At this period of time, do you favor a hunting license increase?
04-12-2009, 05:25 AM
#101
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: At this period of time, do you favor a hunting license increase?
RSB, the deer herd is declining here in 2A, and it has nothing to do with it "crashing on its own". And everything to do with 55,000 tags.
You dont keep 55,000 tags when the herd is declining by a few to several percent each year with that allocationif the goal is stabilization (which it is and has supposdly been for years despite continued decline)! Then in the future after severalMOREyears of recruitment being overcome by harvest, and the herd hits bottom, we can blame the hunters and the habitat from back over a decade ago! Even though regeneration was improving SINCE THEN.
Perhaps then after a couple more years of 100% unwarranted reduction, we will also lower the allocation down,whichall it will do is havethe exact same effect as the 55k is having now, STILL overcoming recruitment from the much smaller herd and pgc can point to us and act stupid as if they wonder why the herd isnt increasing when the tags have been reduced! (LOL)
Answer?? The same one we've gotten for adecade now to cure everything. KILL MORE DEER! IF you dont, you dont support science and the planet will implode![:'(]
You dont keep 55,000 tags when the herd is declining by a few to several percent each year with that allocationif the goal is stabilization (which it is and has supposdly been for years despite continued decline)! Then in the future after severalMOREyears of recruitment being overcome by harvest, and the herd hits bottom, we can blame the hunters and the habitat from back over a decade ago! Even though regeneration was improving SINCE THEN.
Perhaps then after a couple more years of 100% unwarranted reduction, we will also lower the allocation down,whichall it will do is havethe exact same effect as the 55k is having now, STILL overcoming recruitment from the much smaller herd and pgc can point to us and act stupid as if they wonder why the herd isnt increasing when the tags have been reduced! (LOL)
Answer?? The same one we've gotten for adecade now to cure everything. KILL MORE DEER! IF you dont, you dont support science and the planet will implode![:'(]
04-12-2009, 06:02 AM
#102
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
RE: At this period of time, do you favor a hunting license increase?
ORIGINAL: J Pike
RSB. on very negative note 924,000 PA. deer hunters only harvested 335,850 deer during the 2008-09 season.
Meanwhile over in OH. 450,000 deer hunters harvested 252,017 deer during the 2008-09 season.
But I have a really good idea for the PGC., since the PGC. supporters on this site claim that the large majority of the hunters in PA. support the PGC. and the lic. fee increase why doesnt the PGC. just ask the hunters who do not bow hunt to purchase a bow stamp this year? The hunters who do not bear hunt to purchase a bear permit? And the hunters who do not turkey hunt to purchase a turkey tag and so on? No need for the legislature to get involved and no need for a Lic. fee increase. Pike
RSB. on very negative note 924,000 PA. deer hunters only harvested 335,850 deer during the 2008-09 season.
Meanwhile over in OH. 450,000 deer hunters harvested 252,017 deer during the 2008-09 season.
But I have a really good idea for the PGC., since the PGC. supporters on this site claim that the large majority of the hunters in PA. support the PGC. and the lic. fee increase why doesnt the PGC. just ask the hunters who do not bow hunt to purchase a bow stamp this year? The hunters who do not bear hunt to purchase a bear permit? And the hunters who do not turkey hunt to purchase a turkey tag and so on? No need for the legislature to get involved and no need for a Lic. fee increase. Pike
So you want to compare Pennsylvania to Ohio? That is fine, butlet's do it fairly instead of the biased way you like to compare them.
Number of hunters per square mile:
Ohio……………….10.99
Penna………………20.62
Deer harvests per square mile:
Ohio………………6.15
Penna……………..7.49
License cost for a resident to hunt small game plus one deer and one turkey:
Ohio……………….$67.00 before issuing fees/per license for three separate licenses
Penna………………$20.00 before a $1.00 issuing fee
Therefore, I would suspect that if Pennsylvania only had half as many hunters the hunter success rate here would most likely exceed the success rate in Ohio.
But, since we should be talking about license feeshow about we go ahead and do that.
In Ohio their Conservation Department is not self funded, like here in Pennsylvania. They got their money, to operate, directly from their state general fund tax dollars every year. Every resident in their state pays for wildlife management and conservation, unlike here in Pennsylvania where all of the wildlife management is paid for by hunter dollars. Ohio also still gets thier share of P-R funds from the Federal Government, based on license sales, the same as Pennsylvania and every other state, too.
Yet, an Ohio resident pays over three times as much to hunt deer and turkey as what a Pennsylvania resident pays.
So, I agree lets get our hunting license prices on par with Ohio and still have all of the state’s tax payers supporting wildlife management and conservation with their general taxes. I suspect if we do that we will only have half as many hunters as what we have now, andcompare with Ohio’s hunter numbers. I suspect those hunters will still be able to harvest more deer then they do in Ohio though so our hunter success rate would then also be much higher then it is in Ohio.
