Whats wrong with the gamelands?
07-02-2009, 09:51 AM
#91
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
ORIGINAL: Screamin Steel
The WMU did have that goal. Goals which quickly fell by the wayside when the public cried foul. Another example of the need for smaller wmu's thoughI challenge you to find any scientific basis for a density that low for WMU 5a based on ANY criteria you can find. Nice try. Seems YOU are the one who is clueless, here. You just said it Doug. Vast diffrences from region to region and even within units. The entire state does not fit the one size fits all mold of the northern tier that they used to sell the HR plan for the entire state.
ORIGINAL: DougE
That specific area does not have a dd goal of 6 dpsm.You have no idea what you're talking about.
ORIGINAL: Screamin Steel
Darn right I saw twenty deer...on the first Saturday, actually. Now be a good boy and let's tell the rest of the story, Doug. THE AREA HAD BEEN CLOSED TO HUNTING FOR THE LAST FOUR YEARS.Even the PGC can't screw things up when the sign says NO HUNTING. They took some good bucks out of there, too. Are you saying that we should close SF and SGL's for four years to make for some good hunting again? That parcel is actually being annexed to the Michaux state forest (hopefully this year) as long as our good state government can come up with the rest of the dough to buy it from the private stakeholders. They opened it for the two weeks of firearms eason and closed it again. I'm really hoping to see it open in time for archery. Its a great piece of property, and the timber cuts are regenerating nicely, even with comparatively higher DD. In fact some of it will likely look likea jungle this fall, and young red oak isabundant.Theland there is fully capable of supporting higher DD...yet that unit was dealt a target goal of 6 dpsm. Another fine example of the PGC's incompetence.
ORIGINAL: DougE
I'm willing to bet that very few people are actually hunting at local densities less than 20 dpsm.Heck on screamingsteel saw twenty some deer in one area on the first day of rifle season last year.Do think he saw every deer in that square mile?
I'm willing to bet that very few people are actually hunting at local densities less than 20 dpsm.Heck on screamingsteel saw twenty some deer in one area on the first day of rifle season last year.Do think he saw every deer in that square mile?
07-02-2009, 09:56 AM
#92
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
ORIGINAL: Screamin Steel
Oh, so you admit that the low deer densities are here to stay? Glad you finally realized that all the empty promises about herd growth were just that. Now if you can et your buddy, RSB to admit it, too. We are living in the future of PA deer hunting. Herd numbers will be kept low to grow commercial hardwoods and keep the birdwatchers happy. The only way it will ever change is by a regime change in Harrisburg, or so many of us quit we just can't keep the herd down anymore. They obviously won't allow the herd to rebound only to start the reduction all over again. I'd sayI have a pretty good handle on it, Doug. Every hunter on this MB is as qualified to comment on the deer situation as you suppose yourself to be, though you seem to enjoy putting yourself up on a high horse in your own mind. (Pun intended.) You really don't have to try to appear condescending to bolster your own arguments. We all worship you anyway, esp whenwe found out about your 17 year streak with a bow. I'mordering the Doug Ell Bowhunter Extraordinaire poster for the den wall.
ORIGINAL: DougE
Like I stated before,you don't have the knowledge or experience to know what you're talking about.Every area is different.If the surrounding habitat is poor,it takes far fewer deer to have a continued impact on the habitat.All that exclosure showed is how deer key in on their preferred foodsources first.Deer are picky eaters.Without good habitat,they'll quickly devistate any new preferred growth,even at low dd's.TYhat's what we're faced with in the northern tier because we had decades of overbrowsing.SoYes,in order to get regneration of preferred species,we have to suffer with very low deer densities.That's all because we insisted on more deer than tyhe habitat could support for way too long.
