View Poll Results: Has herd reduction gone too far in your area of Pa?
Voters: 88. You may not vote on this poll
Pa Hunters Poll
12-16-2009, 07:36 AM
#33
Typical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 659
I voted yes due to my experience in 5A public land. Hunted hard first week with 3 does sited between two guys. Are they around? Yep. Are they plentiful? Heck no. Talked to alot of hunters in the area that just are not seeing the deer either. Something has to be done to separate private land tags from public land tags. The farm I hunt in 5A is infested with deer.
I'll back up that, as I also hunt 5A...private land with limited hunting pressure can be VERY good. Michaux state forest is very low and pockets of deer are few and far between, even though this forest was touted duting the nineties and early 200's as being very healty in comparison to the northern forests. Blanket herdreduction...even where it was unwarranted. Only public land spot in 5A with decent numbers I know of is...well, I'll PM it if you ask me. Surprised how low the kill was up there, given the numbers I saw in archery. They get pushed very quickly into the thick stuff, and no one seemed to concerned about pushing them out. It's getting to be the only spot I still feel good about taking a doe. I think next year's 4D and even my 5B tag will be deer protection permits for me. And I'll be watching that spot in 5A closely in early fall before I decide whether to drop one. All our neighbors now in 4D, have united to ban doe hunting on their lands for 5 years. We'll see what happens, and if we can knock the 'yotes down a couple notches in the meantime. WE'll also be putting up some new sign all around our bordering properties...encompassing several hunderd acres combined...
Last edited by Screamin Steel; 12-16-2009 at 07:45 AM.
12-16-2009, 07:51 AM
#34
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Southwest Ohio
Posts: 10,277
A serious question here that is NOT intended to start an argument. Have there been any large-scale deer reduction programs anywhere and at any time that didn't end up getting a thumbs down from the majority of deer hunters? I mean to me, asking deer hunters about strategies to reduce the deer population is kind of like asking a classroom of 7th graders if they want less homework or less. The answer that the majority will give is gonna be pretty obvious....
I'm not gonna say anything else here, but would like to hear peoples' thoughts?
I'm not gonna say anything else here, but would like to hear peoples' thoughts?
12-16-2009, 08:14 AM
#35
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Of course lanse. But this is the only one to go so severe and for so long, have such a high level of hunter disgust, have the deer management leader need to wear bullet proof vests in public, have the agency sued by state sportsmens group, force audit, have fee increase being prevented, have known "unfriendlies" involved in the management.... etc. This clearly isnt just another average run o' the mill deer management issue.
You MIGHT be able to look at another state somewhere, historically and point to one or two of the "lesser" issues where their may have been a similarity or two...But nothing even close to this. This is the effect of improper management. No bones about it. The situation in Pa is extreme and nothing the likes of which has ever been seen. Most states simply dont permit it to happen, just as "shissler" found out, most states dont support nonhunter friendly issues like striving for use of birth control....Other than pa and Jersey of course, at least thats all im aware of.
Look at Wisconsin. Those guys arent even close to our situation overall, yet there are dnr employees being fired and talk of cleaning house. I think those are fine examples of appropriate actions given the circumstances.
You MIGHT be able to look at another state somewhere, historically and point to one or two of the "lesser" issues where their may have been a similarity or two...But nothing even close to this. This is the effect of improper management. No bones about it. The situation in Pa is extreme and nothing the likes of which has ever been seen. Most states simply dont permit it to happen, just as "shissler" found out, most states dont support nonhunter friendly issues like striving for use of birth control....Other than pa and Jersey of course, at least thats all im aware of.
Look at Wisconsin. Those guys arent even close to our situation overall, yet there are dnr employees being fired and talk of cleaning house. I think those are fine examples of appropriate actions given the circumstances.
Last edited by Cornelius08; 12-16-2009 at 10:50 AM.
12-16-2009, 08:35 AM
#36
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: PA
Posts: 8,167
I feel that the majority of hunters would like to see some changes made. Not all are dissatisfied, but would still like to see more deer. In past poles AR's were very popular and HR has brought about mixed responses.