How about that I agree with Pike we need to be more like Ohio.
So, you should march right down to you Legislator’s office tomorrow morning and demand that the Pennsylvania hunting license prices triple.Also demand that even after they do that the Game Commission stillshould to be fundedfromthe state’s general taxes so everyone, instead of just hunters,pays thier share for wildlife management, just like things are done in Ohio.
Do you still want to compare and tell us how good they have it in Ohio?
R.S. Bodenhorn
04-12-2009, 06:08 AM
#103
Fork Horn
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 175
RE: At this period of time, do you favor a hunting license increase?
RSB,please tell me how many hours you have spent afield in 2A ? You may consider youself and expert in Elk county,but unless you spend the time in the woods in 2A,please refrain from giving us your expert "opinion" of what's going on there.I would be curious to know if the PGC has any idea of how devastating EHD was in our little corner of the state and how they might have come to such a conclusion especially since most of their research is done on road kills and harvested deer.I personally know of over 100 deer killed by EHD just on three properties I hunt which translates to thousands across the WMU yet at no point did the PGC stop antlerless sales.That being said,2008 showed no reduction in antlerless license sales to compensate for the loss.As far as your post of the harvest data starting back in 1983
Unit…………83-87.……………88-92.……………93-97.…………..98-02.…………..03-07
1A…………..5.86.………………8.72.…… ……….10.02.…………..12.02.………….. 10.60
2A…………..5.75.………………8.75.…… ……….11.10.…………..13.30.………….. 13.78
it doesn't take a rocket scientist to explain a few reasons why the numbers increased that dramatically and it has nothing to do with the size of the herd "doubling" during that span.Anyone who has hunted there since 1980 as I have knows there were far more deer then than there is now,it all boils down to the number of actual hunters there harvesting the deer.Back in the 80's , 2A was a virtual untapped deer bonanaza simply due to the fact that so many guysmade their yearlt trek to"the big woods"to take part in that experience and were so successfull that there was no reason to change.As the herd decreased and the economy dictated,more and more hunters were forced to spend less timeand money traveling and hunting and more time at home and at work so the next best thing was to find places closer to home.And lo and behold,Greene and Washington counties became the new "hot spot" to go.It was onlya short drive for many western PA guys and back then,you could actually get permission to hunt many properties by asking the landowner.Common sense tells you that the more hunters taking advantage of such a bountifull supply of deer,the higher the harvest number will get.
Unit…………83-87.……………88-92.……………93-97.…………..98-02.…………..03-07
1A…………..5.86.………………8.72.…… ……….10.02.…………..12.02.………….. 10.60
2A…………..5.75.………………8.75.…… ……….11.10.…………..13.30.………….. 13.78
it doesn't take a rocket scientist to explain a few reasons why the numbers increased that dramatically and it has nothing to do with the size of the herd "doubling" during that span.Anyone who has hunted there since 1980 as I have knows there were far more deer then than there is now,it all boils down to the number of actual hunters there harvesting the deer.Back in the 80's , 2A was a virtual untapped deer bonanaza simply due to the fact that so many guysmade their yearlt trek to"the big woods"to take part in that experience and were so successfull that there was no reason to change.As the herd decreased and the economy dictated,more and more hunters were forced to spend less timeand money traveling and hunting and more time at home and at work so the next best thing was to find places closer to home.And lo and behold,Greene and Washington counties became the new "hot spot" to go.It was onlya short drive for many western PA guys and back then,you could actually get permission to hunt many properties by asking the landowner.Common sense tells you that the more hunters taking advantage of such a bountifull supply of deer,the higher the harvest number will get.
04-12-2009, 06:21 AM
#104
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
RE: At this period of time, do you favor a hunting license increase?
ORIGINAL: bluebird2
You continue to make the same mistake over and over again by assuming the harvests in the northern tier counties failed to control the herd ,when in fact those areas were the best managed areas in the state. That is why 2G was at it's goal of 15 DPSM in 2000 and why the subsequent high antlerless reduced the herd to 12 PS DPSM in 2006.
No, it is you who keeps making the same mistake and misleading posts time after time.
The deer numbers in much of the northern tier have been controlled by the various environmental conditions, instead of the low harvests, for a long time. That isn’t good management it is horrible management because it really isn’t management at all. That is what the hunters and politicians demanded and that is what they got.
Today’s professional wildlife managers are simply trying to correct those past mistakes and make it better for the future in those areas and also to prevent even more areas of the state from making the same stupid mismanagement mistakes.
That simply is not true. The harvests in the southern tier counties failed to control the herd because the harvests were less than recruitment so the herds more than doubled . And, even with high antlerless allocations the PGC has been unable to reduce the herd to the desired goal in several WMUs.
Well yes, of course it is the difference in fawn recruitment that allows one area to harvest three times as many deer per square mile in the good habitat areas as what they can in the poor habitat areas.
