RE: PA DEER AUDIT UPDATE.....
 

"Thank you for admitting that your agenda is about what you want and not about what is scientifically sound"

I dont see bb asking for that. Its only common sense that this audit exists in the first placebecause ofhunter satisfaction beingsolow, and it should address that aspect thoroughly. As for what WE want and what is scientifically sound, the two arent necessary on opposing ends. I am confident that there are things that can be done that would fit both descriptions. It is just that currently, Pgc doesnt care about one of them. If the plan doesnt address hunter satisfaction along with the science its 100% useless. I believe that is what bb was saying and i agree 100%. I dont think you'd find any of the "disgruntled masses" that would disagree.

"We all need to remember that the forest industry "tolerates" us because they need us to help control the deer. "

You need to remember, we shouldnt give a rats crotch over someone "tolerating" us. To NOT tolerateus is to be antihunter. And antihunters can kiss our ass as far as Im concerned.;)Perhaps it should be looked at as mutual tolerance, and not as one sided as you depict. We are under no obligation to take it completely in the backside any more than they are, but that is exactly what is happening...we are. Also id hardly call it "tolerating us" ....When the herd was reduced SOME and we had to accept it and tolerate it, they tolerated reasonable deer numbers and the reasonable consequences of having them. Currently they arent tolerating us. Deer in many areas that effect forest industry are at rock bottom. We are getting screwed. Plain and simple.

"They own or control much of the land available for us to hunt."

No they dont.As for state forest,land belongs to the people of Pennsylvania. Also, the deer plan effects everywhere else as well, private land not associated with forestry as well as our gamelands.

"We represent less than 10% of that public. If we don't cooperate and help keep the deer under control to the point that the desirable timbercan regenerate, they will eventually find a way to control the deer without us and we hunterscould well find ourselves shutout of the vast property holdings to which we currently enjoy free and easy access. "

I dont buy it. And we are more than willing to keep the deer herd at DECENT LEVELS. And beyond that, we already have the herd at levels where they are stating stabilization is the goal. Even though the goals are extreme, we did the job. I see no reason for hollow scare tactics to be spoken of, that being the case. Society is more the hunter than it is the timberman. 900,000 plus hunters plus every friend and family member that doesnt hunt, yet supports us. Id call that a MAJORITY.

RE: PA DEER AUDIT UPDATE.....
 

Anyone who has been here any length of time knows that you have done your best to dispute the science of the current deer management plan. From your smoke and mirrors twists of fact to your laughable claim that folks like Dr Kroll, Charles Alsheimer, Dr Samuel etc simply "don't understand their own data", you have disputed the science all along. Now that an objective audit is getting started, you are back-pedaling before the thing even starts. LOL!

RE: PA DEER AUDIT UPDATE.....
 

"Now that an objective audit is getting started"

Is it completely objective when they worked with pgc already on the pr for this deer plan they will now audit, plus on at least one other occassion, not to mention having someone who worked for them currently nominated for a PGC commissioner seat???

Not yet making any accusations, as thelevel of "objectivity" should be clear at this things conclusion......but im just sayin'!;)

RE: PA DEER AUDIT UPDATE.....
 

Of course there should be AND WILL BE will be common ground between the science and what most hunters want.( WE KNOW WE DISAGREE ON WHERE MOST STAND, LOL) But that has not been BB's message all along. He has disputedvirtually all the science and now is backing up on theeve of the audit.

To deny that other interests have a say is to bury your head in the sand and to play right into the hands of the anti's. Except for those of us who own big chunks of ground, we get to hunt because the landowners need us or because they are neutral toward us. Continuing to support more deer than the owners of the ground we hunt want to have will eventually bite us in the ass. That includes timber interests, farmers and even suburban homeowners and the driving public.

Yep, state forest belongs to every taxpayer. Hunters make up 10% of those taxpayers. As long as those 90% support us we're fine. If we fight the science we'll eventually lose much of that 90% and we'll be on the outside lookin in[:@]

At 900,000 we can be a formidable force but we are nowhere near a majority. We still need to be viewed as an asset to John Q Nonhunter or we will find ourselves on the way down a slippery slope. We're already seeing the first signs with the talk of outside funding. Once that starts, nonhunters and antis will have a far louder voice than they now have. Your menatlity is like barricading the door and holing up with your deer rifle while a whole SWAT team waits outside! The actions will be noticed for a few days but ultimately that mindset will lose both the battle and the war.

RE: PA DEER AUDIT UPDATE.....
 

"To deny that other interests have a say is to bury your head in the sand and to play right into the hands of the anti's."

Thats not at all what Im saying. Im not saying they shouldnt have a say. Im saying imho and many others, they haveALL the say, have for some time now, and shouldnt.

