What PA needs ....................
12-29-2009, 08:39 AM
#71
Fork Horn
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 297
The problem is that he dismisses many ideas that may not be THE answer but collectively are part of THE answer.
THE answer is not to be found in one simple step and we all know it.
He has said that managing by smaller WMU's won't help. He's said it many times. When hunters suggest hunters taking some initiative and banding together and limiting their doe kill in a given area, he claims it wont work. I think we all agree that there is a bit too much of a one size fits all mentality in Harrisburg yet he goes into long winded diatribes when someone has an idea that are essentially based on his "that wont work statewide mentality"
Those are just a few examples.
Lots of positive ideas come out in this forum. This is a diverse group and we often disagree on what will be beneficial and what wont. I'll bet though you'll have a hard time finding many positive ideas for our deer management that BB got behind and supported .
Feel free to prove me wrong and point out where BB had anything positive to say in those last 9 years. I've been acquainted with BB's posts for 10 years too and I'm hard pressed to remember much positive input form him or any of his banned alaises here or elsewhere.
THE answer is not to be found in one simple step and we all know it.
He has said that managing by smaller WMU's won't help. He's said it many times. When hunters suggest hunters taking some initiative and banding together and limiting their doe kill in a given area, he claims it wont work. I think we all agree that there is a bit too much of a one size fits all mentality in Harrisburg yet he goes into long winded diatribes when someone has an idea that are essentially based on his "that wont work statewide mentality"
Those are just a few examples.
Lots of positive ideas come out in this forum. This is a diverse group and we often disagree on what will be beneficial and what wont. I'll bet though you'll have a hard time finding many positive ideas for our deer management that BB got behind and supported .
Feel free to prove me wrong and point out where BB had anything positive to say in those last 9 years. I've been acquainted with BB's posts for 10 years too and I'm hard pressed to remember much positive input form him or any of his banned alaises here or elsewhere.
12-29-2009, 08:40 AM
#72
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,236
Nothing short of reverting back to the old season makeup and allocations will please BB2. I find it very hard to believe that a landowner logged 100 acres and not a single deer would enter it. We have a 140 acre parcel that gets absolutely hammered from October until February (SRA) and it always has deer in it.
12-29-2009, 08:44 AM
#73
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
It's amazing how much impact can be seen from even the smallest of efforts. Jim has 100 acres. He seems to do pretty well with it. Of course, Jim probably doesn't listen much to the naysayers who spend all their energy and effort telling him why it won't work.
12-29-2009, 08:45 AM
#74
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
So how about telling us what positive steps you've taken to improve your deer hunting or the deer hunting for others since you don't like things as they are.
12-29-2009, 08:51 AM
#75
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
[QUOTE]He claims that hunters taking some initiative and banding together and limiting their doe kill in a given area, he claims it wont work. [QUOTE]
No that is not true. It will work if hunters can control a large enough area and don't shoot does. But, while it may work for the hunters it ignores the concerns of the adjacent stakeholders who may be farmers with entirely different priorities. Furthermore, it is a viable solution for only a very small percentage of hunters and does nothing for the thousands of hunters who hunt SFL, SGL ,ANF and private land that is open to the public.
I also support smaller WMUs but I don't believe having smaller WMUs will have any positive effect unless the PGC also changes it's management goals. Remember, when we had county WMUs the SRA counties didn't even have assigned goals because the plan was to reduce the herd to next to nothing in those counties.
No that is not true. It will work if hunters can control a large enough area and don't shoot does. But, while it may work for the hunters it ignores the concerns of the adjacent stakeholders who may be farmers with entirely different priorities. Furthermore, it is a viable solution for only a very small percentage of hunters and does nothing for the thousands of hunters who hunt SFL, SGL ,ANF and private land that is open to the public.
I also support smaller WMUs but I don't believe having smaller WMUs will have any positive effect unless the PGC also changes it's management goals. Remember, when we had county WMUs the SRA counties didn't even have assigned goals because the plan was to reduce the herd to next to nothing in those counties.
Last edited by bluebird2; 12-29-2009 at 08:57 AM.
12-29-2009, 08:55 AM
#76
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
He has said that managing by smaller WMU's won't help. He's said it many times."
Depends on what context he is saying that. If that ALONE were proposed and they were not managed on an idividual basis in such a way as to address the actual problems, he would be 100% correct. What good would it do if the wmus were smaller, the same allocation or more were kept, and distributed by area in nearly the same manner as they are already being used? Same could be said for other issues such as shortening a season. What good would it do to shorten a season by half if the allocation was then doubled if ones concern is to prevent doe overharvest??