But, the reason those good habitat areas have such high fawn recruitment is because they have been harvesting enough deer to protect the habitat. And, conversely the reason the poor habitat areas have such low fawn recruitment is simply because there isn’t food to keep the does healthy enough to produce and feed the fawns they carried through the winter and spring.
I guess it is easy for anyone willing to be honest to see why the statewide deer numbers and harvests increased so much since the 1980. It should also be easy to see that the deer numbers never did make much of an increase in those old traditional deer hot spots of the pre 1980s. It is also obvious that indeed the deer numbers were over protected to the point they crashed in those old traditional deer hunting hot spots of the state.
No, it is you who keeps making the same mistake and misleading posts time after time.
The deer numbers in much of the northern tier have been controlled by the various environmental conditions, instead of the low harvests, for a long time. That isn’t good management it is horrible management because it really isn’t management at all. That is what the hunters and politicians demanded and that is what they got.
Today’s professional wildlife managers are simply trying to correct those past mistakes and make it better for the future in those areas and also to prevent even more areas of the state from making the same stupid mismanagement mistakes.
The reason the deer crashed in those areas is because they were over protected. And, the reason the deer numbers continued to increase in those southern counties is because the professional deer managers kept increasing the antler less allocations and harvests to keep up with the increasing populations and protected the deer habitat instead of over protecting the deer.
That simply is not true. The harvests in the southern tier counties failed to control the herd because the harvests were less than recruitment so the herds more than doubled . And, even with high antlerless allocations the PGC has been unable to reduce the herd to the desired goal in several WMUs.
Well yes, of course it is the difference in fawn recruitment that allows one area to harvest three times as many deer per square mile in the good habitat areas as what they can in the poor habitat areas.
But, the reason those good habitat areas have such high fawn recruitment is because they have been harvesting enough deer to protect the habitat. And, conversely the reason the poor habitat areas have such low fawn recruitment is simply because there isn’t food to keep the does healthy enough to produce and feed the fawns they carried through the winter and spring.
04-12-2009, 06:23 AM
#105
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: At this period of time, do you favor a hunting license increase?
RSB, you said compare pa and ohio fairly but you didnt. A general license in Ohio to deer hunt is 43$. Not 60 some. Most hunters are DEER hunters. But if you want to compare everthing included in the license, And if you are gonna compare by ADDING what pa's base license includes to the price of ohios! Id say ONLY FAIR if the intent isnt complete deception, to add the prices of what is included with ohios general license to PA's as well. Ohio includes muzzleloader and bowhunting on the general license. That brings the tally for Pa at $47. Yet for some reason that ridiculous price comparison chart that was used to fool legislators at the meetingsseems to have neglected to do so, since I suppose 20 had alot more "shock value" than over twice as much?.[:'(] It also neglected to mention ANY of the cheaper states to hunt.[:'(]
Ohio also doesnt fabricate estimated harvest. The number used is the actual number of deer reported.
Also you say: "In Ohio their Conservation Department is not self funded, like here in Pennsylvania. They got their money, to operate, directly from their state general fund tax dollars every year."
Yet it shouldnt make any difference because we have nearly double their hunter numbers to pay the bills.
If paid according to "what its worth" compared to ohio, we would be paying $4.30 for a license. Because we are getting about 1/10th what they are.
Ohio also doesnt fabricate estimated harvest. The number used is the actual number of deer reported.
Also you say: "In Ohio their Conservation Department is not self funded, like here in Pennsylvania. They got their money, to operate, directly from their state general fund tax dollars every year."
Yet it shouldnt make any difference because we have nearly double their hunter numbers to pay the bills.
If paid according to "what its worth" compared to ohio, we would be paying $4.30 for a license. Because we are getting about 1/10th what they are.
04-12-2009, 06:27 AM
#106
Typical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: manassas va USA
Posts: 614
RE: At this period of time, do you favor a hunting license increase?
I agree,,,triple the price of the liscenses,,, each liscense bought allows a hunter 1 bear,,,2 turkeys spring/ 2 turkeys fall,,,4 either sex deer tags and general small game,,,and be able to buy this package deal over the counter at wal-mart/sporting goods stores throughout Pa. Actually,,,i say make it a base price for res. adult 100.00 and jr. res 50.00 and you can bang the bejesus out of us non-res hunters with whatever you feel necessary,,(but not to the extent where we quit coming to pa to hunt) Then demand from the state leg. that every citizen in Pa pays for wildlife managament. I feel this holds the hunter more responsible for the amount of wildlife they take and theres no doubt in my mind that the PGC would be held to higher standards in the mgmt of said resources
Happy Easter & God Bless
Happy Easter & God Bless
04-12-2009, 06:33 AM
#107
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: At this period of time, do you favor a hunting license increase?
RSB, you also mentioned Maine. While main is known for low deer density, I think it abysmal how close their deer density goals are to the numbers we have now. Also considering most of the state is still declining. Then also, Maine has areas of deer density higher than ours!! Our best wmus having less than 25 dpsm and declining is a joke....
