What PA needs ....................
#171
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262

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.
You just made that up. I have never made that claim!! You really are getting desperate.
I didn't make that up.In fact it's one of the few things I've agreed with you about.It takes a smaller harvest to maintain or reduce a smaller herd.It's simple common sense.If the PGC cut out all doe hunting in 2G,DCNR would simply expand and increase dmap.Why?Because they're managing the state forests for a much lower dd than the SGL's.I don't see how anyone could deny that.
#172
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879

If the PGC cut out all doe hunting in 2G,DCNR would simply expand and increase dmap.Why?Because they're managing the state forests for a much lower dd than the SGL's.I don't see how anyone could deny that.
Did the FLIR survey support your claim that SFL is managed at a much lower DDs than SFL?
#173
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262

"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.
#174
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879

here is the link to the FLIR Study results.
http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/FORESTRY/deer/D13.aspx
Please note that the DD on SGLs 14 was lower than on the Elk SFL, by a significant margin.
http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/FORESTRY/deer/D13.aspx
Please note that the DD on SGLs 14 was lower than on the Elk SFL, by a significant margin.
#180
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879

Is that one of the famous biologists you found that support the Pa DMP? If so,what did he have to say in support of the plan?
I looked for comments supporting the current plan and found most supported managing the herd based on the carrying capacity of the habitat with a 1:2 B/D ratio ,which is what the old plan was based on.
I looked for comments supporting the current plan and found most supported managing the herd based on the carrying capacity of the habitat with a 1:2 B/D ratio ,which is what the old plan was based on.