R.S.B.

Now that was a brilliant comment! Just brilliant! Comments like that only come from the most clueless of the clueless.

Hunters have been harvesting fewer then 12% of the marked does in the study areas of unit 2G so how could anyone with even half a functioning brain cell believe it is hunters reducing the deer population?

The habitat in some parts of unit 2G aren’t recovering because the deer population in many areas is still maxed out to the limits of the depleted habitat. In other areas both the habitat and deer populations are increasing. But, if hunters don’t keep up with those deer population increases the habitat quickly declines again. Once that happens the deer population declines again as well.

That is the way if all works when hunters fail or refuse to control the deer populations in an area for too long. If enough people listen to you we will have many more and much larger areas of the state with destroyed habitat and crashed deer populations across the state, too.

R.S. Bodenhorn

PSEarchery

2G is a good WMU for buck btw. Its good not to shoot so many doe, so thats why of a lot of guys are buying the tags early to get more bucks because the does could be pregnant with two or more deer, so instead of killing one doe its like killing two, three, or more deer.

sproulman

years ago i was told the locals would start fires.they then would sit on bench at fire companies and wait for call. these areas would have lots of feed for deer after a few years.i see this all time after a fire.

up until about year or so a DCNR expert would say,SIR YOU DONT KNOW WHAT HELL YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!now i go to meetings and they say,YES FOREST FLOOR NEEDS BURNED.
EXPERTS move like wind depending on which way it flows

Cornelius08

"Let's kill all of them and just grow trees!! That should make RSB happy!"

After reading his posts for nearly a decade, Id say thats exactly what he'd like. The gameless commission biologists need cleaned out and get some prohunting minded folks who arent extremists. Then maybe our deer densities will be similar to those of most other states. Our hunters wont be suing, petitioning and declining at over double the national average, legislators wouldnt need to step in and prevent a fee increase, and pgc wouldnt need audited.....

You know...like NORMAL states ?

bluebird2

Because the professional deer managers,who are a lot smarter than you clearly stated results from the study did not accurately reflect the actual harvest rates. The experts also stated that the harvests in 2G reduced the herd by 11% in 2004, 5% in 2005 and 23% in 2007. That makes the score on your theories and prediction zero for 15.

If forest health was increasing in some areas, then the average forest health in 2G would have increased instead of decreasing. Apparently you are just making things up because the PGC data does not support your claims and opinions.

Maverick 1

Keep in mind bluebird, that D ick is a SELF-proclaimed expert. To me, he comes across as one of these far left, environmentalist wacko extremist.

ManySpurs

I'm convinced that the county treasurers are moving right along and that the slow processing for 2G isn't actually slow processing but actually hunters not knowing that they need to apply in July instead of August.

I sent my grandsons 2G app from Galeton yesterday(7/20), and it was awarded today.7/21)

R.S.B.

It looks like some of the Treasurers that had been sitting on applications instead of processing them last week got started processing them at a much higher speed today. The number processed today far exceeds any other day so far.

Here are the number issued each day so far along with the percentage of the total allocation.

Date……………………..# allocated…………………% of total
7/13.………………………19,204.…………………….2.21 %
7/14.………………………27,682.…………………….3.18 %
7/15.………………………31,965.…………………….3.67 %
7/16.………………………32,126.…………………….3.69 %
7/17.………………………31,542.…………………….3.63 %
7/18.……………………….3,076.……………………..0.35 %
7/19.……………………….1,124.……………………..0.13 %
7/20.………………………30,710.…………………….3.53 %
7/21.………………………86,857.…………………….9.98 %

Yep, something happened today that lit a fire under the County Treasurer’s somewhere.

R.S. Bodenhorn

R.S.B.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluebird2

Because the professional deer managers,who are a lot smarter than you clearly stated results from the study did not accurately reflect the actual harvest rates. The experts also stated that the harvests in 2G reduced the herd by 11% in 2004, 5% in 2005 and 23% in 2007. That makes the score on your theories and prediction zero for 15.

There is no question that those low doe harvest percentages don’t reflect the harvests all across the state but they most certainly do reflect the doe harvests for those study areas. What isn’t known yet is if hunters might have been passing on some of the marked does when they could see the ear tags. That question will be answered with the changes in the tags on the deer more recently marked.

But even if hunters could have doubled that harvest rate, which they most certainly couldn’t have done, they still wouldn’t have been reaching a harvest level that would be reducing a deer herd that wasn’t already suffering from extremely low recruitment rates per doe. In a normally productive deer herd you have to harvest over 30% of your doe to be even touching normal recruitment rates. When you are harvesting less then 25% of the available does and still have a declining deer herd it is because you have a habitat problem that is severally limiting normal fawn recruitment rates.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluebird2

If forest health was increasing in some areas, then the average forest health in 2G would have increased instead of decreasing. Apparently you are just making things up because the PGC data does not support your claims and opinions.

What is apparent is that you don’t have a clue what you are talking about.

Since the same plots are not evaluated every year and only evaluated once in about five years the present yearly changes in the percentage of adequate regeneration is only comparing various areas against one another. The present data can not be used in any way shape or form to determine if the total habitat for a unit, or even an area of a unit, is increasing or decreasing.
Some areas of every unit had more regeneration then other areas from the very bigging of the studies so all the data available so far has done nothing more then collect the regeneration data over a larger range of the entire unit. It will be a few more years yet before any comparisons of the same sample plots can be evaluated or compared to see if the total habitat is improving or decreasing.

At this point all that can be evaluated is the sample of the plots visited for that year which is about one fifth of all survey plots. That provides a snapshot view of the habitat as poor, fair or good but it can’t be compared as an annual comparison like you are trying to do.

R.S. Bodenhorn

Cornelius08

Oh I see. The regeneration must reach the pole stage 15 years down the line before we can make a semi-somewhat-preliminary assessment for real... Than reach the mature stage before we can be double double certainly sure. lol.

Then after 50 years and our deer herd is half what it already is now....and once we have double the hobblebush, triple the trillium and wood rats, we can allow perhaps 1.3 more deer per square mile and our problems will be no more. lol

What a crock.