Cornelius08

Pats, I dont believe for one moment the majority of Pennsylvanians are demanding less deer. The majority werent demanding it when we had double the overwinter herd, I seriously doubt they are now. Fact of the matter is, most couldnt care less. And whether you agree or not, its not I who am attempting to "give" a position to anyone and everyone who doesnt have one.

And as always, i may as well add again, those that do, have more tools to address less deer if they so choose,plus ANY reduction short of what we've experienced would still have been to their benefit. The "everyone wants fewer deer but the 8% who hunt" is pure nonsense and started out, where Id personally first seen it, as an audubon slogan which got perpetuated by pgc. Its nothing but a convenient excuse. And it doesnt pertain basically at all in wmus where human conflict was rated as low/acceptable levels even previously.

BTBowhunter

Other than your 27 acres, which at your beloved 40 DPSM, would support exactly 1.68 deer, you have no right to say how much of PA's timber should be saw timber. As for closing the canopy, striped maple beech etc will also eventually close the canopy. We, as hunters are 8-10% of the population. We get to hunt property owned by non hunters only because it benefits them to allow us to do so. So unless you do as many of us do and either buy your own property or cooperate with the landowners best interests, you have no right to complain about how PA lands are managed.

The sole exception to that is state game lands. As hunters who helped fund their purchase we should have a say in their management. You'd best remember,however, that without the sale of timber, gas and oil lease revenue etc etc, the PGC would only be able to keep and maintain a fraction of the game lands it now controls.

The bottom line is you are being arrocant and unrealistic about your personal expectations that others should accept having their land managed for deer densities that please you.

As Jim has said numerous times, buy your own land and manage it for deer to your hearts desire.

bluebird2

I have just as much right as anyone else to comment on how much of PA forests should be in saw timber. It is an established fact that the extensive timbering in the past created large areas of even aged forests which reduce the biodiversity of the habitat and the deer didn't cause it,man did.

Are the members of hunting clubs that own a couple of SM of forest also being arrogant and unrealistic,when they complain about the negative effect HR has had on their hunting?

Cornelius08

" We, as hunters are 8-10% of the population."

Of course you can do as you like, but as a hunter, I dont think it a "good thing" to keep using audubon slogans which are meaningless anyway. We have far more than 8-10% who support our views. Id bet the majority of Pennsylvanians. Multiply the number of hunters by the average number of family & friends who dont hunt, yet support their views. While i dont agree with pgc supporting position currently, there are much better arguments than the one above. Id very much like to see the results of a state poll asking do you think deer numbers should be kept at reasonable levels so that the management tool of hunting remains efficient and the longstanding tradition remains strong? And on another poll ask do you think deer should be kept at minimums so we can have an overabundance of trillium and hobblebush. Check answer yes, no, or I dont care.

"We get to hunt property owned by non hunters only because it benefits them to allow us to do so."

Not necessarily the case. I hunt, and know of other that hunt where the landowner couldnt care less if anyone hunted or not. Hardly seeking any benefit. Alot dont understand the "benefits" and alot dont care to understand. Then im sure there are some that understand, yet still dont care. Some just allow others to use their land out of kindness, and no alterior motives.

"The sole exception to that is state game lands. "

I disagree completely. Even if there was absolutely no benefit or detriment to hunting...if it were a complete nonissue, we'd still expect to be permitted to hunt stateforest land. It belongs to the people of the state and hunters are people of the commonwealth. Just like the hikers, mountain bikers, bird watchers etc. thats im sure would also expect to be permitted to use them.

"As hunters who helped fund their purchase we should have a say in their management. You'd best remember,however, that without the sale of timber, gas and oil lease revenue etc etc, the PGC would only be able to keep and maintain a fraction of the game lands it now controls. "

And that money being obtained from lands we funded speaks for itself. Thats part of the "bargain".

"The bottom line is you are being arrocant and unrealistic about your personal expectations that others should accept having their land managed for deer densities that please you."

