HuntingNet.com Forums
Page 9 of 18
« First
7
8
9
10
11
Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

HuntingNet.com Forums (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/)
-   Northeast (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/northeast-26/)
-   -   Whats wrong with the gamelands? (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/northeast/296748-whats-wrong-gamelands.html)

bluebird2 07-01-2009 06:45 PM
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.

Screamin Steel 07-02-2009 01:56 AM
RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 
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?
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.

Screamin Steel 07-02-2009 04:11 AM
RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 
ORIGINAL: DougE

ORIGINAL: Screamin Steel

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.
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.
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.
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.

DougE 07-02-2009 04:40 AM
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.

DougE 07-02-2009 04:42 AM
RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 
ORIGINAL: Screamin Steel

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

DougE 07-02-2009 04:47 AM
RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 
ORIGINAL: Screamin Steel

ORIGINAL: DougE

ORIGINAL: Screamin Steel

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

bluebird2 07-02-2009 06:23 AM
RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 
That's all because we insisted on more deer than tyhe habitat could support for way too long.
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.

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.

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.

Screamin Steel 07-02-2009 06:57 AM
RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 
ORIGINAL: DougE

ORIGINAL: Screamin Steel

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

Screamin Steel 07-02-2009 07:09 AM
RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 
ORIGINAL: DougE

ORIGINAL: Screamin Steel

ORIGINAL: DougE

ORIGINAL: Screamin Steel

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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

DougE 07-02-2009 09:49 AM
RE: Whats wrong with the gamelands?
 
ORIGINAL: bluebird2

That's all because we insisted on more deer than tyhe habitat could support for way too long.
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.

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.

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.
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.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:42 PM.
Page 9 of 18
« First
7
8
9
10
11
Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page


Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.