Out of Maine (one of the nastiest harshiest, winter killingest states .LOL.speaking on deer goals: "
In Central Maine, where current deer populations are thriving, the 15-year goal is 15 to 20 deer per square mile. According to Lavigne, deer wintering areas in this part of Maine are "pretty decent," though he concedes that deer wintering habitat in this area is "poorly understood."
In Southern and Coastal Maine, the problem ironically is not deer yards as much as it is an excess of deer in some semi-rural areas and residential perimeters where hunting activity is low, or prohibited by local gun discharge ordinances. There, deer populations vary from 10 to 100 animals per square mile! The deer management challenge is more social than biological. A dramatically higher deer harvest with more areas open to controlled deer hunts will be required to maintain deer populations at socially tolerable levels.
Now my point is, while there are other areas of maine with lower goals....If central friggin Maine!!! Which is FAAAAAAR north of us, an way more harsh than the climate of 2A....Dont even bother telling me we need similar numbers of deer! LMAO!
And if any densities between 10 and A HUNDRED! (LOL) arent "biological" problems, but social ones at the higher end...What does that say or our need to have northcentral Pa at 10dpsm! LOL. Or 2A, the best Pa has to offer, at numbers soon to be the equal of central main, and far lower than some of southern and coastal maine!!
Maine apparently hasnt been taken over by biodiversity extremists.
Out of Maine (one of the nastiest harshiest, winter killingest states .LOL.speaking on deer goals: "
In Central Maine, where current deer populations are thriving, the 15-year goal is 15 to 20 deer per square mile. According to Lavigne, deer wintering areas in this part of Maine are "pretty decent," though he concedes that deer wintering habitat in this area is "poorly understood."
In Southern and Coastal Maine, the problem ironically is not deer yards as much as it is an excess of deer in some semi-rural areas and residential perimeters where hunting activity is low, or prohibited by local gun discharge ordinances. There, deer populations vary from 10 to 100 animals per square mile! The deer management challenge is more social than biological. A dramatically higher deer harvest with more areas open to controlled deer hunts will be required to maintain deer populations at socially tolerable levels.
Now my point is, while there are other areas of maine with lower goals....If central friggin Maine!!! Which is FAAAAAAR north of us, an way more harsh than the climate of 2A....Dont even bother telling me we need similar numbers of deer! LMAO!
And if any densities between 10 and A HUNDRED! (LOL) arent "biological" problems, but social ones at the higher end...What does that say or our need to have northcentral Pa at 10dpsm! LOL. Or 2A, the best Pa has to offer, at numbers soon to be the equal of central main, and far lower than some of southern and coastal maine!!
Maine apparently hasnt been taken over by biodiversity extremists.
04-12-2009, 06:40 AM
#108
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: At this period of time, do you favor a hunting license increase?
Thats some bad ideas there Rem. NO to tripling the price. NO to 4 either sex tags. We dont need added buck kill any more than added doe kill. The states a joke as it is, give us a break eh? LOL
No to alternate funding, worst possible thing that could ever happen right now.
Money isnt the issue as to why mismanagement is occurring and they are spending PLENTY to implement and stay the course on this failed program. It wouldnt cost any more to manage the deer herd at reasonable levels, and it certainly would be more than affordable with a reasonable license fee increase IF that would be thier intention. They have made it clear that it is not, and thats why they arent getting it as of yet.
No to alternate funding, worst possible thing that could ever happen right now.
Money isnt the issue as to why mismanagement is occurring and they are spending PLENTY to implement and stay the course on this failed program. It wouldnt cost any more to manage the deer herd at reasonable levels, and it certainly would be more than affordable with a reasonable license fee increase IF that would be thier intention. They have made it clear that it is not, and thats why they arent getting it as of yet.
04-12-2009, 07:04 AM
#109
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
RE: At this period of time, do you favor a hunting license increase?
ORIGINAL: Cornelius08
"Last season unit 2A had a 2% increase in the buck harvest making it the forth highest buck harvest, per square mile of land mass,"
The buck harvest went from 6600 to 6700. Basically the same low harvest for the wmu, especially considering the 6600 came with terribleweather and the 6700 last year came under PERFECT conditions, with the antlerless harvest rising. = more reduction. And the herd was not supposed to be as low as the 2007 season to begin with. So what about the 4th per mile. Are wmus now to be decreased depending upon where they fall?? Not sure what that has to do with anything??? Other than the fact this is one of the best areas of the state, and exactly why we have 4 pt restriction. We were also only about 7th or 8TH overall buck harvest, yet have one of the highest CC habitat types in the state.
Those are all indications that go along with a deer herd that is in the process of reducing its own numbers. That is just how the low deer numbers we have in parts of the northern tiertoday startedtoo. Is that what you want for your future?
