RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

Your level of ignorance is truly amazing. I , along with hundreds of thousands of other PA hunters have spent many days in the woods without seeing a deer. But maybe that isn't a problem for those that hunt on their private deer farm.

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

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.

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

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.

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

I too spend time in woods without seeing deer.In fact,during archery season when I generally use one stationary stand for a hunt,Isaw no deer over 40% of the time while actually in a stand.It's called hunting.It's supposed to be a challenge.Too bad so many peopleforget that.

YOU'RE ALSO FULL A CRAP ABOUT THE HEALTH OF THE HERD DECLINING.YOU KNOW THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE AND YOU'VE STATED BEFORE THAT THE REASON THE BREEDING RATES HAVE DECLINED IN BECAUSE MORE MATUERE DOE HAVE BEEN KILLED.KEEP USING THAT DATA TO SUIT YOUR MISGUIDED AGENDA.

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

That specific area does not have a dd goal of 6 dpsm.You have no idea what you're talking about.

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

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.

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

That is where you are flat out wrong and totally misguided. The deer proved that the habitat could support much higher DDs that we have now on a sustainable basis From 1980 until 2000 2G support twice to three times as many deer as we have now and in 1983 72% of the clearcuts regenerated successfully and just a few years after the herd was at 40 DPSM in the mid seventies.
The PGC is not managing our herd based on the carrying capacity of the habitat, they are basing it on the regeneration of the existing canopy and holding deer totally responsible for the lack of regeneration while ignoring all the other causes.


The PGC established productivity as a measure of herd health, not me. So based on their criteria and their data ,herd health has decreased ,which makes you the one that is full of horse puckey. Furthermore, if you recall RSB and BTB said I was full of it when I stated the reduced productivity was due to a major decrease in the average age of our doe herd.

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

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.

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

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.:D

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.

At this point,where the habitat isextremely poor,the deer are the primary cause for the lack of regeneration and the hundreds of miles of exclosures prove that.

I don't care what R.S.B OR btb CLAIMED.That's irrelevant.What's relevent is the fact that you claimed the breeding rates declined not because of the health of the deer but the age structure.Now,when you wantto make it look like the plan has failed,you claim the herd health has declined.You're nuts.

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

Nope,back then the goals were 21 deer per forested square mile.They started stating them as deer per square mile which when you take out roads,cities,parking lots farms fields etc doesn't change the actual goal.No forested area in that unit every had a goal of 6 dpsm.

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

I certainly have a much better understanding of all this than you do.There's no question about it.I've spent countless hours in the field over the past 7 years with many experts.All you do is listen to the whining on the internet and chime in once in a while with your misguided views.

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.

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

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.

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

So your answer to this poor habitat is to add more deer to the area? Brilliant, just simple brilliant.:eek:

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

You are a riot.The northcentral counties did not have high deer densities since the 70's.Once again,it obvious you've never been to 2G

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.

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

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?

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

Really,even in 2002 hunters were harvesting around 8 dpsm in elk county.

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?

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

Maybe because the deer are now in line with the habitat which would back up my claims that the habitat is starting to recover.Hmmm,maybe these experts actually do know what they're doing.

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

Its Larry's evil twin, Larry he's the one that agrees with the PGC's, its the otherLarry that twist facts and half quotes to make the PGC look bad , but this Larry says we did have 1.6 million deer as his friend DR Gary Alt once said.;)

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

I believe the PGC stats but I don't believe the PGC experts who claim that forest health is poor even though herd health is very good,even though 2G is 90% forested. Therefore , even though the herd is healthy the PGC claims they have to keep the herd at 8-9 OWD PSM even though the herd is as healthy as anywhere in the state.

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

Dream on sport. Cutting the herd in half doubles the available food supply with no improvement in the habitat!!!

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

Doug says: "I don't care what R.S.B OR btb CLAIMED.That's irrelevant."

Lmao, Doug, I couldnt agree with you more. Ive been saying the same thing for years! LOL[:D]

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

Doug forgot to add his name to the list of those that are irrelevant:).

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

bluebird2

titleAndStar(2575,0,false,false,"","")
Life Member


[align=center][/align]
Posts: 2575
Joined: 4/4/2008
Status: online

[blockquote]quote:

ORIGINAL: bawanajim


[blockquote]quote:

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.
[/blockquote]

So your answer to this poor habitat is to add more deer to the area? Brilliant, just simple brilliant.:eek:
[/blockquote]


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?
That was one sentence of bb

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..

I believe the PGC stats but I don't believe the PGC experts
That was another

Bluebird i dont understand what your point is. Thats kinda 2 conflicting sentences . Help a fool understand what you are trying to say

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

Some people will just never get it.

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

You PA guys are the laughing stock of the country! How can one state have so many idiots begging for more deer than the land can handle? We got a few idiots like that here in the midwest but it sure seems like you have way more than your share!

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

oh yeah well well we laugh at you for having so many big bucks.;)

We have many people that seem to know more than the experts.
It shouldnt be rocket science less deer= more food add up to healthier deer

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

Im guessing audubon society ecoextremists arent dictating game management in the midwest.

I agree. Pa is the laughing stock of the nation. Fact of the matter is, it wasnt until econuts nonhunter friendly environmentalists took over our wildlife management agency.

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

What evidence do you have to support your claim that PA hunters want more deer than the land can handle. Since 1980 the herd has been increasing and the antlerless allocations were also increasing. Breeding rates and productivity were higher when we had 1.6M deer than they are now with less than 1M deer. can you explain why that happened?

