Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Regional Forums > Northeast
HOW...do we get the changes we need in PA? >

HOW...do we get the changes we need in PA?

Northeast ME, NH, VT, NY, CT, RI, MA, PA, DE, WV, MD, NJ Remember, the Regional forums are for hunting topics only.

HOW...do we get the changes we need in PA?

Old 12-24-2009, 04:09 AM
  #91  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default

It absolutely does. Can exton support 100 dpsm? No, it can't support any. Can the suburbs 4 miles away? No, but they can support a lot more the the several square miles of concrete right next door. Attaching one number for dpsm over such a large, diverse, and fragmented landscape (wmu 5c) is simply not a good idea. Hence, smaller scale.
The PGC claims they are no longer managing the herd based on deer density, so the average number of DPSM is not the issue. Even at the township level conditions can vary significantly in a relative short distance ,so smaller units will not solve the problem, since the PGC wanted a lot less deer across the entire state.
What are you talking about. I never once said I'm not familiar with the the stages of forest succession. I said I am not familiar with the terms you used. I've taken several courses in my education that cover succession. So how about "he" drops his condescending tone, and gets "his" facts straight, then hopefully something productive will come out of the conversation.
What terms do you use to identify the various stages of forest succession and how much browse does each stage provide for the deer? By admitting you were not familiar with terms pole and saw timber, you admitted you haven't been reading the Annual Wildlife Reports and that you have a limited knowledge of how our herd was managed prior to 2000.
bluebird2 is offline  
Old 12-24-2009, 05:03 AM
  #92  
Typical Buck
 
4evrhtn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central PA
Posts: 829
Default

I have thought about this over many hours of sitting in the Pa woods and not seeing deer. A compromise has to be made by the Game Commission and history has shown they choose to be reluctant or "rigid" to make any sacrifices that impact them immediately and directly. They depend on the sale of the antlerless tags to make up a high percentage of their earnings therefore they are not willing to reduce those allocations because it directly and immediately impacts their revenue. In the western part of the state the deer herd is much higher in numbers than in the central and eastern portion of the state.
My idea is this.... Make certain WMU's in the those areas where deer have been decimated Archery/muzzleloader only for an unset number of years, possibly on a rotation cycle-2 years- archery, 3rd year rifle can be allowed if herd numbers reach a healthy level for the deer and habitat and while the rifle is allowed make an adjoining wmu archery only. The blanketed HR program has gone too far and unless you hunt or live in "rural" central Pa you may not see the situation for what it is.

By making certain wmu's archery only the Pagc will still be able to sell their doe tags and make money offthe archery tags that will be sold. Some hunters may give up hunting but they are already are decreasing steadily due to lack of game to hunt. And if the Pagc shows a sincere effort to increase the quality of the Pa hunting experience I believe most will be understanding and supportive of the change, If they are not and they are going to stop buying licenses they are the the exact same people who are not going to be hunting for long in our state anyway. Sacrifices have to be made by everyone. As far as the habitat/timbering/ browsing issue- There are private lands all over Pa being timbered under a "Stewardship" program. They harvest the low money woods while leaving the mast bearing hardwoods that the animals rely the most upon. The PAGC harvest all the high end hardwoods and leave the junk wood that has lownutritional benefit to the wildlife thus depending on the new browse to sustain the wildlife. And then they crucify deer for overbrowsing on the only food source available to them. Duh!
4evrhtn is offline  
Old 12-24-2009, 05:09 AM
  #93  
Spike
 
Pahick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: South Central, PA
Posts: 44
Default

Originally Posted by glew22
I have a good working knowledge of the stages of forest succession.

If youre not familiar with the terms saw and pole, which you readily admit, I highly doubt your claims. 2G is not the barren wasteland most proclaim. Logging is the lifeblood of the NC region, and has been for generations. Regeneration is only a problem where lack of quality forest management exists. Plenty of private and public tracts doing well. DCNR has a habit of blowing things well out of proportion(state park closings,etc..) and given the reins, we are in the position we are today. Using deer numbers as an excuse for bad forestry practices shouldnt be tolerated. But DCNR's been given a free ride. And our deer herd is being used as a test bed. If youre ok with that, great. Im not.
Pahick is offline  
Old 12-24-2009, 05:24 AM
  #94  
Giant Nontypical
 
BTBowhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
Default

Originally Posted by bluebird2
It has nothing to do with managing the herd on a smaller scale. The habitat in all of 5C and 5B can support over 100 DPSM. WMU 2g can support more than 30 DPSM yet it is being managed at 8 or 9 DPSM ,even though the goal for 2G in 2003 was 15 DPSM.


