RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

Poor uneducated individuals like you have been making that claim for years. The deer have proven 12 out of 12 of your predictions have been wrong yet you continue to claim you are right.

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

I'm hoping it was just lack of sleep that cause this post.:eek:

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

Yes,doubling the food supply would put the deer herd in line with the habitat.You do need some more sleep.Yep,the

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

The deer were in line with the habitat when there was twice as many deer in 2G as there are today. What we have today is an over abundance of food and a lack of abundance of deer. The MSY CC of northern hardwoods is 40 DPSM not 8 DPSM.

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

Ok,then is your infinite wisdom,how could the health of the herd have gotten worse?

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

The health of the herd in 2G didn't get any worse than before, It is the average productivity for the entire state that got worse,

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

"Ok,then is your infinite wisdom,how could the health of the herd have gotten worse? "

Doug, the data shows what it shows. It doesnt matter one lick if the health has declined or the data doesnt accurately represent the herd health due to other contributing factors....

Either way after several years now, the data does not support the continuance of the plans extremes. If reproduction is our herd health measuring stick, and we cannot judge it accurately due to change of age structure or doesnt matter, whatever else....Then the reduction as far as herd health goes is based on absolutely nothing since we cannot quantify any gains after several years already. The only other possibility is that indeed herd health had slightly declined which would also point to a failed program. Which do you believe? Pick your poison.

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

Oh, so you are try to claim then that the deer numbers in the northern tier traditional deer range are just as high as they ever were?

I’ve already posted the data showing how hunters have harvested fewer deer, not more deer as you claim, in unit 2G so either there are more deer in unit 2G then ever before or something other then hunting reduced their numbers.

Since it obviously wasn’t hunters harvesting them, as the harvests prove, that reduced the numbers over the past twenty years how do you want to explain the decline if it isn’t because the habitat couldn’t support more deer?

The plain and simple fact of the matter is that the deer and their habitat have repeatedly proved that your rants and ramblings about the number of deer the habitat should or even could support, for more then short term periods, simply isn’t realistic, practical or even possible.

You need to face the fact that you really don’t know much about the deer/habitat relationship or how each affect the other. You need to spend your time learning about the subject instead of trying to educate people about things you know nothing about.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

Obviously the deer themselves disagree with how many deer you think there should be. If they agreed with you their numbers wouldn’t have been on nearly a stead decline over the past twenty years or have crashed following a couple of hard winters.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

Since deer are managed by unit data instead of statewide data it really doesn’t mater what the statewide data might be.

The fact is the deer management program is more reflective of reality today then it has ever been in the past. That will result in better deer management for the future as long as the professionals can use the data coming from the deer and their food supplies to guide the management objectives in the future.

The more uneducated hunters and politicians interfere though the longer it will take and the less likely we are to ever having the best deer management possible.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

Hopefully you and Doug are the only ones that believe the herd in 2G decreased because hunters failed to harvest enough deer.Here is what really happens when harvests exceed recruitment and reduce the OWDD..

Harvest Data For 2G


Year antlered harvest antlerless harvest harvest PSM antlerless allocation

2003 10,110 20,370 7.4 52,000 2.55 tags/deer
2004 6,400 13,100 4.7 52,000 3.95 tags/deer
2005 5,000 6,200 2.7 29,000 4.70 tags/deer
2006 7,200 4,600 2.8 19,000 4.10 tags/deer
2007 5,100 6,600 2.8 25,000
2008 6,800 6,500 3.2 25,000

So when hunters harvested more deer as you suggested they should ,they reduced the harvest rate by by 57% even though there should have been twice as much food available /deer since there was roughly half as many deer in 2008 as there were in 2003.

Now your list of false claims and predictions has increased to 0 for 13. Keep digging.:)

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

Well, I think that qualifies as #14 on your long list of failed claims and theories. After the herd crashed in the northern tier in 1978 we harvested around 116 K buck in 1979 . From 1979 to 2000 the buck harvests increased ,with small fluctuations until we harvested 203K in 2000 and 2001, which is a clear indication the populations were increasing not decreasing. Then in just seven years the buck harvest dropped to 109K in 2007 as a result of successive years when the harvests exceeded recruitment.

