Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Regional Forums > Northeast
What PA needs .................... >

What PA needs ....................

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

What PA needs ....................

Old 01-04-2010, 03:42 PM
  #151  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Default

What heat?I only get on the internet when I'm at work and today my secretary was out sick so I had to run the show by myself.On top of that,I got booted off for some reason and had to get a new password.I haven't really seen much to argue about Rich.I pretty much agreed with your post about the state forests.I'd love to see some groups offer to improve the habitat.Unfortunately,DCNR's hands are tied with what can be done.Around 50% of the state forests can never be cut and the rest is extremely limited.They're mandated to only cut 70 acres at a time and they can only have so many cuts within a certain distance from once another.They want the deer herd low enough so they don't have to fence and if the herd gets too high,they end up fencing off the better habitat.It's a lose lose situation for both hunters and deer.I agree that it sucks but there's nothing we can do about it and there's nothing the PGC can do about it.

If you say there's nothing being done to the SGL's in this area,I'll argue all day long about that.Some excellent groups do offer help and it shows with both better habitat and better deer numbers on the SGL's around here.There's two public browse cutting this month and next month.If you want to help,I'll gladly hook you up.I just got off the phone with a guy from the food and cover crew.He told me about a new clearcut that I want to check out.
DougE is offline  
Old 01-04-2010, 03:49 PM
  #152  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default

Based on the old deer density goals a clearcut could support 60 DPSM. But a 70 acre CC could only support 6.6 deer. Therefore, the forest surrounding a 70 acre clearcut need to be managed at less than 6.6 DPSM in order to get the regeneration DCNR wants. That is why 2g is being managed at 8 DPSM and they still aren't getting the regeneration they want.
bluebird2 is offline  
Old 01-04-2010, 04:14 PM
  #153  
Typical Buck
 
ManySpurs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 2G Gaines Pa
Posts: 524
Default

They want the deer herd low enough so they don't have to fence and if the herd gets too high,they end up fencing off the better habitat.
FENCE IT!!! It not only creates jobs, but stimulates a Green Certified Forest. Throw a tax on the GREEN CERTIFIED LUMBER for the GREENIES that want to pay top dollar for GREEN CERTIFIED LUMBER and it's a win-win situation all the way around.

FENCE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT WORKS!!!!
ManySpurs is offline  
Old 01-04-2010, 04:32 PM
  #154  
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location:
Posts: 200
Default

Originally Posted by DougE View Post
I pretty much agreed with your post about the state forests.I'd love to see some groups offer to improve the habitat.Unfortunately,DCNR's hands are tied with what can be done.Around 50% of the state forests can never be cut and the rest is extremely limited.
Originally Posted by DougE View Post
They're mandated to only cut 70 acres at a time and they can only have so many cuts within a certain distance from once another.They want the deer herd low enough so they don't have to fence and if the herd gets too high,they end up fencing off the better habitat.It's a lose lose situation for both hunters and deer.I agree that it sucks but there's nothing we can do about it and there's nothing the PGC can do about it.
Doug can you provide a link to the regulation to your statement highlighted in blue because if its law it sure isnít being followed here

As far as the game commissions hands being tied not really revoke the dmap program around here lands dmapd timbered then fenced so why dmap if in the end you fence anyhow



Originally Posted by bluebird2 View Post
RSB prefers HPA where the mods protect him and his views.


Thatís an understatement one could hardly call those PGC bootlickers moderators
bowhunter2117 is offline  
Old 01-05-2010, 07:46 AM
  #155  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Default

Originally Posted by bowhunter2117 View Post

Doug can you provide a link to the regulation to your statement highlighted in blue because if its law it sure isnít being followed here

As far as the game commissions hands being tied not really revoke the dmap program around here lands dmapd timbered then fenced so why dmap if in the end you fence anyhow





Thatís an understatement one could hardly call those PGC bootlickers moderators
Nope,I don't have a link.I'm simply going by what our district forester and a few others have told me.

I can't say why they fence every cut down your way.Around here,they've been fencing less and less because they're starting to get desired regeneration.DCNR has a far different mission than the PGC and the state forests will continue to be managed at a much lower deer density than most of us would like.
DougE is offline  
Old 01-05-2010, 07:53 AM
  #156  
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Default

"DCNR has a far different mission than the PGC"

Not true. Both mission currently place extremely high emphasis on biodiversity, and timber.

" and the state forests will continue to be managed at a much lower deer density than most of us would like."

And the gamelands & other open to hunting lands arent...or for that matter the rest of the state where hunting isnt highly restricted or off limits???

