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, 01:48 PM
  #191  
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Default

"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."

Exactly. From everything Ive read, heard, and even seen myself to a limited extent, there is no significant difference between the deer densities on gamelands and stateforests from the same area for the mostpart. Same deal down in southwest/ southcentral Pa where Ive seen it for myself in unit 2c. You can walk for a mile through the statefoest & a mile into the gamelands and deerwise, youd never know you left the stateforest, and there is absolutely no benefit in hunting one over the other. Both having similarly low deer densities. Gamelands are supposed to be managed for game. Thats not being done imho.
Cornelius08 is offline  
Old 01-06-2010, 02:03 PM
  #192  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default

Gamelands are supposed to be managed for game. Thats not being done imho.
I think a slight clarification may be in order. IMHO the SGLs are being managed for game, but the problem is the deer on SGLs are being managed for the benefit of DCNR,not the hunters. All the food plots and habitat improvement on SGL are meaningless, if the herd is being managed at much lower DDs than the MSY CC of the habitat the PGC creates.

IMHO there isn't one SGL in the state that has an MSY CC of less than 25 DPSM, but I doubt that the vast majority of our SGLs have DDs anywhere close to 25 OW DPSM!!!
bluebird2 is offline  
Old 01-06-2010, 02:12 PM
  #193  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Default

Originally Posted by bluebird2
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?
First of all,the FLIR shows a minimum deer density in areas where deer spend the winter. tHAT ISN'T NECESSARILY WHERE YOU'LL FIND THEM IN THE FALL.If you also notice,it's obvious that many of the areas with poor habitat had huge areas with no deer and other areas with big concentrations.That's a sure sign of how poor the habitat is in mnay areas.Furthermore,the last survey was done in 2006.Three or 4 years make a big differenece.
DougE is offline  
Old 01-06-2010, 02:14 PM
  #194  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Default

Originally Posted by bluebird2
I think a slight clarification may be in order. IMHO the SGLs are being managed for game, but the problem is the deer on SGLs are being managed for the benefit of DCNR,not the hunters. All the food plots and habitat improvement on SGL are meaningless, if the herd is being managed at much lower DDs than the MSY CC of the habitat the PGC creates.

IMHO there isn't one SGL in the state that has an MSY CC of less than 25 DPSM, but I doubt that the vast majority of our SGLs have DDs anywhere close to 25 OW DPSM!!!
The habitat improvements in out state game lands in Clearfield county are excellent as is the habitat.I'm willing to be that both SGL 77 and SGL 93 have an owdd in excess of 25 dpsm.
DougE is offline  
Old 01-06-2010, 02:18 PM
  #195  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default

The habitat improvements in out state game lands in Clearfield county are excellent as is the habitat.I'm willing to be that both SGL 77 and SGL 93 have an owdd in excess of 25 dpsm

How would you know that since you only hunt areas with good habitat with elevated DDs? You have no idea what the DD is in the areas with poor habitat, nor do you know the average DD for either of those SGLs.

[QUOTE]DMAP 305: This tract had a few areas of high concentrations, with the most excessive reaching 126 deer per square mile. The habitat at this particular location is rugged, with dense mountain laurel occupying the understory and red oaks dominating the canopy. The tract also borders private land. On average, deer densities were 16 per square mile and ranged from 5 to 30 across most of the area. [/QUOTE


DMAP 305 is in Clearfield Co.

Last edited by bluebird2; 01-06-2010 at 02:23 PM.
bluebird2 is offline  
Old 01-06-2010, 03:01 PM
  #196  
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Default

"The habitat improvements in out state game lands in Clearfield county are excellent as is the habitat.I'm willing to be that both SGL 77 and SGL 93 have an owdd in excess of 25 dpsm. "
I find that very hard to believe. You're telling me they have an average ow dd of 25 dpsm....GAMELANDS in the worst area of the state, and they have more deer on average than the average deer densities found in the highest wmus in the state which are non-mountainous, better habitat types....which are mostly private land...and according to annual reports lower than 25 overwinter dpsm??? WOW you must have some INCREDIBLE gamelands there!

Last edited by Cornelius08; 01-06-2010 at 03:24 PM.
Cornelius08 is offline  
Old 01-06-2010, 03:14 PM
  #197  
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location:
Posts: 200
Default

Originally Posted by DougE
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.
Who issues DMAP tags the PGC and if they feel the deer herd is at a satisfactory level then itís the end of the story. PGC should do away with or severely limit the amount of DMAP tags issued, and require proof of deer impact other than a profit and loss spread sheet. So before you use the old argument itís there land to manage as they wish well they are not and have never been charged by any legislative body with deer management that role belongs to the game commission.
bowhunter2117 is offline  
Old 01-06-2010, 03:29 PM
  #198  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: PA
Posts: 1,149
Default

You guys should see the gamelands here in Lancaster county.Thick underbrush loaded with greenbriar.They create nice foodplots with clover and alot of corn.Problem is if you're lucky you might see one set of tracks in the corn.Honestly it's a waste of time for them to plant unless you want to feed the coons.5B has so many tags and the SGL's just get hammered.It's ashame because the areas could definately hold more deer.Public land and even some areas of private land need managed according to pressure and deer numbers.It's time for change.
germain is offline  
Old 01-06-2010, 03:53 PM
  #199  
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Default

Some of our gamelands have tons of underbrush etc. But as for the corn and clover..... Instead of that, we have pheasant killing fields of knee high grass (which i have no problem with, but thats ALL there is in many cases). Oh we also have a great big, eyesore lookin' bird watching pavillion overlooking a small marshy wetland area, complete with bird id guides.

Did have several acres planted in the smallest sunflowers Id ever seen several years ago though, if that means much.

Did have one nice field on clover on one other small parcel, not sure if its still there or not. Has been awhile since I was out that way.

As few as the gamelands are down here, you think theyd be the most up-kept and improved in the state... Not as if the habitat crews are being overworked based on the overall gamelands land mass! This also isnt crap land where nothing will grow. This isnt the mountains with thin soils etc.

Last edited by Cornelius08; 01-06-2010 at 04:02 PM.
Cornelius08 is offline  
Old 01-06-2010, 03:55 PM
  #200  
Typical Buck
 
ManySpurs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 2G Gaines Pa
Posts: 524
Default

It's time for change.
Amen. You know the area around my house and you know the cornfields that I speak of that are devoid of deer tracks. They ain't held up in the thick laurel on the mountaintops, they ain't held up in the hemlocks, and they ain't held up in the clearcuts. They just ain't. Period.
ManySpurs 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.