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 01-06-2010, 04:02 AM
  #181  
Typical Buck
 
Screamin Steel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 659
Default

Now, carrying capacity isn't even a mute consideration. Only forest regeneration and human conflict. It was funny when Glew went off about writing the PGC and crying foul for the herd being managed below the CC....especially as a DMP supporter and MR QDM expert.....yet he didn't even know the pillars of the very plan he supported! BB....do you know of any other states where CC has been eliminated from their deer management plan entirely?
Screamin Steel is offline  
Old 01-06-2010, 04:04 AM
  #182  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Moravia NY USA
Posts: 2,164
Default What PA needs

- is another 8 or 10 threads on several forums running 150 plus posts by a doz or less people saying the same thing over and over and over. Then everything will be fine.
SteveBNy is offline  
Old 01-06-2010, 04:57 AM
  #183  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default

Originally Posted by Screamin Steel
Now, carrying capacity isn't even a mute consideration. Only forest regeneration and human conflict. It was funny when Glew went off about writing the PGC and crying foul for the herd being managed below the CC....especially as a DMP supporter and MR QDM expert.....yet he didn't even know the pillars of the very plan he supported! BB....do you know of any other states where CC has been eliminated from their deer management plan entirely?
I don't know of any other state that ignores the CC of the habitat as a factor in managing their herd, just like I don't know of any other state that is proud of the fact that they don't know how many deer they have or how many deer various habitat types can support.
bluebird2 is offline  
Old 01-06-2010, 05:22 AM
  #184  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Default

Originally Posted by bluebird2
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.
I never hunted either one of those SGL
s but I do hunt ELK state forest.In fact,I spend quite a bit of time there during the summer.Elk state forest is far from void of deer.In fact,it has some excellent hunting.It also has huge areas of very poor habitat with very few deer.Concentrate on areas with food and cover and you'll find deer.I've had more than one day over the past 4 years when I had more than 20 deer in one group come by me.This past year,I was riding my horse on a scouting mission there and saw a group that had over 30 in it.Also,I've only ever seen one other hunter actually in the woods but admitidly,I have never hunted the first day there.I didn't hunt it this year because I RAN OUT OF TIME.I did hunt it last year on the last day of the season.I saw 11 deer including one buck,harvested a doe and was back to my truck by 10:00 am.There was snow on the ground up there since the beginning of novemeber and I never saw another bootprint.
DougE is offline  
Old 01-06-2010, 05:35 AM
  #185  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default

That's a nice story but it doesn't change the fact that I proved your DMAP theory was flawed. The SGLs are being managed at the same or even lower DDs than SFL.
bluebird2 is offline  
Old 01-06-2010, 06:02 AM
  #186  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Default

You didn't prove anything by posting the FLIR results for two small and remote SGL's.
DougE is offline  
Old 01-06-2010, 08:12 AM
  #187  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default

That is your opinion and just like all your other opinions you can't support it with facts. If the DMAP permits were as effective as you claim they are, the herd in the portion of Elk Forest that were surveyed should have been much lower than on the SGLs ,which you claimed are managed at much higher DDs than SFL.

How many SMs of SFL and SGL did you survey after hunting season last year? Are your observations more reliable than the results of the FLIR surveys that were conducted by professionals?

Last edited by bluebird2; 01-06-2010 at 08:42 AM.
bluebird2 is offline  
Old 01-06-2010, 09:20 AM
  #188  
Giant Nontypical
 
BTBowhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
Default

Originally Posted by bluebird2
Are your observations more reliable than the results of the FLIR surveys that were conducted by professionals?

This particular quote may prove quite handy. By taking out the two words FLIR surveys we could insert dozens of other results conducted by the professionals called into question by the bird.

Thanks BB for reinforcing the idea that we should generally regard the results of the professionals as more reliable.

As for the idea that DMAP properties are being managed with a goal of lower deer densities, of course they are. One only has to look at the forested DMAP units next to SGL's. Similar habitat right next to SGL's that have an EXTRA Antlerless tag for every 50 acres is obviously being managed with the intent for lower deer densities than the adjoining SGL. And as Doug said, I don't belive that any SGL has been DMAPed thus far.
BTBowhunter is offline  
Old 01-06-2010, 11:59 AM
  #189  
Typical Buck
 
ManySpurs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 2G Gaines Pa
Posts: 524
Default

Originally Posted by Screamin Steel
Now, carrying capacity isn't even a mute consideration. Only forest regeneration and human conflict. It was funny when Glew went off about writing the PGC and crying foul for the herd being managed below the CC....especially as a DMP supporter and MR QDM expert..?
Then he went on to say that he seen how well the fences were working and how terribly stressed the regeneration was on the outside of the fences.

Guy made no sense. And neither did the HPA QDMA habitat warrior that couldn't tell the difference between porcupine scat and deer scat in a hemlock wintering grounds. Then to top it all off, an individual with a supposed degree in wildlife biology professed to finding tons of deer pellets during a March pellet counting foray.

"LOOK!" he said.
"This place is loaded with deer!"

Sure did deflate his sails when I explained to him that the snow and ice, which had been laying since the previous November, had preserved the droppings of maybe 3 deer that had wintered in those hemlocks. I knew it because I WATCHED 'EM ALL WINTER LONG!

I'm telling ya.....these people scare me as much as the folks that came up with the Cloward-Piven Strategy. They are every bit as dangerous.
ManySpurs is offline  
Old 01-06-2010, 12:22 PM
  #190  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default

As for the idea that DMAP properties are being managed with a goal of lower deer densities, of course they are.
I agree DCNRs goal is to manage SFL at the lowest DDs possible. But, the question remains as to whether that goal has effectively reduced DDs on SFL below those on SGLs. If you would have looked at the link you would see that the DMAP area of Elk SF had higher DDs than the adjoining SGLs.

The fact remains the PGC has done nothing to manage the harvests in order to allow for higher DD's on SGL's. All they did was provide the potential for higher harvests on SFLs, but no one knows if those higher harvests have been achieved.
bluebird2 is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.