
New York also has more land mass and fewer hunters than we have in Pennsylvania.

What you propose we do here buy another state to make more land mass or perhaps run half of the people and hunters out of the state to make more room for the few chosen hunters?

Come on man use your head for more then just a hat rack. We have to be more realistic and deal with what is instead of just what we wish.

R.S. Bodenhorn
How can you say that PA is the best state from % of tags sold for deer harvest as in being the best state to hunt deer in? I thought the best hunting state would be one that gave me the best chances of bagging a deer. And by % wise,PA is the worst state to hunt if you want to bag a deer.

And thank you for saying that PA was worse than NY because of less hunters and more land area in NY.

bowtruck 02-06-2009 07:04 PM
RE: Pennsylvania hunters about to be "HOSED"
 
there is some ny hunters not seeing as many deer either of course they can get 5 tags over the counter

explorer_Jack 02-06-2009 07:07 PM
RE: Pennsylvania hunters about to be "HOSED"
 
ORIGINAL: bowtruck

there is some ny hunters not seeing as many deer either of course they can get 5 tags over the counter
It doesn't change the fact that deer harvest numbers by tags is way better than PA. You still have a better chance of getting a deer in NY than you do PA.

Maverick 1 02-06-2009 07:14 PM
RE: Pennsylvania hunters about to be "HOSED"
 
ORIGINAL: Maverick 1

Michigan has fewer people chewing up their forest??? I would really love to know what you mean by that one D i c k. Care to explain yourself?
No reply. What a bozo.

BTBowhunter 02-06-2009 07:48 PM
RE: Pennsylvania hunters about to be "HOSED"
 
ORIGINAL: Maverick 1

ORIGINAL: Maverick 1

Michigan has fewer people chewing up their forest??? I would really love to know what you mean by that one D i c k. Care to explain yourself?
No reply. What a bozo.
Only a bozo would need further explanation

yano 02-06-2009 09:50 PM
RE: Pennsylvania hunters about to be "HOSED"
 
ORIGINAL: R.S.B.

2006

1.………….Wisconsin…………………9.3
2.………….Maryland………………….9.2
3.………….Penna……………………..8.1
4.………….Michigan………………….7.9
5.………….New Jersey………………..7.6
6.………….Delaware………………….7.3
7.………….Ohio………………………5.8
8.………….W.Virginia………………..5.7
9.………….Virginia…………………..5.6
10.…………Missouri………………….4.7

If I could find the 2007 harvest data for the other states I would gladly include that year too but so far I haven’t been able to find the 2007 data for those other states. I do know that the Pennsylvania deer harvest in 2007 was 7.2 deer per square mile. R.S. Bodenhorn

Virginia's 2007 harvest was 241,576 Deer or 6.09 DH/PSM and that's an actual reported harvest.
Wow, just think, using the infamous"PA Calculated method", those numbers would roughly be 483,152 and 12.18 DH/PSM.


Strange how some states remain nearly stable or slowly keep moving up year after year, while others are moving down at a much faster pace. I guess PA hasn't really stabilized their Deer Population yet after all (as so often claimed), hey?


.

Maverick 1 02-07-2009 04:28 AM
RE: Pennsylvania hunters about to be "HOSED"
 
ORIGINAL: BTBowhunter

ORIGINAL: Maverick 1

ORIGINAL: Maverick 1

Michigan has fewer people chewing up their forest??? I would really love to know what you mean by that one D i c k. Care to explain yourself?
No reply. What a bozo.
Only a bozo would need further explanation
Oh really? Perhaps you can explain what he means by that statement? I am sure it was another very flattering remark towards hunters.

