HOW...do we get the changes we need in PA?
12-17-2009, 09:10 AM
#11
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
"Kind of a Catch-22 situation fellas."
Naaa. Not so much.
"someone who looks at it from an objective perspective"
And who would that be?? YOU? lmao. The man who loves to post for controversy only? The guy who said hes interested in "practicing" in our forum, so you can handle supporting extreme deer reduction in your own area when it comes, as you stated its so direly needed? The guy who said his dad was senile because he didnt buy into your beliefs?
Yeah. Real objective. I seem to also remember you being not exactly against personal attacks. Ive seen more than one instance where youve lacked restraint. Usually when your arguments arent cutting the mustard, such as in discussion about states you dont live in or hunt.
So much for our out of state judge and jury.
"Factor in things such as the most recent studies which show that Pennsylvania is still in the top 5 in the nation for deer-auto collisions (albeit down from #1 prior to full implementation of herd reduction) and plenty of ordinary citizens just don't see what all the fuss is about in terms of lowering the deer population."
It doesnt have to be factored in. We had human conflict assessed, but unfortunately that didnt include them asking YOUR thoughts i guess. The assessment in many areas was low, even prior to reduction. They also had cac (stakeholder) meetings including all those effected by deer and the results were NOT requests for further decreases anywhere other than sras. Therefore in many area the reduction was not due to that factor. That didnt stop the widescale blanket reduction. You ignore many other real goals, especially the ones tht make no sense, the ones that required the BLANKET approach. We dont manage for zero car collisions. More populated areas + lots of roads are gonna have more collissions. Ridiculous excessive Biodiversity on the other hand is a stated goal of dcnr, audubon AND pgc.
" and consider compromise"
Pgc doing abolutely nothing is no compromise. I propose 20% herd increase to start with, across the board instead of the 50-100% increases some would like to see. Thats an example of an actual, real compromise and one pgc wants no part of.
Naaa. Not so much.
"someone who looks at it from an objective perspective"
And who would that be?? YOU? lmao. The man who loves to post for controversy only? The guy who said hes interested in "practicing" in our forum, so you can handle supporting extreme deer reduction in your own area when it comes, as you stated its so direly needed? The guy who said his dad was senile because he didnt buy into your beliefs?
Yeah. Real objective. I seem to also remember you being not exactly against personal attacks. Ive seen more than one instance where youve lacked restraint. Usually when your arguments arent cutting the mustard, such as in discussion about states you dont live in or hunt.
So much for our out of state judge and jury.
"Factor in things such as the most recent studies which show that Pennsylvania is still in the top 5 in the nation for deer-auto collisions (albeit down from #1 prior to full implementation of herd reduction) and plenty of ordinary citizens just don't see what all the fuss is about in terms of lowering the deer population."
It doesnt have to be factored in. We had human conflict assessed, but unfortunately that didnt include them asking YOUR thoughts i guess. The assessment in many areas was low, even prior to reduction. They also had cac (stakeholder) meetings including all those effected by deer and the results were NOT requests for further decreases anywhere other than sras. Therefore in many area the reduction was not due to that factor. That didnt stop the widescale blanket reduction. You ignore many other real goals, especially the ones tht make no sense, the ones that required the BLANKET approach. We dont manage for zero car collisions. More populated areas + lots of roads are gonna have more collissions. Ridiculous excessive Biodiversity on the other hand is a stated goal of dcnr, audubon AND pgc.
" and consider compromise"
Pgc doing abolutely nothing is no compromise. I propose 20% herd increase to start with, across the board instead of the 50-100% increases some would like to see. Thats an example of an actual, real compromise and one pgc wants no part of.
Last edited by Cornelius08; 12-17-2009 at 09:36 AM.
12-17-2009, 09:44 AM
#12
Fork Horn
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: 5a
Posts: 183
Remember the old adage "SPORT" we all learned during hunter education? Sportsman Policing Our Ranks Together. This is what we truely need. An organization that is based on this principle that would be looked upon as a reasonable representation of the million or so hunters in PA. Headed by actual sportsman that have had or currently have a voice with the PGC.
12-17-2009, 10:01 AM
#13
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
That would be a great Idea camo. But while we are waiting on some organization to step up, something we basically have no control over, Id highly suggest in the mean time, that those concerned contact our state legislators and let them know what we think. Its proven to work on other issues as well as in other states. Since hunting season is nearly over, and a jan. pgc meeting is on the way soon, now is the perfect time to make those feelings known.