100 DPSM? All of 5C and 5B?

And just how is that possible? You are in essence suggesting that two entire WMU's become nothing more than deer farms. Once again, you obviously have an unrealistic one track mind when it comes to deer numbers and a complete disregard for the landowners interests.

30 DPSM in 2G? You won't even admit how long it's been since you hunted or spent any time there. You have no clue what 2G can support yet you criticize those who do.
BTBowhunter is offline  
Old 12-24-2009, 06:09 AM
  #95  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Default

I don't think there's any doubt that many areas of 2G can support 30 dpsm for periods of time.In fact,I know areas in 2G that probably have that many deer now.Can the entire unit support an average of 30 dpsm?It probably could as long as we continue to have mild winters.The deer will be able survive but the habitat would continue to spiral downwards like it was doing for the past 20 years.That's not good for the deer,other wildflife or for the generation of people that depend on a renewable forest for their livlihood.
DougE is offline  
Old 12-24-2009, 06:37 AM
  #96  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default

nd just how is that possible? You are in essence suggesting that two entire WMU's become nothing more than deer farms. Once again, you obviously have an unrealistic one track mind when it comes to deer numbers and a complete disregard for the landowners interests.
I said the habitat in 5C and 5B could support 100 DPSM, I didn't say or imply those units should be managed at 100 DPSM.

30 DPSM in 2G? You won't even admit how long it's been since you hunted or spent any time there. You have no clue what 2G can support yet you criticize those who do.
I am basing my position on the history of our herd and it is a proven fact that the habitat in 2G supported 40 DPSM during the 70's and that was after being over browsed since the 30s. Even the most recent studies by DeCalasta and Stout show that the habitat in 2G can support around 40 DPSM at the MSY CC.

So are the PGC biologists right or are the deer right. RSB always said we should listen to the deer, but the PGC is ignoring what they are saying.
bluebird2 is offline  
Old 12-24-2009, 07:26 AM
  #97  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Default

Originally Posted by Pahick
If youre not familiar with the terms saw and pole, which you readily admit, I highly doubt your claims. 2G is not the barren wasteland most proclaim. Logging is the lifeblood of the NC region, and has been for generations. Regeneration is only a problem where lack of quality forest management exists. Plenty of private and public tracts doing well. DCNR has a habit of blowing things well out of proportion(state park closings,etc..) and given the reins, we are in the position we are today. Using deer numbers as an excuse for bad forestry practices shouldnt be tolerated. But DCNR's been given a free ride. And our deer herd is being used as a test bed. If youre ok with that, great. Im not.


Both the PGC and DCNR know exactly what they're doing when it comes to sustainable foresty practices.While some private timber companies do a good job,most of what I see being cut on private property is being done out of greed by highgrading.
DougE is offline  
Old 12-24-2009, 07:47 AM
  #98  
Giant Nontypical
 
bawanajim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: PA
Posts: 8,167
Default

Doug, you are right about the high grading, after a couple of select cuts have been done most wood lots are a maple haven with little or no oak, or cherry left.

The 1% cutting is complete B.S. no one in the real world would ever accept those as goals and as ridiculously low as they are they are still seldom met.
If the timber prices are low as they are now spend the time cutting low quality and pulp woods until the prices once again rise.
bawanajim is offline  
Old 12-24-2009, 08:27 AM
  #99  
Spike
 
Pahick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: South Central, PA
Posts: 44
Default

Originally Posted by DougE
Both the PGC and DCNR know exactly what they're doing when it comes to sustainable foresty practices.While some private timber companies do a good job,most of what I see being cut on private property is being done out of greed by highgrading.

I agree, but lets not kid ourselves. If you think our state lands have been managed more for wildlife/forestry over politics/finance over the years we'll have to disagree.
Pahick is offline  
Old 12-24-2009, 08:39 AM
  #100  
Typical Buck
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Carbon County Pa.
Posts: 601
Default

Originally Posted by bluebird2
The habitat in all of 5C and 5B can support over 100 DPSM.
I would bet the local autobody shops would love to see 100 DPSM.
pats102862 is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.