BTBowhunter 02-07-2009 04:40 AM
RE: Pennsylvania hunters about to be "HOSED"
 
ORIGINAL: Maverick 1

ORIGINAL: BTBowhunter

ORIGINAL: Maverick 1

ORIGINAL: Maverick 1

Michigan has fewer people chewing up their forest??? I would really love to know what you mean by that one D i c k. Care to explain yourself?
No reply. What a bozo.
Only a bozo would need further explanation
Oh really? Perhaps you can explain what he means by that statement? I am sure it was another very flattering remark towards hunters.
I took it as a way of saying that we have more hunting pressure.Chewing up the forestwas aphrase I could picture any hunter saying after seeing heavy hunting pressure. What would you say if you pulled up topark at your favorite spot and found dozens of boot tracks? Stomped out? Beat to sh__? Chewed up? Pounded out? Sproul calls em crews. I call it the Punkin army.Otherscall it the weekend warrior invasion.

IMHO, He was simply referrring to the fact that Michigan has less hunting pressure.

Maverick 1 02-07-2009 04:46 AM
RE: Pennsylvania hunters about to be "HOSED"
 
ORIGINAL: BTBowhunter

ORIGINAL: Maverick 1

ORIGINAL: BTBowhunter

ORIGINAL: Maverick 1

ORIGINAL: Maverick 1

Michigan has fewer people chewing up their forest??? I would really love to know what you mean by that one D i c k. Care to explain yourself?
No reply. What a bozo.
Only a bozo would need further explanation
Oh really? Perhaps you can explain what he means by that statement? I am sure it was another very flattering remark towards hunters.
I took it as a way of saying that we have more hunting pressure.Chewing up the forestwas aphrase I could picture any hunter saying after seeing heavy hunting pressure. What would you say if you pulled up topark at your favorite spot and found dozens of boot tracks? Stomped out? Beat to sh__? Chewed up? Pounded out? Sproul calls em crews. I call it the Punkin army.Otherscall it the weekend warrior invasion.

IMHO, He was simply referrring to the fact that Michigan has less hunting pressure.
Alright. That seems fair. Perhaps, I am looking too hard for D i c k to slip up again.

BTBowhunter 02-07-2009 04:56 AM
RE: Pennsylvania hunters about to be "HOSED"
 
ORIGINAL: Maverick 1

ORIGINAL: BTBowhunter

ORIGINAL: Maverick 1

ORIGINAL: BTBowhunter

ORIGINAL: Maverick 1

ORIGINAL: Maverick 1

Michigan has fewer people chewing up their forest??? I would really love to know what you mean by that one D i c k. Care to explain yourself?
No reply. What a bozo.
Only a bozo would need further explanation
Oh really? Perhaps you can explain what he means by that statement? I am sure it was another very flattering remark towards hunters.
I took it as a way of saying that we have more hunting pressure.Chewing up the forestwas aphrase I could picture any hunter saying after seeing heavy hunting pressure. What would you say if you pulled up topark at your favorite spot and found dozens of boot tracks? Stomped out? Beat to sh__? Chewed up? Pounded out? Sproul calls em crews. I call it the Punkin army.Otherscall it the weekend warrior invasion.

IMHO, He was simply referrring to the fact that Michigan has less hunting pressure.
Alright. That seems fair. Perhaps, I am looking too hard for D i c k to slip up again.

I dont think RSB is out to disparage hunters. He madea very ill advised statement alillte whie back which, BTW, he expressed regret for and corrected. If you look at his posts overall, he isusually quiterespectful of hunters in general even tghough I'm sure he sees more of the worst than most of us do.When he is critical on here, it is usually in direct response to something posted that was far worse. I'm certainly not offering any 100% unconditional backing. I was very vocal when I thought he was wrong.Just imagine though,posting on here from where he sits? I think he must genuinely like and respect most hunters just tobe willingto post on this forum:D

bluebird2 02-07-2009 08:19 AM
RE: Pennsylvania hunters about to be "HOSED"
 
I dont think RSB is out to disparage hunters.
He does it over and over again when he claims hunters prevented the PGC from controlling the herd. He ignores the fact that the PGC states the herd in 2G was at it's goal in 1999 and that for the last 20 years the antlerless harvests have exceeded the antlered harvest every year but one and that was in 1999 and it was due to 3 days of rain during doe season. Furthermore ,in 1999 the PGC issued a record 890,700 doe tags.