I would like to see more deer, and I feel most of PA can sustain more deer, yet all I hear is the same ole same ole, get over it we will never go back to a 3 day doe season, its not gonna happen.
I feel that pushing for a buck only first week of deer would give some deer a Chance of surviving the slaughter, yet gives hunters ample time to kill a doe if they want to.
After this years deer kill numbers come in I feel there will be enough evidence to reduce antler less allocations almost across the board. that coupled with a shorter doe season could be the stepping stone in the right direction.
The deer were not killed off in a year and it will take more than a few years to get them back.
I would like to see more deer, and I feel most of PA can sustain more deer, yet all I hear is the same ole same ole, get over it we will never go back to a 3 day doe season, its not gonna happen.
I feel that pushing for a buck only first week of deer would give some deer a Chance of surviving the slaughter, yet gives hunters ample time to kill a doe if they want to.
After this years deer kill numbers come in I feel there will be enough evidence to reduce antler less allocations almost across the board. that coupled with a shorter doe season could be the stepping stone in the right direction.
The deer were not killed off in a year and it will take more than a few years to get them back.
12-16-2009, 08:49 AM
#37
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
"I feel that the majority of hunters would like to see some changes made. Not all are dissatisfied, but would still like to see more deer."
Which basically boils down to....They ARENT satisfied. Id say most arent happy to accept whats been dealt, but have absolutely no choice in the matter as far as management is concerned.
"In past poles AR's were very popular and HR has brought about mixed responses."
There has never been a legitimate poll supporting the level of hr. And mixed response is a very poor description. That could be said of any poll where 1 person or more were for it no matter how many were against. Hunters dont support it, and in fact probably support it even far less than this poll shows. At least thats been my experience and that of most whom i trust to give an unbiased legitimate opinion from other areas as well. Ive seen most support ar on polls, but hr doesnt bring "mixed results". Its simply not accepted in the levels we are experiencing. Also keep in mind even though the majority says their areas have been overly effected, Id bet many whos havent would still like to see the many areas that HAVE be addressed. Therefore the acceptance of current levels of hr would be even less accepted. Id say about 90% disapproval around these parts.
"I would like to see more deer, and I feel most of PA can sustain more deer, yet all I hear is the same ole same ole, get over it we will never go back to a 3 day doe season, its not gonna happen."
Havent heard that from me. All ive asked for is reasonable and only responsible across the board allocation reduction. All other things may be debatable, but to me, that move shouldve only been expected and common sense.
"After this years deer kill numbers come in I feel there will be enough evidence to reduce antler less allocations almost across the board. that coupled with a shorter doe season could be the stepping stone in the right direction."
Im afraid your stepping stones only lead to the path of "stay the course" "kill more deer". Perhaps you werent aware but the "study" of those few wmus was in large part to decieve hunters and even moreso, the legislators into supporting a fee increase. Any loss in doe harvest WILL be made up with increased allocation. PGC has stated such, and i have little doubt they will follow through. In fact I believe it was Pgc insider/gopher galthatfishes on the other board who stated she'd heard that currently at least 3 of the 4 wmus the harvest was down somewhat and the tags were gonna be up to make up the diff. Not that I needed anyone to tell me what was painfully obvious and stated by pgc from day one anyway. Gained from that 4 wmu pr stunt? Absolutely nothing.
"The deer were not killed off in a year and it will take more than a few years to get them back."
Not true. Its all a matter of harvest not exceeding recruitment. The more recruitment and less the harvest the faster the increase. But in case you missed it, pgc is not proposing "increase" as the goal for most of the state. And as we've come to see, when they say no increase, they mean no increase. P.R. stunts like the 4 wmu deal or no Pr stunts. And by the way, its gonna take a HELLUVA LOT longer than a few years when most of the wmus on the annual reports have show a continued DECLINING trend due to inappropriate allocations. The increases havent even been a consideration, nor will they be anytime soon if pgc is left to do as they please for the next 10 years.