Btw, anyone who'd like to voice their views in person, that January meeting would be the perfect opportunity to address pgc, if for no other reason to let them know we hunters still exist and still dont approve.
Btw, anyone who'd like to voice their views in person, that January meeting would be the perfect opportunity to address pgc, if for no other reason to let them know we hunters still exist and still dont approve.
12-17-2009, 12:07 PM
#14
Spike
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: South Central, PA
Posts: 44
Im sorry, but going to the meeting isnt going to help..IMO. People show up and complain at every meeting. You need people in authority to question the validity of management plan. I Mean REALLY question it. The only answer is legislators. Keep hounding them until they listen.
12-17-2009, 12:33 PM
#16
Fork Horn
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 297
Im sorry, but going to the meeting isnt going to help..IMO. People show up and complain at every meeting. You need people in authority to question the validity of management plan. I Mean REALLY question it. The only answer is legislators. Keep hounding them until they listen.
12-17-2009, 12:37 PM
#17
Spike
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: South Central, PA
Posts: 44
Dont get me wrong, im not saying dont go. Just dont expect anything different. No matter who listens, youre going to need a strong argument. IMO, that means arguing not only herd size/health, but economics. Regions once known to profit from hunters have turned to other forms of recreation/tourism,etc...face it, hunting is still big, and in this economy every cent counts.
12-17-2009, 01:37 PM
#18
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: PA
Posts: 1,149
Maybe a new organization needs started."Concerned deer hunters of Pennsylvania"
It has to be a bunch that has knowledge of deer,deer hunting,habitat,etc.
Some Wmu's might need changed and definately some land open to hunters needs a change in management.Less tags on SGL's?
Bring back the private land tag as a dmap system to address the overpopulated areas.
Maybe it has come to the point where a lottery system is needed on certain SGL's for doe tags.Heck I know a couple SGL's with great habitat that could stand doe season being closed for a couple of years.
What concerns me is some of the wording on the PGC website that's not hunter friendly.Having said that I heard this from a few people but didn't check it out yet myself so take that with a grain of salt.Changes are definately needed and sooner better then later.
It has to be a bunch that has knowledge of deer,deer hunting,habitat,etc.
Some Wmu's might need changed and definately some land open to hunters needs a change in management.Less tags on SGL's?
Bring back the private land tag as a dmap system to address the overpopulated areas.
Maybe it has come to the point where a lottery system is needed on certain SGL's for doe tags.Heck I know a couple SGL's with great habitat that could stand doe season being closed for a couple of years.
What concerns me is some of the wording on the PGC website that's not hunter friendly.Having said that I heard this from a few people but didn't check it out yet myself so take that with a grain of salt.Changes are definately needed and sooner better then later.
12-17-2009, 01:55 PM
#19
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Yeah, Germain, I made a post about the nonhunter friendly crap. It was the "history of deer management" page, which was the home page, at least temporarily. They are screwing around with the sight redoing it right now. Lots of old links no longer work etc. Im sure that page is still on there, but its not the home page. Spoke of hunters wanting a voice in issues as being "headaches". It also spoke of having "special interests" throughout history trying to tell them what to do and trying to get their way. Then went on and the only "special interest" group mentioned was HUNTERS!
ITs a real total crock, and once again pgc speaking well of us, but no pointing out of the "econut" arm twisting. No surprise from our current crew at pgc. I mean c'mon whoever the hell wrote that piece, you could at least hide the sentiment a bit for pr purposes!!!
ITs a real total crock, and once again pgc speaking well of us, but no pointing out of the "econut" arm twisting. No surprise from our current crew at pgc. I mean c'mon whoever the hell wrote that piece, you could at least hide the sentiment a bit for pr purposes!!!
Last edited by Cornelius08; 12-17-2009 at 02:01 PM.
12-17-2009, 02:14 PM
#20
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: PA
Posts: 1,149
Sure hunters are a special interest group.We also lead the US in money toward conservation so that makes us special.
Wonder why the bird watchers,snowmobilers,atv riders,horseback riders,anti hunters,extreme environmentalists...etc etc aren't a headache to them?
If you ask me the extreme vironmentalists are the real headache because they get stipulations on logging and other activities.Heck they practically shut logging down on the ANF.
Wonder why the bird watchers,snowmobilers,atv riders,horseback riders,anti hunters,extreme environmentalists...etc etc aren't a headache to them?
If you ask me the extreme vironmentalists are the real headache because they get stipulations on logging and other activities.Heck they practically shut logging down on the ANF.