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

I can only speak for state game lands in my area and they have been grossly overhunted and the deer population is next to nothing. I hunt and scout the game lands for other wildlife and I can say without a doubt that the deer population has been decimated in the three major gamelands in my area. I have hunted for weeks in turkey and bear season and seen only a very few deer (less than 12) and having spoken to other hunters in these game lands they too have reported that they did not see but a few deer if any at all. I now travel an hour to hour and a half from my home to hunt deer on state park ground/sgl. In some areas I understand that the deer population is healthy and in good numbers, but in other wmus they have been managed poorly in my opinion.

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

Did he just say that we have a herd that has been in decline for 20 years? Is this the same herd that allowed us to set record buck harvests in 2002? And record doe harvests?

Maybe I outta lay off the Parrot Bay and stay outta the sun for the rest of the day.[:o]

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

"Since deer are managed by unit data instead of statewide data it really doesn’t mater what the statewide data might be."

But when the statewide data declines that means wmus are declining. Also remember this is a STATEWIDE management plan with goals of herd health and habitat...etc. blah blah blah. lol. When that plan is failing pretty much statewide, we do not need to really point to micro-areas to nitpick. lmao. When you go to wide-scale blanket statewide reduction and extremes as we have, yet end up with NET LOSSES in overall herd health repro. measures... and some still cling with a death grip to the desire to continue the failed plan.something is wrong with this picture. lmao.

What it tells us, is what most of us already knew. The eco-nitwits and timber guys couldnt give a rats arse less about herd health, only every single cents worth of timber and extreme ridiculous amounts of biodiversity at any cost.

"The more uneducated hunters and politicians interfere though the longer it will take and the less likely we are to ever having the best deer management possible. "

I agree completely. That is why the few supposed "hunter" organization yes men should leave well enough alone and politicians like that idiot econut Levdansky and equally malcontent Sen. Mcilhinny and others need to quit trying to bend over the sportsmen of Pa by pushing for alternate funding and pushing for anything that would further galvanize the econuts strangle hold on our management agency.

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

ONLY one thing wrong with PA's game lands.... the GAME COMMISSION !!!!!

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

In Bradford co we have three gamelands and a statepark The park i no groups drive the banana's off .
But the gamelands i dont know gonna start taking new dog on the one to walk around and see what i see
Kinda give the pup some pre training. I hope there some game on them.
The one has wild pigs and elk. There is a game farm close to it.

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

What you just posted would be about the equivalent of starting to read a book at the middle of the last chapter and then deciding you know how the whole story got to that point of the ending.

I will start the deer harvest history for the counties that make up unit 2G from twenty five years ago and bring it up through to present by using the harvests per square mile of land mass for the counties and then my unit. By doing that all can see how far from reality your comments about what caused the deer numbers to decline in recent years really are.

Year…………….Deer harvests/sq. mile(counties in 2G)…………..2G deer harvests/sq. mile
1984.………………………..7.96
1985.………………………..8.36
1986.………………………..8.65
1987.………………………..9.14
1988.……………………….10.84
1989.……………………….10.23
1990.……………………….10.78
1991.………………………..9.12
1992.………………………..7.91
1993.………………………..8.85
1994.………………………..8.18
1995.………………………..9.14
1996.………………………..6.82
1997.………………………..8.12
1998.………………………..7.27
1999.………………………..7.52
2000.………………………..9.59
2001.………………………..9.03
2002.……………………….10.40
2003.………………………..8.11.………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦................7.41
2004.………………………..6.36.………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦................4.18
2005.………………………..N/A………………………………............. 2.72
2006.………………………..N/A………………………………............. 2.87
2007.………………………..N/A………………………………............. 2.84
2008.………………………..N/A………………………………............. 3.84

As anyone can see the deer harvests in unit 2G have not been abnormally high during any recent times, including the years just prior to the major crash in deer populations or deer harvests.

The deer harvests in unit 2G were not only increased but sustainable higher in the late eighties and early nineties but hunters and politicians threw a fit back then, just like they are now, and the allocations and harvests were reduced to answer that public and political demand. I know I was there to see it happening.

