What PA needs ....................
01-05-2010, 01:17 PM
#161
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
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%.
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.
01-05-2010, 01:24 PM
#162
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
You're so hell bent on complaining all the time that you often lose all reasoning and common sense.
BTW, DCNR even admits they don't know if DMAPs are effective at reducing the herd.
01-05-2010, 01:41 PM
#163
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
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.
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.
Last edited by Cornelius08; 01-05-2010 at 02:00 PM.
01-05-2010, 01:58 PM
#164
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
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.
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.
Last edited by Cornelius08; 01-05-2010 at 02:00 PM.
01-05-2010, 02:56 PM
#165
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
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.
BTW, DCNR even admits they don't know if DMAPs are effective at reducing the herd.
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.
01-05-2010, 02:58 PM
#167
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
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.
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.
I don't know what your name is.I meant to type Man.
01-05-2010, 03:00 PM
#168
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
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.
01-05-2010, 03:05 PM
#169
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
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.
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.
01-05-2010, 03:12 PM
#170
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
"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.
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.
