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, 12:11 PM
  #111  
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Default

Both.

I know for sure, that according to pgc, previously 75 to some years as high as 80% of all bucks were harvested, so the 80% of the yearlings having been harvested would fit in with that.

And they stated of that harvest as high as 80% of the entire harvest had been yearlings.

So in the area of 80% i believe, would be fairly accurate in regards to both statements.

Last edited by Cornelius08; 12-24-2009 at 12:34 PM.
Cornelius08 is offline  
Old 12-24-2009, 12:45 PM
  #112  
Typical Buck
 
ManySpurs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 2G Gaines Pa
Posts: 524
Default

Thanks Corrnelius
ManySpurs is offline  
Old 12-24-2009, 12:59 PM
  #113  
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Default

......................
Cornelius08 is offline  
Old 12-24-2009, 03:04 PM
  #114  
Typical Buck
 
glew22's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: SE PA
Posts: 657
Default

Originally Posted by ManySpurs
Somebody straighten me out please.....did we shoot 80% of the yearling bucks each year? Or.....was the buck harvest made up of 80% yearling bucks?
We were shooting 80% of our yearling bucks every year. Meaning 8 out of every 10 bucks never made it to their 2nd birthday.
glew22 is offline  
Old 12-24-2009, 03:15 PM
  #115  
Typical Buck
 
glew22's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: SE PA
Posts: 657
Default

Originally Posted by bluebird2
Furthermore, shooting 80% of our 1.5 buck had no negative effect on genetics or the health of the herd.
As far as I'm concerned this conversation is done. You have no idea what you talking about and suggesting. I feel bad for the people who have read this post and been mislead by it. For those people, please check the bowhunting forum, I will be creating a series of threads that focus on herd health. For you to suggest that removing 80% of the male segment of the population before their 2nd birthday would have no herd health effects makes me question everything else you've claimed. It's incorrect, misleading, assanine, and points to an incompetent thought process.
glew22 is offline  
Old 12-24-2009, 04:19 PM
  #116  
Typical Buck
 
ManySpurs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 2G Gaines Pa
Posts: 524
Default

For those people, please check the bowhunting forum, I will be creating a series of threads that focus on herd health.
Thanks. But no thanks. I was a QDMA member for 2 years when I belonged to a lease in 2003/2004. Same as on public land, I experienced the pitfalls of harvesting more does then needed.

I was perfectly content when we harvested 80% of the available 18 month old bucks and herd health was good.

Last edited by ManySpurs; 12-24-2009 at 04:41 PM.
ManySpurs is offline  
Old 12-24-2009, 05:18 PM
  #117  
Typical Buck
 
glew22's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: SE PA
Posts: 657
Default

Originally Posted by ManySpurs
herd health was good.
Doubt it. You can't claim herd health was good when you don't know what herd health is. In your eyes the herd may have been healthy, but that dosen't mean it was by definition.
glew22 is offline  
Old 12-24-2009, 07:01 PM
  #118  
Typical Buck
 
glew22's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: SE PA
Posts: 657
Default

Originally Posted by ManySpurs
I was perfectly content when we harvested 80% of the available 18 month old bucks
To each his own. All that matters is we enjoy hunting.
glew22 is offline  
Old 12-24-2009, 07:17 PM
  #119  
Nontypical Buck
 
J Pike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: York, PA.
Posts: 1,313
Default

Originally Posted by glew22
As far as I'm concerned this conversation is done. You have no idea what you talking about and suggesting. I feel bad for the people who have read this post and been mislead by it. For those people, please check the bowhunting forum, I will be creating a series of threads that focus on herd health. For you to suggest that removing 80% of the male segment of the population before their 2nd birthday would have no herd health effects makes me question everything else you've claimed. It's incorrect, misleading, assanine, and points to an incompetent thought process.
glew the only problem is that we did not harvest 80% of our 1.5 year old bucks during any year. If you believe the PGC. #'s what do you think our buck to doe ratio was prior to AR? Pike
J Pike is offline  
Old 12-25-2009, 05:10 AM
  #120  
Typical Buck
 
ManySpurs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 2G Gaines Pa
Posts: 524
Default

Originally Posted by glew22
All that matters is we enjoy hunting.
You are slow to catch on aren't you? There are many, including myself, that are finding much less enjoyment in hunting due to overharvest and lack of deer. And it's happening in each and every state that has embraced the pitfalls of this modern day half arsed deer management. It's happened here, it's happened in Wisconsin, and Minnesota is next on the list. Guys like me, and we ARE in the majority, don't expect a deer behind each tree. We don't expect to see deer every time we hit the woods. We don't expect to see 40-50 deer a day. And we don't expect to walk 100 yards off the road to our favorite stump and kill a deer at 7:20am on opening day. What we DO expect, is a management plan that includes our interests along with all the other stakeholders interest. What we DO expect, is the tweaking we were promised when we were duped into supporting this failed deer management plan from the beginning. What we DO expect, is the realization from PGC biologists that we went far beyond the 50% reduction over a 10 year period and we want the adjustments made to help rectify the mistake. What we DO expect, is an Executive Director, when questioned by the HGFC concerning deer numbers to low to get kids interested in hunting, is to not suggest hunting squirrels instead of deer.

Now you may think that you are trying to impress one of those 2 day wonders that some of you people so eloquently speak of. That's not the case. Guys on this board know that I'm no slouch when it comes to getting around the Tioga State Forest, SGL 208 and parts of SGL 64. I have the time to devote and I see what's growing, and I see what's not growing. You may think that you are the only guy with trailcams out in your area of operations. You are not. My 3 trailcams verify what my eyes are seeing, and that is very few deer with very little gain in the regeneration department. And just about the time we think we see light at the end of the tunnel in the form of fawns born to the few does that exist, we get the door slammed shut on us by a disappearance of fawns by the end of August thanks to a bear management plan that is still in the Dark Ages. In other words, this deer management program is nothing more than a mad experiment gone wild that has failed. Period. And just for the record, I'm even running into more WCOs each season that totally agree with what the majority of us hunters are seeing. Supposedly we are in a "stabilization" mode. That's impossibe with no fawn recruitment and doe allocations remaining the same. We are losing ground each and every time an adult buck or doe gets taken out.

Now.....here's another newsflash....here in Tioga County, we were shooting prime, mature, healthy bucks long before some money grabbing seed selling entrepreneur discovered that he could dupe people into buying his products with a sales pitch called QDMA. For those in these parts that refused to pull the trigger on lesser bucks prior to the Alt Brainwashing Experiment, there were rewards at the end of the rainbow in the form of healthy, mature bucks that actually went into the winter with fat on their backs because they didn't have to cruise for mile after mile in search of estrous does. You look at the handful of mature, healthy bucks that are taken these days, and they are run ragged because they are cruising so much more and farther in search of estrous does.

So save the Dr Feel Good philosophy about "all that's important is that we are enjoying hunting", because many of us are not because we are busting our arses with very little return on the investment.

Last edited by ManySpurs; 12-25-2009 at 06:21 AM.
ManySpurs 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.