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

Well i hope eco extremist are not running any mid west state or any state for that matter

But then again some of presidents ideas yeah we are screwed

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

You ask what evidence there is that Penna. Hunters want more deer then the habitat can support? That is a real hoot. All one has to do is read the posts you, Corny and Screaming man come out with to see the evidence of hunters that are out of touch with the balances of nature and demanding more deer the habitat can support long term. Even the deer have been proving you wrong and you aren't smart enough to see it.

You are correct that both the deer herd and antler less allocationshave beenincreasing since 1980, but only because the deer herd was exploding into areas of the state where there had previously been few deer, like around our city streets and housing developments. The fact is that both the antler less allocations and deer harvests have declined in the old traditional deer areas of the big woods, such as unit 2G, for over two decades now.

Here are the antler less allocation and harvest histories for the counties that make up 2G, with both expressed in units per square mile, to prove what I said above.

Data set…………………88-92.……….93-97.…………98-02.…………03-07
Antlerless license……….16.21.……….13.08.………†¦12.30.………….8.65
Deer harvests…..………..9.55.…………8.00.…⠀¦â€¦â€¦.8.53.…………..4.00

Breeding rates were not higher in when we had more deer in the habitat damaged areas, either. In those old habitat damaged areas, of the past, the breeding rates and reproductive rates are better now then ever in the past. If the breeding and reproductive rates have declined anywhere, (and I’m not saying they have), it is only because some areas of the state have totally failed to harvest enough deer and now their deer herds are starting the naturally induced downward spiral that follows having more deer then the habitat can support for too long.

The real fact is that you don’t know what you are talking about and simply don’t have a clue about deer management, their habitats or how one relates to the other.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

You really are one funny duck who has no idea waht the dat you post shows. Whether you realize it or not , you have just shown that the high antlerless allocations from 1988 to 1997 reduced the herd So it is obvious that you agree that harvests that exceeded recruitment reduced the harvest from 9.55 to 4.00.

Thanks for proving once again you simply are clueless.

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

Some people jump to conclusions, others just jump........................[&:]

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

"You ask what evidence there is that Penna. Hunters want more deer then the habitat can support? That is a real hoot. All one has to do is read the posts you, Corny and Screaming man come out with to see the evidence of hunters that are out of touch with the balances of nature and demanding more deer the habitat can support long term."

All we do is ask for responsible management and do not support managing our deer herd at rock bottom levels to promote biodiversity extremist agendas. That my friend is a helluva long way from asking for more deer than the habitat can support. Especially when some areas of the state had fine habitat with twice the deer as currently, and the fact that our deer densities are as low as the lowest states density goals in the nation. What backs YOUR assertion that we are asking for more deer than the habitat can carry? Nothing. To say we can have NO MORE at all period in most wmus is completely unsubstantiated and refuted by the facts. To say NOWHERE in the state can have any more deer than currently is completely outrageous extreme nonsense.

"Breeding rates were not higher in when we had more deer in the habitat damaged areas, either. In those old habitat damaged areas, of the past, the breeding rates and reproductive rates are better now then ever in the past. If the breeding and reproductive rates have declined anywhere, (and I’m not saying they have),"

You do not have to say they have or have not. Pgcs own annual reports show it to be the case. There was nothing wrong with the reproductive rates in the first place.

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

Yourresponse to the data is nothing more then your goofy and uneducated perspective on deer populations being combined with your misguided agenda to derail the real truth about the deer/habitat relationships.

Even the village idiot would know that if lowering deer harvests for a period of twenty years didn’t result in having more deer then there is something other deer harvests keeping the populations at those lower levels.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

We already have responsible management, that is what you are trying to change.

You are demanding what has been proven to totally irresponsible management that would lead to damaged habitat and result in lower deer numbers for the future.

Some of you simply have no idea how nature works and chastise the professionals that are doing everything they can to protect your hunting future from your own stupidity.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

Deer harvests do not have to continue to go up as a deer herd continues to decline. An allocation can be lower every year as long as it permits the havest of more deer than are recruited. Recruitment declines with herd size.

So to summarize for the hypothetical village idiot that you spoke of.....

The harvest can continually decline and still be enought to cause a continual decline in the herd size due to the allocation alone, provided that the allocation permits for a harvest higher than the recruitment...which would also be on the decline.

If it takes 15,000 antlerless harvest to overcome the recruitment substantially and decrease a wmus herd this year, it very well may take far fewer to do the exact same thing next year and so on and so on.

That is not to say, of course that a harvest increase cannot occur even with a declining herd size. Raising allocation or other factors can definate contribute to a larger harvest than the previous year, but only serves to excellerate the decline of the herd.

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

"We already have responsible management, that is what you are trying to change."

Pizzing off more hunters than most states have, causing themselves to be sued and running financially into the ground are not exactly guidelines of proper management. Not is going against the grain according to what every other state in the nation is doing.

"You are demanding what has been proven to totally irresponsible management that would lead to damaged habitat and result in lower deer numbers for the future."

nope. 100% unsubstantiated claim. In fact not only unsubstantiated, but completely disproven.

"Some of you simply have no idea how nature works and chastise the professionals "

Keep repeating that on every post. Maybe sooner or later you'll convince your self. Till then, you dont believe that any more than I do.;)

"that are doing everything they can to protect your hunting future from your own stupidity."

And by your logic that would extend to the unudalterated idiocy of the biologists from every other state in our nation that has higher deer densities than ours. Is it their idiocy? Or is it the fact environmentalist nuts might not be such a big factor in many other states, and the timber industry there doesnt think they are god?