I could be mistaken, but i dont believe bb was doing any of that, because i dont think he was asking for 40 dpsm in the worst areas of the state, he was simply stating it not an impossibility from a cc view....just making a point. And a valid one.

"As Jim has said numerous times, buy your own land and manage it for deer to your hearts desire. "

And this has been the response every time, and a very valid one; thats no replacement for poor statewide management, and pgc gets no free pass with our 70+ million a year. Some responsible management is still expected.

BTBowhunter

You can comment ll you want. But it holds as much water as me commenting about how you landscape your yard.

Of course some of the conditon of our habitat is man made. That doesnt change the fact that it's the landowners right, not yours, to ultimatedecide how anything other than your 27 acres gets managed. You simply have to accept that the other 90+% of PA's population doesnt want the deer managed just to suit you.

A couple of SM is enough for them to have their own management plan working for them. Beyond that, their best route is to work with the neighbors who they find to be cooperative and manage their land to pull the deer away from borders with those who arent.

BTBowhunter

The 8-10% number is a simple fact not an Audubon talking point.

As for those landowners who "don't care" (few as they probably are) you may have potential allies. If they don't care, maybe you could convince them to clearcut their ground, post against most hunting and let it grow up in striped maple, beech etc and support 40 DPSM

You already have the right to hunt the majority of non PGC owned state lands. In fact you're welcomed and encouraged to do so and to help in many of those by utilizing DMAP. You even have a say in how it's managed. What you don't have the right to do is to demand that it be managed solely according to your whims. You also dont have the right to claim to speak for all hunters. You do have every right to speak for yourself.

If you're claiming mismanagement of the SGL's, what would you do differently and how would you fund it for the long term?

Cornelius08

"The 8-10% number is a simple fact not an Audubon talking point."

It most certainly is a talking point and its a fact, but one of absolutely no significance in the context its attempting to be used. Alot of conclusions are incorrectly being drawn upon that number. I also see absolutely no good that can come of us minimizing our own voice. Btw, that is also a strong talking point of antihunter organizations. Its meant to minimize our importance as well.

"As for those landowners who "don't care" (few as they probably are)"

You make alot of assumptions. You assume thats true, then to top it off you assume those that do want to benefit by permitting hunters on their land want things just as pgc has dictated. Im not buying into it. We also had human conflict assessments near the beginning of this program and many areas were not rated as "high". SO that alone shoots holes in the argument of killing deer because landowners all think it should be as it is currently to a "T".

"you may have potential allies. If they don't care, maybe you could convince them to clearcut their ground, post against most hunting and let it grow up in striped maple, beech etc and support 40 DPSM"

I really dont know what to tell you. Theres not one wmu even close to an average of 40 ow dpsm, and Beech is far from a predominant species in my area. Striped maple isnt exacly in plague proportions either.

"You already have the right to hunt the majority of non PGC owned state lands. In fact you're welcomed and encouraged to do so and to help in many of those by utilizing DMAP. You even have a say in how it's managed. What you don't have the right to do is to demand that it be managed solely according to your whims. You also dont have the right to claim to speak for all hunters. You do have every right to speak for yourself."

I agree with all. And thats all i see anyone doing. I have VERY rarely hunted stateforest lands in a couple of areas of the state and the issue doesnt effect me overly, but just stating what i think is right and wrong where thats concerned.

"If you're claiming mismanagement of the SGL's, what would you do differently and how would you fund it for the long term?"