"in the state. Unit 2A also had a 7% increase in the antler less deer harvest even though there had been an 8% reduction in the antler less allocation last year. "
There was no real "reduction". 55000 was above the saturation point to begin with. We had 55k 4 of the last 5 years. prior to that 45,000 reduced the herd. 60,000 allocation did not sell out until last I checked well into December, and might not have at all. Considering most of us already had 3 tags apiece, I dont think a few more people with one more wouldve made much difference. Kinda likeshooting a deer with a '06 or a 458....Dead is dead. 55k tags harvest more than enough to exceed recruitment. Anything more is just pgc bonus.
The objective in unit 2A is to have the reduce the deer population to a level that the deer find acceptable so they stop reducing their own numbers.
Would it make more sense to you to have the deer keep on reducing their habitat and food supply until even fewer deer can live there and even more are dying of winter mortality?
To me it makes more sense to allow hunters to harvest the extra deer instead of having buzzards eating their decaying carcasses come spring. By allowing the hunters to do that job you are also protecting the habitat needed to support more deer.
"That was the third highest antler less harvest per square mile in the state. "
Yes. And that is the problem. It should NEVER have been as high an antlerless harvest..That is thanks to an with one of the absolute highest allocations in the state. Give 2G 55,000 tags, see if their antlerless harvest doesnt rise, despite being at 10 dpsm!! Thisisnt the northwoods FAR from it...and for pgc to suggest we need deer densities more appropritate for there, is absolutely asnine.
I’d love to see that many antler less license in unit 2G. In fact I would love to see unlimited antler less license in unit 2G. That would perhaps finally get enough deer harvested to allow the habitat to recover enough for the unit to one day support more then this low number of deer we have presently have.
The unit also had a 15% increase in the hunter success rate last year giving it the seventh best hunter success rate in the state.
"None of those facts indicates a management unit that should have a lower antler less allocation."
Actually they all do. The buck harvest was low. Lower than average for the wmu. And indicative of the decline. Despite wether YOU like it or think your judgement better than mine or pgcs....THEY EVEN MENTIONED IT IN THE ANNUAL REPORT as having taken notice of the decline indicators and if the buck harvest is the same this past year (much lower compared to previous 2 years at over 8k, and it was) they would deduct that herd size decreased. The doe kill, was due to having great weather. Especially when compared to the year prior. Remember your agency making the excuse? Anyway, I think all can agree, this past season was a VERY efficient harvest. Herd size in 2A is lower yet, and will match the decline of the last several years trend. Despite your attempts not to "lose" a debate as opposed to actually trying to honestly discuss what is exactly occurring, the deer density chart in the annual report says it all. Compare this past year data to it (not to mention weather etc.)and it equals one thing MORE REDUCTION.
When the regeneration was fine until the rediculous biodiveristy nut catering change was made to insure nowhere in the state has even "reasonable" deer numbers,and the change alone was due to the "assessment grade"...Its meaningless. Our habitat was NEVER judged as poor despite havingmuch higher deer numbers. The habitat is as good as its ever been, and going to extremes is not the answer to an agency digging itself a hole with a failed deer plan.
The facts being provided by the deer, and their food supply, don’t support your opinions.
Having fewer deer is never an easy pill to swallow. But it is one we have to accept once the deer herd starts to reduce its own numbers due to declining habitat. It appears that might well be exactly where you are in unit 2A.
Failure to accept the solution to the cure for deer that are declining from a lack of habitat would be as foolish as telling your Doctor to pound salt if he told you need surgery to remove recently discovered cancer.
"Those harvest and scientific data sets all sound like amply reason to harvest more antler less deer in unit 2A, instead of less, to me. I know you don’t like it, don’t want to believe it and don’t support those facts, "
Actually that is the facts according to you. You have disagreed with me, but also disagreed with pgc biologist as well on more than one issue. Pgcs imho is extreme to say the least. Yours, according to the facts, and taking pgcs most basicdata and findingsinto consideration puts yours WAAAY out there imho.
The eco-agenda is alive and strong at pgc. It needs snuffed out BADLY. When the best area of the state is declining at an alarming rate, yet the allocations arent lowerd. And recruitment is being overcome annually. And pgcs data shows the decline. And the habitat is and has been fine. Even according to every annual report up until this last, when we have our modern day low herd size...
I think there'll be frost on ol satans tail before hunters of this state support paying pgc more money. Im not sure which direction pgc will be going in the next few years with commissioners coming in and the politics and the nonsense and the fee increase denial and the audit talk etc... But what I do know is, if anything even close to your viewpoint becomes reality....Perhaps its time the doors at Elmerton close for good. And I mean that with 100% sincerity. The econut agenda isnt going away its picking up momentum.[:'(]
Actually those are the facts according to the deer and their food supply. You can ignore them and stand around with your head in the sand all you want. But, more responsible people will still at least try to save your deer herd from the same foolish mistakes other areas already experienced.