Then through the mid to late nineties we had lower deer harvests and an increasing deer population. We got away with that mistake as long as we did only because we were having a run of good mast crop years combined with very mild winters. Those ideal environmental conditions allowed the deer herd to exist in those higher then normal numbers but those increased populations also took more of a toll on their habitat also.

Then in the early 2000s there was a push to harvest more deer to reduce that over population to levels that were more consistent with the long term food supplies. Those increased harvests were not only increased but also sustainable right up until the hard winter of 2002/2003 hit. Notice how the deer harvest started to decline in the fall of 2003 after the first hard winter? Then see how the 2004 harvest declined even more after the second back to back hard winter when the deer had to spend a second year in the same wintering grounds they had so totally depleted of food the previous year? The 2005 harvest then was down even more because the deer that hunters should have been harvesting that year had died in the spring of 2003, 2004 and 2005 following those harsh winters their mothers had gone through when they were trying to nourish the unborn fawns. Hunters can’t harvest deer that died a day or two after being born.

The affects of those hard winters are still being felt since those fawns that didn’t survive those springs are the deer hunters would have been hunting for the past couple years.

The positive side of that is that the habitat has made some rather significant recovery and the stage is now set for the deer numbers to start increasing again. But, that does not mean we should harvest fewer deer to allow the deer herd to increase. The herd will increase with the improved habitat even without hunters harvesting fewer deer. The best thing is for hunters to still harvest as many deer as they legally can.

Now hopefully everyone can see how Bluebird missed the real story when he only provided the last chapter of the story in his post.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

The herd decline comment was in relation to the situation in unit 2G since that is where Bluebird was talking about. The statewide herd did set record harvests in 2002 but that was not the case for unit 2G.

Of the eight counties that make up the majority of un 2G Four of them had their highest hunter reported doe harvests between 1935 and 1939, one between 1940 and 1944, one between 1945 and 1949, one between 1965 and 1969 and one between 1990 and 1994. Collectively the highest reported doe harvest years for the counties that make up unit 2G occurred in the ten year between 1935 and 1945.

Of those same eight counties the highest reported buck harvests occurred between 1930 and 1969. Four of the counties had their highest reported buck harvests between 1965 and 1969, two between 1945 and 1949 and one each between 1930 - 1934 and 1985-1989.

Therefore, the opinion that the highest harvests occurred in recent years is incorrect. History clearly shows that unit 2G has had declining deer populations for a long, long time and that it hasn’t been hunters harvesting too many deer that has been causing the decline. It is hunters harvesting too few deer to protect that deer food that has caused the deer population decline.


R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

Thanks a lot for pointing out that the habitat in 2g , which the PGC claims has been over browsed since 1930, supported an average harvest of over 7 DPSM from 1984 to 2003, suddenly can't support harvest of over 2.72 DPSM in 2005. The carrying capacity of the habitat didn't decrease by over 50% in just 2 years ,so it is obvious that the herd and the harvests were reduced by harvests that exceeded recruitment.

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

Some people just aren’t logical enough in their thought processing to really understand cause and affect. You seem to be such a person and tend to see things all wrong or backwards.

Most logical thinking people, seeing a horse and cart going down the road would figure the horse was pulling the cart along. I expect you somehow see it as the cart pushing the horse down the road, don’t you?

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

What anyone can see is it is impossible for you to analyze dat objectively because of your extreme bias . In order to analyze the effects of the harvest data you presented one would also have to know the size of the over wintering herd that produced those harvests. The high harvests from 2000 to 2002 came from a herd that had already been reduced to less than 15 DPSM and it is irrational to expect less than 15 DPSM to produce a sustainable harvest of over 9 DPSM.

What the data clearly shows is that the high harvest of 1999-2002 reduced the OWDD from 14 DPSM to less than 10 DPSM and as a result the sustainable harvest was cut by over 50%

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

Well that explains it then. When you said the "last 20 years", you really meant the last 65-75 years.