ORIGINAL: Screamin Steel
Again, you are carefully avioiding the key issue here, because you obviously are stuill in denial and don't want to face up. I'll puit it in big bold type for you so you can't ignore it this time. IF AN AVERAGE DENSITY OF 27 DPSM COMPLETELY DEVASTATED THE OAKS IN YOUR ENCLOSURE (3 DEER IN 70 ACRES) AND IF ACCORDING TO DCNR WE ARE JUST STARTING TO SEE IMPROVEMENT AT 10 OWDPSM, THEN THIS IS THE FUTURE OF DEER HUNTNIG IN PA. THESE NUMBERS WILL BE MAINTAINED OR CONTINUE TO BE REDUCED IN FAVOR OF TIMBER REGENERATION AND ECOWEENIE LOBBYISTS. WE HUNTERS GOT HOSED, AND HUNTER SATISFACTION IS NOT A CONSIDERATION IN DEER MANAGEMENT EQUATION ANYMORE. WE HUNTERS ALL BUT SINGLEHANDEDLY FOOTED THE BILL FOR WILFLIFE MGT IN PA FOR NEARLY A HUNDRED YEARS, AND NOW WE AMOUNT TO NOTHING MORE THAN PEST CONTROL SERVICE FOR THEPGC AND DCNR. As for the study in TX, you always leave out the details in your feeble attempts at debate, Mr Twister. I cited the studty to show that a whitetailed deer gladly grazex on cool season grasse when available (you obviously donn't spend much time around ag land in winter, or you'd already know that) and I then cited sevarl key species of native cool seaosn grasses found abundantly in PA that are preffered grazing species. Obviously in hard winters with prolonged dep snow cover, browse dependence is exagerated, but much of our state rarely sees such winters, and much of our ag land supplies food year round.
ORIGINAL: DougE
Why would anyone want to put the habitat back into the state it was before.You honestly don't care one bit about the habitat do you?You want easy hunting so you can be done by noon on the first day.
ORIGINAL: Screamin Steel
Awsome. Now let's see a SERIOUS attempt at reducing antlerless allocations, and let these deer numbers get above 10 owdin alot of places. Aww, wait. Then we'd be back to overbrowsing again, soI guess we are going to see the low dd forever, to satisfy the big timber and birdwatchers. Guess we get hosed anyway you slice it.
ORIGINAL: DougE
That area was flown over in 2005 and DCNR does pellet counts every year.Last year I walked through thatarea with the district foresterand he claimed the owdd was between 8 and 10 based on that information.On top of that,that shelterwood cutwas on a ridgtop which is almost devoid of deer during the winter when most of the overbrowsing occurs.All I did was show the man an area where DCNR has been cutting without having to fence.
The habitat is coming back,no doubt about it.
That area was flown over in 2005 and DCNR does pellet counts every year.Last year I walked through thatarea with the district foresterand he claimed the owdd was between 8 and 10 based on that information.On top of that,that shelterwood cutwas on a ridgtop which is almost devoid of deer during the winter when most of the overbrowsing occurs.All I did was show the man an area where DCNR has been cutting without having to fence.
The habitat is coming back,no doubt about it.
I absolutely admit that we'll never have deer densities even close to what we used to have.Why go back to what put us in this mess to begin with?I don't ever remeber the PGC ever claiming the goals would be higher than 21 dpfsm.
07-02-2009, 11:07 AM
#93
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
Sorry,but you're wrong and misguided.2G is loaded with proof that the high deer densities of the 70's,80's and 90's devistated the habitat.
So despite your propaganda , the fact is 2G has not been subject to high DDs from the 70s as you claimed. The fact is that 2G has been at or below its goal for ten years , but forest health is still rated poor by the PGC despite your claims to the contrary.
07-02-2009, 11:27 AM
#94
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: PA
Posts: 8,167
RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
ORIGINAL: bluebird2
So despite your propaganda , the fact is 2G has not been subject to high DDs from the 70s as you claimed. The fact is that 2G has been at or below its goal for ten years , but forest health is still rated poor by the PGC despite your claims to the contrary.
