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 01-07-2010, 08:56 AM
  #221  
Typical Buck
 
Screamin Steel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 659
Default

Originally Posted by bowhunter2117


longer seasons, the ability to transfer tags tag sharing- give it a few years in the near future passing tags will be here it will start with youth then extend to all hunters

baiting- already here on SRA’s and if weren’t such a money maker thru citations you can bet your butt it would be legal state wide

longer seasons- what are mentored youth, early muzzle loader, early rifle for JR and SR hunters
And don't forget crossbow inclusion at the objection of the vast majority of hunters. I also look for season extensions and I imagine baiting would already be allowed for general hunting, if not for the CWD outbreaks in states allowing it. Not that the PGC would entirely hate the idea of wiping out a few thousand more deer in a short amount of time, but they are atleast trying to play it low key. If they legalized baiting and it led to a CWD outbreak, the claim for blame would be too obvious. Not that winter feeding doesn't concentrate deer already.
Screamin Steel is offline  
Old 01-07-2010, 08:57 AM
  #222  
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location:
Posts: 200
Default

Originally Posted by Screamin Steel
If there are so many deer that a landowner and his neighbors/ family/ friends can't control them through general antlerless allocations, they should consider allowing a few more hunters than their little clique. Plenty enough doe tags and willing hunters out there that most private landowners would probably never have to DMAP.
Exactly my point
bowhunter2117 is offline  
Old 01-07-2010, 09:03 AM
  #223  
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Default

THIS is what we need in Pa. Some legislators need to "grow a set" and step up to the plate for the sportsmen of this state with more than lip service & hollow gestures


Wis. lawmakers demand changes in deer rules

January 05, 2010

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Legislators have kicked proposed deer population goals back to state conservation officials, demanding they address hunters' concerns about a dwindling herd.

Hunters killed 29 percent fewer deer in November than last year. They claim the DNR's herd reduction strategies have devastated the deer population.

The Department of Natural Resources has proposed a rule that sets population goals across the state's 131 deer management zones for at least the next three years. The agency wants to raise the goal in 13 zones.

But the Assembly Fish and Wildlife Committee sent the plan back to the agency Tuesday.

Rep. Ann Hraychuck, a Balsam Lake Democrat, says the committee wants DNR officials to address what lawmakers see as a flawed population counting system and acknowledge they're listening to hunters.

Keith Warnke, a DNR big game ecologist, says the agency will work with legislators.



Now THAT is what I'm talkin' bout!!! These fella's are setting a fine example of how "hunter friendly" states need to deal with deer management.


Cornelius08 is offline  
Old 01-07-2010, 09:07 AM
  #224  
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Default

"longer seasons- what are mentored youth, early muzzle loader, early rifle for JR and SR hunters "

And 2 week doe season for most areas, and others still a week still longer than it was prior to dcnrs cries to have the deer slaughtered.
Cornelius08 is offline  
Old 01-07-2010, 11:02 AM
  #225  
Typical Buck
 
ManySpurs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 2G Gaines Pa
Posts: 524
Default

Also, please don't pretend that those few who pushed for less deer speak for 92% of the residents! 92% of the residents werent polled. 92% of the residents didnt ask for this extreme deer program, and a helluva lot more than 8% support us as hunters in our positions. I guess none of us 8% have dozens of friends and family members who do not mind if the friggin deer herd is increased a reasonable amount? I guess everyone not including that ton of people oppose us doing so? C'mon doug. Give me a break. Thats ridiculous.
Other then a handful of eco-terrorist, bio-freak, deer hating, tree hugging, flower sniffing DCNR enviromental whackos, I don't know of a single non-hunter(and I know a few hundred) in these parts that approve of this DMP program. I've even heard non-hunting members of a church cuss the PGC.

So who's BS'ing whom?

Last edited by ManySpurs; 01-07-2010 at 11:04 AM.
ManySpurs is offline  
Old 01-07-2010, 12:21 PM
  #226  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Ohio,mid
Posts: 1,275
Default

And don't forget crossbow inclusion at the objection of the vast majority of hunters
You know SS i almost get on board w/ you and then you come off w/ this crack! I know i've said this before but you are an old woman yapping in the Wal-mart parking lot! You are making statements abut wiping out the deer and the crossbow being a part of that. Show me that statistic?!!!!!! To my knowledge this has not been presented to the hunting public. You never proved the vast majority of hunters were against the inclusion, all you guys posted were some stats from your hunting clubs that are suing or pissed off at the PGC because they won;t let you get your way. Infact I bet it read that 90?% of the respondents to the survey which were around 1,000 guys. That isn't even a fart on the total hunters in PA. Give it a chance and see what the results are on total bow kill before you condem it! If I see a dramatic increase in deer kill this year I for one will be very suprised. It ain't that big a deal you whiner! Your mentality is exactly why PA is going to Hades. Amazing!
Buck Hunter 1 is offline  
Old 01-07-2010, 01:39 PM
  #227  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Default