Callpeople interested in sound wildlife managementego nuts if you want, but at leastthey seem besmart enough to listen to the message the deer are screaming out for anyone capable of listening and understanding their message.
If hunters don’t want to, or simply refuse to, support wildlife management that is fine. There are others, perhaps more logical thinking people, just waiting to pick up that ball and run with it as soon as the hunters of this state decide they don’t want the wildlife management ball any longer. If that is what hunters want then that is fine, we can have sound wildlife management for the future with someone paying the way. If hunters don’t want to be the solution then someone else. The citizens, hunters or not, will always not only require but demand wildlife management and conservation. The only thing hunters are doing at this point is driving yet another nail in their own coffin.
"Last season unit 2A had a 2% increase in the buck harvest making it the forth highest buck harvest, per square mile of land mass,"
The buck harvest went from 6600 to 6700. Basically the same low harvest for the wmu, especially considering the 6600 came with terribleweather and the 6700 last year came under PERFECT conditions, with the antlerless harvest rising. = more reduction. And the herd was not supposed to be as low as the 2007 season to begin with. So what about the 4th per mile. Are wmus now to be decreased depending upon where they fall?? Not sure what that has to do with anything??? Other than the fact this is one of the best areas of the state, and exactly why we have 4 pt restriction. We were also only about 7th or 8TH overall buck harvest, yet have one of the highest CC habitat types in the state.
Those are all indications that go along with a deer herd that is in the process of reducing its own numbers. That is just how the low deer numbers we have in parts of the northern tiertoday startedtoo. Is that what you want for your future?
"in the state. Unit 2A also had a 7% increase in the antler less deer harvest even though there had been an 8% reduction in the antler less allocation last year. "
There was no real "reduction". 55000 was above the saturation point to begin with. We had 55k 4 of the last 5 years. prior to that 45,000 reduced the herd. 60,000 allocation did not sell out until last I checked well into December, and might not have at all. Considering most of us already had 3 tags apiece, I dont think a few more people with one more wouldve made much difference. Kinda likeshooting a deer with a '06 or a 458....Dead is dead. 55k tags harvest more than enough to exceed recruitment. Anything more is just pgc bonus.
The objective in unit 2A is to have the reduce the deer population to a level that the deer find acceptable so they stop reducing their own numbers.
Would it make more sense to you to have the deer keep on reducing their habitat and food supply until even fewer deer can live there and even more are dying of winter mortality?
To me it makes more sense to allow hunters to harvest the extra deer instead of having buzzards eating their decaying carcasses come spring. By allowing the hunters to do that job you are also protecting the habitat needed to support more deer.
"That was the third highest antler less harvest per square mile in the state. "
Yes. And that is the problem. It should NEVER have been as high an antlerless harvest..That is thanks to an with one of the absolute highest allocations in the state. Give 2G 55,000 tags, see if their antlerless harvest doesnt rise, despite being at 10 dpsm!! Thisisnt the northwoods FAR from it...and for pgc to suggest we need deer densities more appropritate for there, is absolutely asnine.
I’d love to see that many antler less license in unit 2G. In fact I would love to see unlimited antler less license in unit 2G. That would perhaps finally get enough deer harvested to allow the habitat to recover enough for the unit to one day support more then this low number of deer we have presently have.
The unit also had a 15% increase in the hunter success rate last year giving it the seventh best hunter success rate in the state.
"None of those facts indicates a management unit that should have a lower antler less allocation."
Actually they all do. The buck harvest was low. Lower than average for the wmu. And indicative of the decline. Despite wether YOU like it or think your judgement better than mine or pgcs....THEY EVEN MENTIONED IT IN THE ANNUAL REPORT as having taken notice of the decline indicators and if the buck harvest is the same this past year (much lower compared to previous 2 years at over 8k, and it was) they would deduct that herd size decreased. The doe kill, was due to having great weather. Especially when compared to the year prior. Remember your agency making the excuse? Anyway, I think all can agree, this past season was a VERY efficient harvest. Herd size in 2A is lower yet, and will match the decline of the last several years trend. Despite your attempts not to "lose" a debate as opposed to actually trying to honestly discuss what is exactly occurring, the deer density chart in the annual report says it all. Compare this past year data to it (not to mention weather etc.)and it equals one thing MORE REDUCTION.
When the regeneration was fine until the rediculous biodiveristy nut catering change was made to insure nowhere in the state has even "reasonable" deer numbers,and the change alone was due to the "assessment grade"...Its meaningless. Our habitat was NEVER judged as poor despite havingmuch higher deer numbers. The habitat is as good as its ever been, and going to extremes is not the answer to an agency digging itself a hole with a failed deer plan.
The facts being provided by the deer, and their food supply, don’t support your opinions.
Having fewer deer is never an easy pill to swallow. But it is one we have to accept once the deer herd starts to reduce its own numbers due to declining habitat. It appears that might well be exactly where you are in unit 2A.