Which basically boils down to....They ARENT satisfied. Id say most arent happy to accept whats been dealt, but have absolutely no choice in the matter as far as management is concerned.
"In past poles AR's were very popular and HR has brought about mixed responses."
There has never been a legitimate poll supporting the level of hr. And mixed response is a very poor description. That could be said of any poll where 1 person or more were for it no matter how many were against. Hunters dont support it, and in fact probably support it even far less than this poll shows. At least thats been my experience and that of most whom i trust to give an unbiased legitimate opinion from other areas as well. Ive seen most support ar on polls, but hr doesnt bring "mixed results". Its simply not accepted in the levels we are experiencing. Also keep in mind even though the majority says their areas have been overly effected, Id bet many whos havent would still like to see the many areas that HAVE be addressed. Therefore the acceptance of current levels of hr would be even less accepted. Id say about 90% disapproval around these parts.
"I would like to see more deer, and I feel most of PA can sustain more deer, yet all I hear is the same ole same ole, get over it we will never go back to a 3 day doe season, its not gonna happen."
Havent heard that from me. All ive asked for is reasonable and only responsible across the board allocation reduction. All other things may be debatable, but to me, that move shouldve only been expected and common sense.
"After this years deer kill numbers come in I feel there will be enough evidence to reduce antler less allocations almost across the board. that coupled with a shorter doe season could be the stepping stone in the right direction."
Im afraid your stepping stones only lead to the path of "stay the course" "kill more deer". Perhaps you werent aware but the "study" of those few wmus was in large part to decieve hunters and even moreso, the legislators into supporting a fee increase. Any loss in doe harvest WILL be made up with increased allocation. PGC has stated such, and i have little doubt they will follow through. In fact I believe it was Pgc insider/gopher galthatfishes on the other board who stated she'd heard that currently at least 3 of the 4 wmus the harvest was down somewhat and the tags were gonna be up to make up the diff. Not that I needed anyone to tell me what was painfully obvious and stated by pgc from day one anyway. Gained from that 4 wmu pr stunt? Absolutely nothing.
"The deer were not killed off in a year and it will take more than a few years to get them back."
Not true. Its all a matter of harvest not exceeding recruitment. The more recruitment and less the harvest the faster the increase. But in case you missed it, pgc is not proposing "increase" as the goal for most of the state. And as we've come to see, when they say no increase, they mean no increase. P.R. stunts like the 4 wmu deal or no Pr stunts. And by the way, its gonna take a HELLUVA LOT longer than a few years when most of the wmus on the annual reports have show a continued DECLINING trend due to inappropriate allocations. The increases havent even been a consideration, nor will they be anytime soon if pgc is left to do as they please for the next 10 years.
Last edited by Cornelius08; 12-16-2009 at 10:53 AM.
12-16-2009, 09:03 AM
#38
Typical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 659
A serious question here that is NOT intended to start an argument. Have there been any large-scale deer reduction programs anywhere and at any time that didn't end up getting a thumbs down from the majority of deer hunters? I mean to me, asking deer hunters about strategies to reduce the deer population is kind of like asking a classroom of 7th graders if they want less homework or less. The answer that the majority will give is gonna be pretty obvious....
I'm not gonna say anything else here, but would like to hear peoples' thoughts?
I'm not gonna say anything else here, but would like to hear peoples' thoughts?
12-16-2009, 09:04 AM
#39
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Btw Jim. Heres what people think of the game commission in the "real world" outside of the internet as well:
http://www.huntingnet.com/forum/nort...-issues-2.html
Local State Rep Oberlander (63rd) did a survey of local residents on their 2nd amendment views, some of the results. First is the number or percentage of those surveyed for or against a subject.
1,601/64% do not support license increase for PGC
http://www.huntingnet.com/forum/nort...-issues-2.html
Local State Rep Oberlander (63rd) did a survey of local residents on their 2nd amendment views, some of the results. First is the number or percentage of those surveyed for or against a subject.
1,601/64% do not support license increase for PGC
Last edited by Cornelius08; 12-16-2009 at 09:06 AM.