BTBowhunter 02-07-2009 08:49 AM
RE: Pennsylvania hunters about to be "HOSED"
 
ORIGINAL: bluebird2

I dont think RSB is out to disparage hunters.
He does it over and over again when he claims hunters prevented the PGC from controlling the herd. He ignores the fact that the PGC states the herd in 2G was at it's goal in 1999 and that for the last 20 years the antlerless harvests have exceeded the antlered harvest every year but one and that was in 1999 and it was due to 3 days of rain during doe season. Furthermore ,in 1999 the PGC issued a record 890,700 doe tags.
I guess I should have said that RSB is not out to disparage reasonable, truthful, intelligent hunters who care. You are a notable exception to that. Your continuos distortions of the facts for your personal agenda has exhausted thepatience of virtually everyone here who would rather have a reasonable truthful debate.Posts directed at your distortions does not mean RSB or anyone else is disparaging hunters. Besides, based on yourapparent abilities in the field, it's a real stretch to call you a hunter anyway.

bluebird2 02-07-2009 08:57 AM
RE: Pennsylvania hunters about to be "HOSED"
 
I guess I should have said that RSB is not out to disparage reasonable, truthful, intelligent hunters who care
Why would he disparage the few poor, ignorant hunters who support the PGC's ridiculous HR plan?

Cornelius08 02-07-2009 10:33 AM
RE: Pennsylvania hunters about to be "HOSED"
 
"Just imagine though,posting on here from where he sits? "

I honestly dont know how he does it without being able to see. Cant see with your head up your...

Hes an extremist and more a friend of the loony ecofruits than hes ever been or ever will be to the hunter.

R.S.B. 02-07-2009 05:18 PM
RE: Pennsylvania hunters about to be "HOSED"
 
ORIGINAL: Maverick 1

Michigan has fewer people chewing up their forest??? I would really love to know what you mean by that one D i c k. Care to explain yourself?

Michigan is significantly larger in land mass then Pennsylvania, 56,803.82 square miles to 44,816.61 in Penna, yet Michigan has few people requiring infrastructure such as homes, roads, shopping centers, etc. Pennsylvania has about 268 people per square mile compared to Michigan having only about 175 people per square mile.

Every person living in any state or area requires a certain amount of infrastructure to meet their needs. More people, with more infrastructure equates to less habitat that is available for wildlife. With less habitat and more infrastructure there will generally be less wildlife available per individual living in the more populated states.

That is probably the reason Michigan has a better hunter success rate. They have fewer people and fewer hunter yet more habitat to support deer.

R.S. Bodenhorn

Cornelius08 02-07-2009 05:20 PM
RE: Pennsylvania hunters about to be "HOSED"
 
OF course it has NOTHING to do with the fact their wildlife management isnt dictated by treehuggers and a rediculous deer slaughter campaign.[8D]

R.S.B. 02-07-2009 05:54 PM
RE: Pennsylvania hunters about to be "HOSED"
 
ORIGINAL: Cornelius08

OF course it has NOTHING to do with the fact their wildlife management isnt dictated by treehuggers and a rediculous deer slaughter campaign.[8D]

More opinion with no supporting facts!

R.S. Bodenhorn

bluebird2 02-07-2009 06:54 PM
RE: Pennsylvania hunters about to be "HOSED"
 
Every person living in any state or area requires a certain amount of infrastructure to meet their needs. More people, with more infrastructure equates to less habitat that is available for wildlife. With less habitat and more infrastructure there will generally be less wildlife available per individual living in the more populated states.
You constantly refer to the high harvest rates in 2b and 5C, yet now you claim that infra structure reduces the carrying capacity when the exact opposite is true You claim the habitat in 2G is controlling the herd with only 12 PS DPSM , but in developed areas like 2B it takes a harvest of 12 DPSM just to keep the herd stable.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:51 PM.
Page 6 of 6
« First
4
5
6
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page


Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.