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

Well then using that goofy analogy explain what happened between the early nineties, when 2G hunters had been harvesting more deer for several year then any time since, that the hunters could continue to sustain those relatively higher harvests but couldn’t sustain even lower harvests for a shorter time period ten years later?

The fact is that during the late nineties the harvests were increased to bring the deer numbers into balance with the habitat. But, hunters and politicians through a fit and demanded that the allocations and doe harvests be reduced. I was at a meeting where a high powered politician flat out made the statement that if the Game Commission didn’t reduce the allocations he would introduce legislation to take their regulatory powers away and they would decide how many license to issue.

As a result over the next five years, beginning in 1992, the allocations across the entire north central region of the state were cut over 18%. As I already said the deer herds got away with that only because we were having a run of mild winters and good mast years. Even then the deer populations weren’t high enough to satisfy the hunters and they still complained. So, during the next five years the allocations were cut another 5% and the deer harvests went even lower.

After ten years of lower doe harvests the deer herd should have exploded but it didn’t, in fact the buck harvests declined by over 13% during those lower doe harvest years, and before they were affected by any change in the antler restrictions. That alone is a very clear indication that the deer population was already declining as a result of harvesting fewer does.

Finally in 2000 there was once again a attempt to get the deer population back in balance with the existing habitat and that went on for three years of very modest harvest increase, though still lower then the harvests had been a little more then a decade before. It was simply too little and too late to avoid having a major deer population crash with two back to back hard winters followed by several more years of poor mast crops.

The habitat in unit 2G simply couldn’t the number of deer hunters and politicians were demanding so the deer started the process of reducing their own numbers, Then when those hard winters came along the bottom fell out and the deer herd crashed. Anyone that really understands both the deer harvest history data and the habitat the deer live in can clearly see that the deer population crashed from under harvest instead of over harvest.

That is simply how nature works and neither you, the politicians, the Game Commission or anyone else screaming and shouting can change the way nature works. We can either get smart enough to work with nature or we can continue to make those same STUPID mistakes over and over again and in even more areas until they too are ruined to where they support very few deer.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

Rsb do you ever get tired of spewing forth completely unabashed nonsense? lmao. Too many deer were harvested....the harvests WERE NOT SUSTAINABLE because the herd was declining... and a MUCH lower herd gives us a MUCH lower harvest. How flippin' simple is that? A friggin moron could understand that even in a semiconscious state! [8D][8D][8D]

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

Most people realize that the 52K antlerless tags issued in 2G in 2003 and 2004 were designed to reduce the herd and they accomplished just that . As a result the herd in 2G was reduced from 15 OWDPSM in 2000 to 12 PS DPSM or 8-9 OWDPSM in 2006. There simply is no way 8-9 DPSM can sustain a harvest that a herd of 15 DPSM would produce. It is just that simple and if you weren't so indoctrinated even you might be able to grasp the simple concept of using antlerless harvests to reduce the herd.

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

A person with logic would be quick to realize that SGL will receive an overabundance of hunting pressure compared to private land so why would anyone be surprised at a lower number of deer than on land that can be controlled and regulated as the owner sees fit.:eek:

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

But only a fool would make that point when the discussion is about the herd reduction in all of 2G, not just on SGLs.

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

You hitting the bong that hard? ;)

Take a look at the top of the page and read it to yourself real slow.:eek: says something about
"Game lands" [&:]

Do you know the difference in 2G and Kenny G ?

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

Do you know up from down or black from white?

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
Logged in as: bawanajim







Users viewing this topic: bawanajim, bluebird2

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

Would SFL receive more or less pressure when you consider the number of DMAP tags?

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 

Therein lies a large part of the problem. Hunter perceptions that there are more doe license being issued for some units, like unit 2G, then were allocated in the past. Though 52,000 might sound like a lot for a unit it really isn’t. That 52,000 license allocated for unit 2G in 2003 and 2004 equates to 12.64 licenses per square mile.

Here are the years when the allocation for the north central counties exceeded 12.64 antler less licenses per square mile.

