DougE

The state forests are absolutely positively being managed at lower deer densities.Only a clown would deny that.They're saturated with thousands of extra tags and in many cases,longer seasons.Why do you think the dmap'd areas can still have a two week doe season in the WMU's that have a shortened doe season?Because DCNR wants less deer.You're so hell bent on complaining all the time that you often lose all reasoning and common sense.

I haven't even applied for a 2G tag in the past few years.Why?because I can get dmap tags to use on the state forests.Other people think the same way because they sell out very awefully fast around here.

bluebird2

So please tell us all knowing one, what percentage of SFL is DMAPPED? How is the herd controlled on the remaining SFL? How much has the herd on SFL been reduced in compared to SGLs and please provide the data that supports your claim.

BTW, DCNR even admits they don't know if DMAPs are effective at reducing the herd.

Cornelius08

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.

Gamelands arent as vast as stateforest and make up a much smaller land mass overall, and would hold fewer inaccessable "remote" areas generally speaking. They get just as much hunting pressure, dmap or no dmap. Many also hold similar deer densities as nearby sf. The flyovers i believe confirmed that for the mostpart.

Dan? Is that my name? Funny, but I dont remember saying that.

Cornelius08

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry...sults2008.aspx


Stateforests had a reported harvest of 2434 deer thanks to dmap in 2008. Thats on 814,717 acreas. lol. Hardly meaningful.

State parks you can throw in 283. From 103,599 acres!

Thats hardly gonna convince anyone dmap makes harvest so much more thorough on sf than gl, or that they are managed much differently these days. Both for the most part hold pathetic deer densities. Generally speaking.

DougE

That's funny,you've been claiming for years that it takes a very low harvest to have an effect on a herd as small as most state forests have.

The point is,the state forests are saturated with many more thousands of tags for one reason,to reduce the herd lower than other areas of the state.That's the whole purpose of dmap.Therefore,it doesn't take a brainiac to conclude that more tags and longer seasons for specific areas mean that those areas are being managed for less deer.

germain

That sucks Doug,we're supposed to come up for a grouse hunt this weekend.I'm not crazy about walking in a foot of snow.

DougE

You obviously have little to no experience hunting the game lands of the northern tier.

I don't know what your name is.I meant to type Man.

DougE

It'll be worse by the weekend.We're getting a steady inch or two a day.It's not that bad though.It's that real light fluffy stuff.Some of the state forest roads are a mess though.They're solid glare ice with several inches of that light snow on top.If you come up,I'd bring some chains.

bluebird2

It is perfectly obvious that the DCNR is attempting to manage those areas for less deer. It is also perfectly obvious that DMAP tags would have no impact if the entire herd had not been reduced. The harvest rate in DMAP areas has been less than 2 DPSM of DMAP land over the past 3 years. That rate of harvest would have been less than recruitment so the herd would have increased.

You just made that up. I have never made that claim!! You really are getting desperate.

Cornelius08

"You obviously have little to no experience hunting the game lands of the northern tier."

No i dont doug. But I have seen pgcs stats concerning the area, the dmap info from dcnr such as the info on the link i posted, the flyover results, and aside from those, I wouldnt imagine the gamelands up there would hold higher deer densities than other areas of the state where I have hunted, and the densities on those i have hunted have not been high by any stretch of the imagination, and all indications show that the areas spoken of are lower yet given that area of the state has the lowest overall dd.