Failure to accept the solution to the cure for deer that are declining from a lack of habitat would be as foolish as telling your Doctor to pound salt if he told you need surgery to remove recently discovered cancer.
"Those harvest and scientific data sets all sound like amply reason to harvest more antler less deer in unit 2A, instead of less, to me. I know you don’t like it, don’t want to believe it and don’t support those facts, "
Actually that is the facts according to you. You have disagreed with me, but also disagreed with pgc biologist as well on more than one issue. Pgcs imho is extreme to say the least. Yours, according to the facts, and taking pgcs most basicdata and findingsinto consideration puts yours WAAAY out there imho.
The eco-agenda is alive and strong at pgc. It needs snuffed out BADLY. When the best area of the state is declining at an alarming rate, yet the allocations arent lowerd. And recruitment is being overcome annually. And pgcs data shows the decline. And the habitat is and has been fine. Even according to every annual report up until this last, when we have our modern day low herd size...
I think there'll be frost on ol satans tail before hunters of this state support paying pgc more money. Im not sure which direction pgc will be going in the next few years with commissioners coming in and the politics and the nonsense and the fee increase denial and the audit talk etc... But what I do know is, if anything even close to your viewpoint becomes reality....Perhaps its time the doors at Elmerton close for good. And I mean that with 100% sincerity. The econut agenda isnt going away its picking up momentum.[:'(]
Actually those are the facts according to the deer and their food supply. You can ignore them and stand around with your head in the sand all you want. But, more responsible people will still at least try to save your deer herd from the same foolish mistakes other areas already experienced.
Callpeople interested in sound wildlife managementego nuts if you want, but at leastthey seem besmart enough to listen to the message the deer are screaming out for anyone capable of listening and understanding their message.
If hunters don’t want to, or simply refuse to, support wildlife management that is fine. There are others, perhaps more logical thinking people, just waiting to pick up that ball and run with it as soon as the hunters of this state decide they don’t want the wildlife management ball any longer. If that is what hunters want then that is fine, we can have sound wildlife management for the future with someone paying the way. If hunters don’t want to be the solution then someone else. The citizens, hunters or not, will always not only require but demand wildlife management and conservation. The only thing hunters are doing at this point is driving yet another nail in their own coffin.
04-12-2009, 07:29 AM
#110
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: At this period of time, do you favor a hunting license increase?
"Those are all indications that go along with a deer herd that is in the process of reducing its own numbers. "
They are also all indictors of too many tags being utilized. And when ALL factors are considered, your scenario is ruled out and that leaves but one.
"The objective in unit 2A is to have the reduce the deer population to a level that the deer find acceptable so they stop reducing their own numbers. "
Actually, no it wasnt. The "objective"is and has been SUPPOSEDLY to "stabilize the herd" in this wmu. Are you saying pgc has been lying which i guess has become perfectly clear??
"Would it make more sense to you to have the deer keep on reducing their habitat and food supply until even fewer deer can live there and even more are dying of winter mortality?"
Pgcs own assessment hascaused them to adopt the goal of "stabilization" or so theyve said foryears now. What would "make more sense to me" would be for them to stick to their word andquit blowing smoke up our arses here in 2A!
"To me it makes more sense to allow hunters to harvest the extra deer instead of having buzzards eating their decaying carcasses come spring."
Seeing as MANY more deer existed previously and that never became a problem, i think we are willing to take that chance., as the risk is about zero according to history.
"I’d love to see that many antler less license in unit 2G. In fact I would love to see unlimited antler less license in unit 2G."
I sincerely would too.I think that might FINALLY be the last straw as to where MAYBE legislators would finally get off their duffs and take real action.
"The facts being provided by the deer, and their food supply, don’t support your opinions. "
Sure they do. Every single one. Opinions stating otherwise are meaningless without being proven. In this instance you have no chance of "proving" the impossible.
"Having fewer deer is never an easy pill to swallow."
Aloteasier when the numbers are realistic goals and not obscureopen to interpretation non-numerical goals which changelike the weather to fit within environmentalist extremist agenda.
"Failure to accept the solution to the cure for deer that are declining from a lack of habitat would be as foolish as telling your Doctor to pound salt if he told you need surgery to remove recently discovered cancer. "
I agree that would be stupid. But thats not an accurate depiction of the situation. Would be more akin to going to the dentist, and him wanting to pull all your teeth because sometime in your lifetime, they may get rotten! (LOL)..... And thus, when you visit the dentist regularly brush and floss as you should and currently have nothing wrong. The situation in 2A and much of the state is in that situation, with the needless"cure" every single bit as extreme.
The only "cancer" is that which is the #1 enemy hunting faces today. Ecoextremists dictating game management where they have no business. ThaT "cancer' is eating away our deer herd, our hunter satisfaction, our hunter ranks and degrading ALL game management in the way of effecting funding.
"Callpeople interested in sound wildlife managementego nuts if you want, "
It is what it is.