" Except for those of us who own big chunks of ground, we get to hunt because the landowners need us or because they are neutral toward us. Continuing to support more deer than the owners of the ground we hunt want to have will eventually bite us in the ass. That includes timber interests, farmers and even suburban homeowners and the driving public. "

If we managed it with ridiculous numbers of the past, I dont think it unreasonable to have still been able to deal with say for example 25% less deer (just throwing a number out, any number shy of what we've reduced to) Most of the people you cite were not demanding more deer be killed. Just a couple of factions were.


"Yep, state forest belongs to every taxpayer. Hunters make up 10% of those taxpayers. As long as those 90% support us we're fine. If we fight the science we'll eventually lose much of that 90% and we'll be on the outside lookin in[:@]"

I dont think so. 90% of those you speak of havent the faintest idea alot of this is even going on and couldnt care less about science of deer management. They support our position because they support US when speaking of friends family etc...

"At 900,000 we can be a formidable force but we are nowhere near a majority. We still need to be viewed as an asset to John Q Nonhunter or we will find ourselves on the way down a slippery slope. We're already seeing the first signs with the talk of outside funding. Once that starts, nonhunters and antis will have a far louder voice than they now have. Your menatlity is like barricading the door and holing up with your deer rifle while a whole SWAT team waits outside! "

I disagree completely. I dont see the sniveling audubon yo-yos or even the somewhat formiddable dcnr as unchallengable.Their position is very weak. There is no justification for the levels of deer right now in Pennsylvania. We havent just reduced our herd, we've gone to extremes. If my position was that no reduction shouldve been done at all, id say that position would be doomed from the get go. But thats not mine.

RE: PA DEER AUDIT UPDATE.....
 

I have challenged the science on which the PGC based the current plan and refuted it with science that is more valid than the science the PGC used. The PGC science said breeding rates and herd health would improve as the herd was reduced and my science proved they were wrong. Their science said there was problem with late breeding and my science proved they were wrong and the deer proved I was right from day one. The PGC science says they are keeping the herd stable and my science proves it is still decreasing.

The science of deer management is by its very nature a subjective science, since it is based on the desires of those that are managing the herd. A herd can be managed at the biodiversity carrying capacity to satisfy the Audbon ,but a slightly higher density may satisfy DCNR. Or the herd can be managed at the MSY carrying capacity which would satisfy a lot of hunters and with supplemental feeding and intense management the herd on private property can be managed above the MSY carrying capacity of the natural habitat.

RE: PA DEER AUDIT UPDATE.....
 

Wrong again. Your science is flimsy and you have chosen to dwell on a few items derived from small samples that, if they had come from better sample size, might help your agenda. At the same time you have dismissed other variables that may or may not have had an effect on those small samples.
Good solid science by professionals would not reach the conclusions you've reached without far more information. You grab a small bit here and there and assemble those bits into your own personal truth because it's the "truth" you wish to find. Now that an independent audit is about to take place, you are circling your wagons because you are concerend that your flimsy arguements will be blown away like the house of cards that they are.


Yes, deer management is somewhat subjective. Obviously your agenda is to manage at MSY or abovewithout regard for the habitat, other wildlife, or the interest of the owners of the resources that feed the deer.And again, Your SUBJECTIVE agendaof maintaing a statewide "deer farm" is quite possibly not going to be the recommended course when the audit comes out.That's you're obviously starting yourattack on the audit results before it even gets started. You are simply incapable of being objective.

RE: PA DEER AUDIT UPDATE.....
 

i

And just where are these wonderful professionals going to get a larger sample size to establish breeding rates and productivity? Are they going to shoot does in the spring just to check if they are bred. The fact is the professionals at the PGC claim they are managing our herd based on sample sizes that are so small that they have to use 3 year averages,which meaans they are not using herd health to manage the herd from one year to the next.

That is your opinion and once again you are wrong. The MSY carrying capacity for 5 C would be over 100 DPSM, but that would not be acceptable due to crop damage and road kills and I would not expect the PGC to manage the herd at that density. But ,it was ridiculous for the PGC to claim the habitat in 5C could only support 6 DPSM.

All I am doing is pointing out that there are many issues that if the audit does not address, it will do nothing to resolve the current divide between hunters and the PGC. Is that what you want, a worthless rubber stamp audit?

RE: PA DEER AUDIT UPDATE.....
 

I dont care what an audit says though, if anyone affiliated with audubon or other known antideer econut groupis taking part on that "expert panel"my support and objectivity towardthe findingsis history.

Would be nice to have it made known who the participants are, so as to avoid any credibility issues. But hopefully those overseeing this audit will check out these people before they do any damage in the first place. Even the most ridiculous of audits done by audubon and econuts, showing complete contradictory nonsenses would still be supported by some as long as the audit showed no need for change.

RE: PA DEER AUDIT UPDATE.....
 

This quote from the WMI web site will make your day.
The biodiversity carrying capacity for the forests of the northern tier is only 8 DPSM ,so it looks like the audit will show that 2F still has too many deer and the herd in 2G will remain at 8 DPSM no matter how much regeneration might improve.