Wrong.That may be true on the 2% of Greene county that consists of publicland but it's not even close to being true on the state land in 2G.

Here are the FLIIR results for Elk SF. YOU LOSE!!!!!


Area Acres Sq. Miles Date
Completed Deer Seen Avg. Deer /
Sq. Mile Highest
Density
Elk State Forest 23,175 36.21 18-Mar-06 446 12.32 55
SGL 14 15,150 23.67 18-Mar-06 191 8.07 38
SGL 311 1,485 2.32 18-Mar-06 28 12.07 33

SGL 14 had 8.07 DPSM while the SF had 12.32. So much for your theories about DMAP.

OK,just cherry pick the ones that support your misguided position.

Doug, I wasnt speaking of Greene county in particular nor was I speaking of public land alone.

There is no room generally speaking for the STATEWIDE harvest to go any higher without further reducing the herd, since we have been ALREADY with our relatively low harvest due to low herd size.

If you add to the harvest wether its in Greene, or any other county, public land or private... The overall statewide deer population would decline because of it. Thats all I was saying. And I think we need that about as much as we need another a-hole. Now I wouldnt be opposed to further reduction in some of the urban areas that have the access problems and actually need it. But if responsible management were to take place.....most areas are long overdue for some herd growth, and that growth would counter, numberwise any reductions made where needed since the areas in need of increase are FAR higher than the few tiny pockets of the state that need more reduction, so basically we'd have more deer overall than we had now, with MORE being where they should be, but still less in the areas in most need of reduction.

As for "gamelands", I believe the poor hunting there is due to statewide mismanagement. Of course there, due to the extra hunting pressure, the effects of the failed plan are magnified. Though the maleffects to varying extents can readily be seen just about anywhere other than off limits or highly regulated lands. If the econuts had their way, without a doubt we would have the same pathetic stateforest and gameland low or lower deer densities on every inch of our states land.

I dont see cherry picking doug. I see data that backs the mans position. Why are those gamelands not being managed for "game"?

They sure as hell are NOT judging by those numbers.

Feel free to cherry pick a SGL adjacent to a DMAP SF that supports your misguided position.

If DMAP worked as you claim it does , there shouldn't be any SF with more deer than adjacent SGLs.

In 2005 no SFL surveyed had as low a density as SGL 14 in 2006!!!!!

You've never even been to these areas and I spend alot of time there.Take elk state forest.Some areas have alot of deer,some have none because the habitat is so poor in those areas.I kill at least one deer a year on Elk state forest.In the lastfour years,I've seen a grand total of one other hunter on that state forest.Hunters aren't reducing the herd period in these areas,with or without dmap.

Like I said,You're cherry picking one or two gamelands.Come and check out sgl 93,77,54 AND 44.Way more than 14 dpsm

You are the typical PGC know it all who dismisses all the facts and bases his opinion on his personal observations and theories. There is absolutely no way for any hunter to determine the deer density in any given WMU ,SGL or SFL based on observations during hunting season. The FLIR studies and the PGC harvest data are the only viable measures of DD so in my book your personal opinions and observation carry no weight

As yet you have provided absolutely nothing to support your claim that DMAP tags have produced lower DDs on SFL than on SGLs.

No it is you who is dismissing al of the facts and has no idea at all what is really going on in ANY area of unit 2G or the other big woods areas for that matter.

I am very familiar with SGL # 14 and I can tell you right up front that it has few deer because it is a remote hard to access area where the deer herd has been GROSSLY under harvested for at least the past twenty to thirty years.

Besides hunters failing to access the remote areas of SGL # 14 the game lands is also bordered by about 19 square miles of private land that has never allowed doe hunting. For many years the large doe herd from that private land bleed over onto the game lands and even further destroyed the habitat. But, following the hard winters of 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 the deer herd in that once lived on that 19 square mile tract of private land crashed to some of the lowest deer numbers in the entire area and now seem to be even lower then the deer numbers on the long time under harvested and habitat depleted areas of SGL # 14.

Things might start to recover on both SGL # 14 and that piece of private land though in the near future. The private land has just recently been sold and the new owners are in the process of opening about 10,000 acres of it to public. That should result in much better deer management and habitat improvement on both that land and the surrounding game lands for the future.

There is also evidence that deer numbers are higher on the game lands of this area then on the private land and National Forest lands during recent years. In fact I just checked and the volunteer wildlife survey routes
show 8.2% more deer on game lands in 2006, 12.7% more in 2007 and 25.9% in 2008 then what were seen per square mile on private lands combined with the National Forest of Elk County.

R.S. Bodenhorn

You just admitted the SGL 14 is so poorly managed by the PGC that it can't support more than 8 OWD PSM. The experts say that the typical stand of northern hardwoods managed for timber, not wildlife, will support 40 OWD DPSM . Furthermore, if you had a clue you would know that the doe in 2G had the third highest productivity of any WMU, which means that the herd is way below the MSY CC of the habitat.