"If hunters don’t want to, or simply refuse to, support wildlife management that is fine. There are others, perhaps more logical thinking people, just waiting to pick up that ball and run with it as soon as the hunters of this state decide they don’t want the wildlife management ball any longer."
I agree. And currently they ARE. We're trying to kick their arses, take our ball back and have a reasonable responsible management agency that isnt consistently trying to stab us in the back.
"The citizens, hunters or not, will always not only require but demand wildlife management and conservation. The only thing hunters are doing at this point is driving yet another nail in their own coffin. "
Nonsense. The majority of society are not nor did they ever "demand" fewer deer. For ANY reason let alone going far and above for an overly extreme bio-agenda. The tiny minority who screeched for years about having too many deer no matter how many there were, have finally got their way onto our agency and into our management issues. They have a strangle hold on it and are badly in need of being pried loose. And whatever it takes to make that happen or our sport WILL continue to suffer as it has been, and get far worse....And for what? Some bizzarre eco-nuts who want to see 500 birds per acre, a field full of wildflower on every hill side and at the expense of a billion dollarindusty as well as our way of life.
Society here in Pa also isnt demanding we have herd goals as low as or lower than every single state in this nation!!
They are also all indictors of too many tags being utilized. And when ALL factors are considered, your scenario is ruled out and that leaves but one.
"The objective in unit 2A is to have the reduce the deer population to a level that the deer find acceptable so they stop reducing their own numbers. "
Actually, no it wasnt. The "objective"is and has been SUPPOSEDLY to "stabilize the herd" in this wmu. Are you saying pgc has been lying which i guess has become perfectly clear??
"Would it make more sense to you to have the deer keep on reducing their habitat and food supply until even fewer deer can live there and even more are dying of winter mortality?"
Pgcs own assessment hascaused them to adopt the goal of "stabilization" or so theyve said foryears now. What would "make more sense to me" would be for them to stick to their word andquit blowing smoke up our arses here in 2A!
"To me it makes more sense to allow hunters to harvest the extra deer instead of having buzzards eating their decaying carcasses come spring."
Seeing as MANY more deer existed previously and that never became a problem, i think we are willing to take that chance., as the risk is about zero according to history.
"I’d love to see that many antler less license in unit 2G. In fact I would love to see unlimited antler less license in unit 2G."
I sincerely would too.I think that might FINALLY be the last straw as to where MAYBE legislators would finally get off their duffs and take real action.
"The facts being provided by the deer, and their food supply, don’t support your opinions. "
Sure they do. Every single one. Opinions stating otherwise are meaningless without being proven. In this instance you have no chance of "proving" the impossible.
"Having fewer deer is never an easy pill to swallow."
Aloteasier when the numbers are realistic goals and not obscureopen to interpretation non-numerical goals which changelike the weather to fit within environmentalist extremist agenda.
"Failure to accept the solution to the cure for deer that are declining from a lack of habitat would be as foolish as telling your Doctor to pound salt if he told you need surgery to remove recently discovered cancer. "
I agree that would be stupid. But thats not an accurate depiction of the situation. Would be more akin to going to the dentist, and him wanting to pull all your teeth because sometime in your lifetime, they may get rotten! (LOL)..... And thus, when you visit the dentist regularly brush and floss as you should and currently have nothing wrong. The situation in 2A and much of the state is in that situation, with the needless"cure" every single bit as extreme.
The only "cancer" is that which is the #1 enemy hunting faces today. Ecoextremists dictating game management where they have no business. ThaT "cancer' is eating away our deer herd, our hunter satisfaction, our hunter ranks and degrading ALL game management in the way of effecting funding.
"Callpeople interested in sound wildlife managementego nuts if you want, "
It is what it is.
"If hunters don’t want to, or simply refuse to, support wildlife management that is fine. There are others, perhaps more logical thinking people, just waiting to pick up that ball and run with it as soon as the hunters of this state decide they don’t want the wildlife management ball any longer."
I agree. And currently they ARE. We're trying to kick their arses, take our ball back and have a reasonable responsible management agency that isnt consistently trying to stab us in the back.
"The citizens, hunters or not, will always not only require but demand wildlife management and conservation. The only thing hunters are doing at this point is driving yet another nail in their own coffin. "
Nonsense. The majority of society are not nor did they ever "demand" fewer deer. For ANY reason let alone going far and above for an overly extreme bio-agenda. The tiny minority who screeched for years about having too many deer no matter how many there were, have finally got their way onto our agency and into our management issues. They have a strangle hold on it and are badly in need of being pried loose. And whatever it takes to make that happen or our sport WILL continue to suffer as it has been, and get far worse....And for what? Some bizzarre eco-nuts who want to see 500 birds per acre, a field full of wildflower on every hill side and at the expense of a billion dollarindusty as well as our way of life.
Society here in Pa also isnt demanding we have herd goals as low as or lower than every single state in this nation!!