So despite your propaganda , the fact is 2G has not been subject to high DDs from the 70s as you claimed. The fact is that 2G has been at or below its goal for ten years , but forest health is still rated poor by the PGC despite your claims to the contrary.
07-02-2009, 11:41 AM
#95
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
ORIGINAL: bluebird2
Once again you demonstrate your total ignorance of the history of our herd in the NC counties. The herd peaked at 40 DPSM by 1975. It then crashed in 78-79 due to abnormally severe winters and by 1980 the herd was at its goal in most counties. Then, despite 30 years of over browsing the habitat was sufficient to allow the herd to increase during the 80's, but the high doe harvests reduced the herd in 2G to 15 DPSM in 2000.
So despite your propaganda , the fact is 2G has not been subject to high DDs from the 70s as you claimed. The fact is that 2G has been at or below its goal for ten years , but forest health is still rated poor by the PGC despite your claims to the contrary.
Sorry,but you're wrong and misguided.2G is loaded with proof that the high deer densities of the 70's,80's and 90's devistated the habitat.
So despite your propaganda , the fact is 2G has not been subject to high DDs from the 70s as you claimed. The fact is that 2G has been at or below its goal for ten years , but forest health is still rated poor by the PGC despite your claims to the contrary.
07-02-2009, 12:24 PM
#96
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
I may be a riot , but you are a fool if you think that 2G had high DDs from 1970 to 2000. Like so many other hunters you rely on a flawed memory and ignore the documented facts. The facts are the herd crashed in 78-79 rebounded during the 80's and then decreased to 15 DPSM by 1999. At least that's what the professional deer managers say, but as always you and RSB know better than anyone.
07-02-2009, 12:31 PM
#97
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
ORIGINAL: bawanajim
So your answer to this poor habitat is to add more deer to the area? Brilliant, just simple brilliant.
ORIGINAL: bluebird2
So despite your propaganda , the fact is 2G has not been subject to high DDs from the 70s as you claimed. The fact is that 2G has been at or below its goal for ten years , but forest health is still rated poor by the PGC despite your claims to the contrary.
So despite your propaganda , the fact is 2G has not been subject to high DDs from the 70s as you claimed. The fact is that 2G has been at or below its goal for ten years , but forest health is still rated poor by the PGC despite your claims to the contrary.
Why do you think 2G has the third highest productivity rate in the state if the habitat is so poor?
07-02-2009, 12:49 PM
#99
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: 3c pa
Posts: 1,212
RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
I thought we were listening to the deer and deer experts
BB i thought you wanted more deer all this time sayiing the habitat could support more?
Thought doug,btb was part of the pgc brownnosers
Did you switch stance or did i misunderstand you? cause it sounds like you agree with pgc experts now?
BB i thought you wanted more deer all this time sayiing the habitat could support more?
Thought doug,btb was part of the pgc brownnosers
Did you switch stance or did i misunderstand you? cause it sounds like you agree with pgc experts now?
07-02-2009, 12:59 PM
#100
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
ORIGINAL: bluebird2
Well you certainly aren't very brilliant since the deer in 2G are telling us the habitat is just fine. But I guess you would rather listen to the propaganda spread by Doug and RSB rather than listening to the deer and the PGC xperts..
Why do you think 2G has the third highest productivity rate in the state if the habitat is so poor?
ORIGINAL: bawanajim
So your answer to this poor habitat is to add more deer to the area? Brilliant, just simple brilliant.
ORIGINAL: bluebird2
So despite your propaganda , the fact is 2G has not been subject to high DDs from the 70s as you claimed. The fact is that 2G has been at or below its goal for ten years , but forest health is still rated poor by the PGC despite your claims to the contrary.
So despite your propaganda , the fact is 2G has not been subject to high DDs from the 70s as you claimed. The fact is that 2G has been at or below its goal for ten years , but forest health is still rated poor by the PGC despite your claims to the contrary.
Why do you think 2G has the third highest productivity rate in the state if the habitat is so poor?