First, Im not limiting it to gamelands, its a widespread issue as i see it. You have the same deal on private lands open to hunting as you do on the public lands as well. As for the gamelands, thats a complex issue. 1st and foremost, overall statewide management needs to be tweaked. Until we "go there" its useless to talk further on other topics of funding etc. imho. When pgc gets a fee increase they'll have money, and plenty of it. There are also gonna be having additional funding to top that off with the Marcellus deal. Not saying thats gonna make them billionarres, but its a decent chunk of change they wouldnt have had otherwise. There is also always timber to cut, and its been claimed they many years dont even cut their goal of 1%. Cut the 1% at the least. They also shouldnt need to hold over so much cash in the "rainy day" or "avoid compliance with responsible management" funds. Aside from that, there are habitat management crews. Not sure exactly what it is they do, but know they get paid to improve habitat. Seems to me, even minimal numbers of those workers should be able to accomplish a helluva lot in an entire years time working 7 days a week! They are already being paid to do so, and much of the equipment is already in hand so the only cost would be in supplies etc. Lets face it, how much does tons of lime cost? not much. How about seed? again not much. Plant very low maintanence long term species like trefoil, etc. More fruit trees like apple and persimmon. Do you know how cheap they are to grow?? They have a nursery for cryin' out loud! lol. How about other varieties of shrub etc. Very good one, select cuts. You could right a darn book on the possibilities.

bluebird2

I haven't told anyone how to manage their land, including the PGC, DCNR or private land owners. I am talking about managing the deer herd rather than managing individual properties.

That is what the members of the club thought the first few years of HR. But what they found is that the massive HR in the surrounding SFL also resulted in a dramatic decrease in their herd ,even though they never hammered their doe herd. The property has been managed for deer ,not timber for over 50 years, they have numerous food plots and they also do winter feeding and their herd still crashed. Now they pay $700 a year in dues and their hunting isn't much better than on public land.

glew22

Well that's your opinion of the QDMA, and im sorry you feel that way. I suggest getting the magazine. You won't find big buck stories or "how to's," but you will find biology and management. Management will encompass herd management, habitat management, and hunter management. All I'm asking is that you try it for a year. The magazing is well worth the 25$ membership.

Now to your post. I haven't seen the stat suggesting 6 dpsm but that is the funniest thing I've ever heard. How can that even be suggested? There are so many freakin deer down here it would take several US drone strikes to get it to that point. I conducted a trail camera census in august and photographed 83 deer on a 250 acre property. Only 25 of those were bucks. After running cameras throughout the season, I now have 55 individual bucks, suggesting the census underestimated the population. The problem is that these deer have adapted to suburban living, and fully understand the safest place is close to the houses. I assure you, however, I am doing everything in my power to reduce the herd.

For clarification, the reason QDM supported the PGC with AR's and increased doe harvest was because the majority of the state was overpopulated due to the traditional deer hunting that persisted through the 1900s, and because we were shooting over 80% of our yearling bucks anually. The AR's did what they were intended, protect 50% of the yearling bucks. QDMA would rather see a spread restriction, or better yet, an age restriction implemented because they are more biologically sound management techniques. On a state level, however, you have to take what you can get, thus, antler restictions.

For the record, I've never hunted a box blind, never hunted a food plot, and never saw 40 deer in one hunt in that imaginary food plot. Great generalization though!!!!!!! You know what they say about assuming....

"anything to fill up the wall faster and make it easier to bag big bucks with regularity" Man, guess I shoulda never gotten into QDM then. Since I started practicing it in 06 I've only killed 1 buck. So much for regularity.

"Talk all about forest health, when it isn't even a mute consideration on your QDM lands." Uh ohh, here we go with the assumptions again. You're right, I never do in depth habitat analyses on my "QDM lands." I never catalog and inventory timber on those lands, I certainly don't asses the regeneration under those hardwood stands, and I would never ever ever consider improving forest health when putting forth a management plan on my "QDM lands". PS: there's a little sarcasm present.

My question to you is this...What entitles you to see 40 deer a day on public ground? Should there be no say given to the forestry community, the habitat itself, or the wildlife that suffer as a result of overpopulated deer herds? I guess you're right, us QDMA hypocrites dont give a darn about the habitat, you seem to be on a much better course.

glew22

We're not talking about total forest acreage. We're talking about the regeneration present within mature stands of timber. Almost every piece of public land I've stepped foot in noth and central PA (more than you would think), there has been almost NO regeneration whatsoever.