Sorry fellas but you're missing the point,DCNR wanted a rifle season on state forests from Sept through january,Did they get it?Nope.They wanted baiting allowed.Did they get it?Nope.Currently baiting is only allowed on PRIVATE LAND in one SRA.They wanted unlimited tags and the ability for people to mow down as many deer as they had tags for without tagging the first.Did they get that?Nope.They wanted people to hand over their tags if they didn't use them.Did they get that?Nope.that's a far cry from the mentored youth program.They wanted people to be able to kill as many deer as they wanted as long as they had buddies to tag them.Did they get that?Nope.I fail to see how DCNR caved.

DMAP was designed so private landowners could better manage their property.It's absurd to think that any private landowner should be forced to let just anyone on their property.That's simply insane.Sorry but nobody should be forced to suffer financially from deer damage of any type because hunters want more easy targets.

I don't know Merlin Benner.I've never met him or talked to him.I do know that DCNR has several biologists.Why is that a bad thing?Do they have a special bear season,aspecial turkey season?They want the ability to control deer numbers to achieve the goals they have set.I'm not crazy about their goals but undertsnad that I'm only part of the 8% of citizens that hunt.The fact that I have hundreds of thousands of acres to use for free and for many other uses is unreal.A larger deer herd and better deer habitat would be nice but it's still good hunting by my standards.
DougE is offline  
Old 01-07-2010, 01:41 PM
  #228  
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Default

Buckhunter1, you need to get a grip on your emotions. Youre post was full of inaccuracy and also threw alot of people under the bus to defend your crossbow from a very innocent 100% true comment. Pgc didnt legalize it because of their soft spot for hunters these days.

Also, The hunters of Pa arent whining because they arent getting their way, their mad because of grotesque deer mismanagement. Another inaccuracy the ones suing (USP) had nothing to do with being against crossbows or those "numbers" you speak of, they had no position on the xbow at least that im aware of, in fact most ive heard discuss it on message boards etc. supported it. The ones most vocal against crossbows were ubp. Ubp has supported pgc and their deer plan all along since day one. They werent at all "pizzed off" at pgc previously, but some of them are now because of the crossbow dealings. And as for relations between ubp & usp, They dont particularly care for each other to put it mildly.

Ss is 100% correct though. At the very least pgc ignored the hunters in making the decision. Most input indicated no support. Whether accurate assessment or not, they asked for input, they got it. They knew how controversial the issue was, yet I saw no other effort to find any other level of support on the part of pgc. So they either believed it, or didnt know what to believe. Neither a good basis for decision making. Whether youre for or against crossbows, the way it all went down was pure garbage orchestrated by a few of the absolute worst commssioners that ever sat on our board. (not because of the crossbow issue) Whether you love crossbow inclusion or hate it, they didnt get the ball rolling on inclusion out of the kindness of their hearts and because they thought or cared whether or not the majority supported the issue. If you were familiar with our commissioners at the time, you'd understand.

Last edited by Cornelius08; 01-07-2010 at 01:55 PM.
Cornelius08 is offline  
Old 01-07-2010, 01:46 PM
  #229  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default

The PGC likes to point to crop damage as a reason for reducing the herd in farming areas. But, in 2008 only 169 individuals applied for the red tag program and only 1,002 deer were harvested statewide. WMU 5C had the highest harvest with 221 deer and 5 WMUs had zero red tag deer harvested.
bluebird2 is offline  
Old 01-07-2010, 01:48 PM
  #230  
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Default

Doug youre taking things out of context and far too literally. Dcnr wanted ONE THING. ONE. Less deer. Thats what they are being given. They gave simple suggestions on how to get there, knowing full well ALL of them wouldnt be enacted, and many of them were. Yet here we are.... Less deer, and in areas under dcnr jurisdiction the statefoests, many of those areas wouldnt have gone much lower via other method with less than 10 owdpsm. They also seem satisfied as they havent levied any embargos on pgc lately. Mission accomplished.

One other huge item they wanted and got...habitat based management. Considering that and all the aforementioned, i think by comparison, that dcnr is hardly gonna see pgcs noncompliance by not permitting the throwing down of a bucket of apples as unforgivable insubordination! lmao. Not when pgc has already rewritten the book completely when it comes to how to mismanage a deer herd at their demand.

I also agree with the original poster that the continually proposed antlerless tag youth transfer was one more attempt at getting more deer killed and also the first step towards other possible tag transfer situations in the future.


"I'm not crazy about their goals but undertsnad that I'm only part of the 8% of citizens that hunt."


As opposed to the even far fewer who want more trillium and hobblebush and put this plan into motion & actually support it?

Last edited by Cornelius08; 01-07-2010 at 02:35 PM.
Cornelius08 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.