Year……………..allocation/sq. mile
1968.…………………16.76
1969.…………………14.25
1977.…………………12.64
1979.…………………12.86
1986.…………………13.68
1987.…………………15.15
1988.…………………15.99
1989.…………………15.94
1990.…………………18.60
1991.…………………16.69
1992.…………………13.06
1993.…………………14.08
1994.…………………13.85
1995.…………………12.52
1996.…………………13.93
1998.…………………13.81
1999.…………………13.85
2000.…………………13.40
2002.…………………18.06

Now the allocations for unit 2G since 2003:

Year………………..2G allocations per square mile
2003.…………………….12.64
2004.…………………….12.64
2005.……………………..7.05
2006.……………………..4.62
2007.……………………..6.32
2008.……………………..6.32
2009.……………………..6.32

Do you still want to try telling everyone that the problem is the allocations have been too high during ANY of the recent years for unit 2G?

Your theories and conjecture just aren’t holding up to what the facts areproving.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands? allocations fr
 

It is not a question if the antlerless allocations that have been too high or too low. The question is if the allocations resulted in a harvested that exceeded recruitment. The answer is that the allocations beginning in 2000 produced harvests that exceeded recruitment that reduced the herd and future harvest.

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands? allocations fr
 

You are absolutely correct that the harvests have been higher then fawn recruitment. That is exactly what I have been telling you and everyone else for all this time;fawn recruitment has crashed and resulted in a deer population crash. That is how nature works when it come to deer populations that are out of balance with their habitat.

Now that we haveestablished that fawn recruitment has been lower and proven, with valid statistical data,that both the number of antler less licenses and the antler less harvests have been lower, in recent years, all you need to do is explain why the fawn recruitment is obviously so much lower now then it was backwhen hunters were harvesting more does year after year.

Once you can do that you will finally be on the road to understanding at least the most basic of deer management principles.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands? allocations fr
 

That's easy. Fawn recruitment is lower because there are a lot fewer OW doe to produce fawns in the spring. Harvests that exceed recruitment reduce the number of OW doe resulting in a decrease in recruitment and lower harvests.

The herd is not obligated to produce enough fawns to match or exceed the harvest. It is the responsibility of the PGC to match the harvest with recruitment if the goal is to keep the herd stable. But the goal was to reduce the herd so they issued enough tags to produce a harvest that exceeded recruitment and the result has been fewer OW doe ,decreased recruitment and smaller harvests.

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands? allocations fr
 

You just provided yet another example of how little you know about how nature and deer management really work.

Fawn recruitment is a determined not only by the number of does but by the ability of those does to produce fawns that are born at the correct weight to survive after they are born. The fawns, no matter how many are born, are of no value to the future of hunting or deer populations if they die within a day or two of being born.

That is why the professional deer managers work to get and then keep the deer her din balance with its food supply and total habitat. A deer herd living within the correct balance with its food supply and habitat will be MUCH more productive then a larger deer population that doesn’t have enough food in the correct places to use it during the critical winter and spring time periods.

You simple don’t know enough about how nature works to have even a basic working knowledge of how deer management REALLY works.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands? allocations fr
 

These little guys were at my pond yesterday.

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands? allocations fr
 

RSB, youre unreal. lol.

The deer herd was raped. There are FAR fewer doe. Far fewer doe have far fewer fawns. Far fewer doe + far fewer fawns= far fewer tags needed to continue reduction.;)

....And that concluded the lesson for today.


Nice pic Jim.;)

RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands? allocations fr
 

Fawn recruitment wasn't a problem in 2G in 2003 when it took a harvest of 7.4 DPSM to reduce the herd. Fawn recruitment only became a problem after the herd was reduced by harvests that exceeded recruitment and as a result in 2005 it only took a harvest of 2.7 DPSM in 2006 to keep the herd stable.
The simple fact is if the habitat was limiting the herd, non-hunting mortality would equal recruitment and no harvest would be required. But, in 2003 it took a harvest of 7.4 DPSM in 2G to reduce the herd and if those deer hadn't been harvested the OWDD would have increased by 7.4 DPSM and in 2004 the OWDD would have increased by over an additional 5 DPSM. Therefore , there is absolutely no evidence that the habita is controlling the herd.