The two are in basically what amounts to a "informal" deer management partnership, and thats quite evident, and they have been at the very least ever since Shissler was giving direct input into the deer plan as pgc/dcnr liason.

The alliance isnt flaunted because pgc is SUPPOSED to be independent, but in reality are anything but. Just as with the actually stated partnerships such as the biodiversity partnership between Game, fish & boat, and dcnr...this is no different. I have little doubt that If it were possible for them to have the "access" to harvest the deer everywhere in the state as they do in stateforests, the entire state would be at a ridiculous 10 dpsm or less. Just like those stateforests in nc pa. The goals are extreme, and to reach those goals, the less deer the better. Imho, they can shove their goals.

Last edited by Cornelius08; 01-05-2010 at 08:01 AM.
Cornelius08 is offline  
Old 01-05-2010, 11:01 AM
  #157  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Default

Nope,not true at all.The game lands around here have tons of habitat improvements and the dd is no where near 8-10 dpsm on them,Not even close.Furthermore,the state forests around here all get dmap'd.Why?To lower the deer density below what the PGC would want.Ever hear of a SGL getting dmap'd?On top on that,they also get another week of rifle season for doe.That don't happen on the gamelands in this WMU.Sorry Dan but the game lands aren't managed even close to what the state forests are.
DougE is offline  
Old 01-05-2010, 11:42 AM
  #158  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: PA
Posts: 1,149
Default

Originally Posted by DougE View Post
What heat?I only get on the internet when I'm at work and today my secretary was out sick so I had to run the show by myself.On top of that,I got booted off for some reason and had to get a new password.I haven't really seen much to argue about Rich.I pretty much agreed with your post about the state forests.I'd love to see some groups offer to improve the habitat.Unfortunately,DCNR's hands are tied with what can be done.Around 50% of the state forests can never be cut and the rest is extremely limited.They're mandated to only cut 70 acres at a time and they can only have so many cuts within a certain distance from once another.They want the deer herd low enough so they don't have to fence and if the herd gets too high,they end up fencing off the better habitat.It's a lose lose situation for both hunters and deer.I agree that it sucks but there's nothing we can do about it and there's nothing the PGC can do about it.

If you say there's nothing being done to the SGL's in this area,I'll argue all day long about that.Some excellent groups do offer help and it shows with both better habitat and better deer numbers on the SGL's around here.There's two public browse cutting this month and next month.If you want to help,I'll gladly hook you up.I just got off the phone with a guy from the food and cover crew.He told me about a new clearcut that I want to check out.

There's Dougie....Hi Dougie.


I didn't say that about gamelands.Most that I've seen especially around here they do a great job.Problem is there's very very few deer on the SGL's down yonder.
As taxpayers we as hunters and other groups should have some input on habitat improvement on state forest lands.I realize the treehuggers put stipulations on cutting but that's a different story.
Don't forget now let me know when it suits to take our hike to see those good deer numbers.
Heat?Aren't you guys hot up yondy?We're in a heat wave here.
germain is offline  
Old 01-05-2010, 11:53 AM
  #159  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default

Nope,not true at all.The game lands around here have tons of habitat improvements and the dd is no where near 8-10 dpsm on them,Not even close.Furthermore,the state forests around here all get dmap'd.Why?To lower the deer density below what the PGC would want.Ever hear of a SGL getting dmap'd?On top on that,they also get another week of rifle season for doe.That don't happen on the gamelands in this WMU.Sorry Dan but the game lands aren't managed even close to what the state forests are.
There is no data to support your claim that SFL is managed at lower DDs than SGLs. No one knows if a hunter that kills a doe on SFL with a DMAP wouldn't have killed a doe in the same SFL with a regular tag. Furthermore, DMAP tags would have little if any impact if the herd in the surrounding areas hadn't been reduced. The simple fact is that DCNRs desire to get their forests recertified resulted in the statewide herd being reduced by at least 40%.
bluebird2 is offline  
Old 01-05-2010, 12:11 PM
  #160  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Default

Originally Posted by germain View Post
There's Dougie....Hi Dougie.


I didn't say that about gamelands.Most that I've seen especially around here they do a great job.Problem is there's very very few deer on the SGL's down yonder.
As taxpayers we as hunters and other groups should have some input on habitat improvement on state forest lands.I realize the treehuggers put stipulations on cutting but that's a different story.
Don't forget now let me know when it suits to take our hike to see those good deer numbers.
Heat?Aren't you guys hot up yondy?We're in a heat wave here.
Yeah,there's a flippin heat wave going on up here.I bet we have at least 12-14 inches of snow already.It seems to dump about 2 inches a day.It's just that light fluffy stuff though.
DougE is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.