That doesnt mean I think smaller wmus SHOULDNT be used. . Nothing could be further from the truth. I most certainly do. But Id expect that to come with appropriate management within those units with reasonable allocation adjustments as needed.
"When hunters suggest hunters taking some initiative and banding together and limiting their doe kill in a given area, he claims it wont work."
Thats because these "suggestions" are brought up in the midst of statewide mangement discussions and its usually a conversation including many whove already stated its not a method they can implement or will anytime soon. Are those things beneficial on a localized basis? Absolutely.
Depends on what context he is saying that. If that ALONE were proposed and they were not managed on an idividual basis in such a way as to address the actual problems, he would be 100% correct. What good would it do if the wmus were smaller, the same allocation or more were kept, and distributed by area in nearly the same manner as they are already being used? Same could be said for other issues such as shortening a season. What good would it do to shorten a season by half if the allocation was then doubled if ones concern is to prevent doe overharvest??
That doesnt mean I think smaller wmus SHOULDNT be used. . Nothing could be further from the truth. I most certainly do. But Id expect that to come with appropriate management within those units with reasonable allocation adjustments as needed.
"When hunters suggest hunters taking some initiative and banding together and limiting their doe kill in a given area, he claims it wont work."
Thats because these "suggestions" are brought up in the midst of statewide mangement discussions and its usually a conversation including many whove already stated its not a method they can implement or will anytime soon. Are those things beneficial on a localized basis? Absolutely.
12-29-2009, 08:57 AM
#77
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: PA
Posts: 8,167
One guy here post about shooting multiple does each year and he seems to have plenty of deer each year to do it. The majority that post shoot few or no doe, and that does have an impact and it will over time make a difference. The deer were killed off one a a time and will come back he same way.
12-29-2009, 09:00 AM
#78
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Nothing short of reverting back to the old season makeup and allocations will please BB2. I find it very hard to believe that a landowner logged 100 acres and not a single deer would enter it. We have a 140 acre parcel that gets absolutely hammered from October until February (SRA) and it always has deer in it.
I didn't say not a single deer would enter the cut. I said it did absolutely nothing to improve the DD in our area.
The antlerless allocations were higher in 1998 and 1999 than they are now. Even back in 1991 they issued 847K tags.
12-29-2009, 09:20 AM
#79
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
Just a few examples....
Gee, the only thing to do is wait for the USP suit. What about the idea of a long journey beginning with the first step? Guees that doesnt work for the bird.
Here's another...
So once again, the birds message is DONT BOTHER just keep on complaining! Frankly, I find it difficult to buy the idea that 2 SM cant be managed because of PA's DMP. Either they arent doing things right or someone's not telling the whole story.
When Glew22 said this....
The bird says this
The end message, lets just all sit and complain because we cant make a difference. That mentality ranks right up there with the guy who doesnt bother to vote. We can all make some difference. Not trying is bad enough, but continuing to cry while trying to discourage others is unconscienable.
With the PGC's current DMP ,I doubt any of us can cut enough trees to make a significant improvement in the population in a given area. For example, about 4 years ago two neighbors timbered over 100 acres. There is unlimited browse and dense cover but apparently the deer avoid it due to hunting pressure and it has done nothing to increase the deer herd in our area.
At this point it seems the only thing that might change the DMP,is an order from a judge in response to the USP suit, but that is highly unlikely.
At this point it seems the only thing that might change the DMP,is an order from a judge in response to the USP suit, but that is highly unlikely.
Here's another...
I know of a club that manages 2 SM for deer ,not for timber ,and they have been unable to offset the negative effects of the PGC's HR plan.
When Glew22 said this....
blue, I used to share the sentiment that the pgc needs to reduce antlerless allocations in some of our wmus (they may still need to do so), but to play devils advocate, I would say if hunters are complaining about to few deer, then the hunters can choose not to use these tags. I know the antis aren't buying tags and shooting deer with them.
That is not a viable option,since there are still a significant number of hunters who believe they are doing God's work by killing every legal deer they see and then there are those that just don't care and will fill every tag they have for the meat or to give it away.
The end message, lets just all sit and complain because we cant make a difference. That mentality ranks right up there with the guy who doesnt bother to vote. We can all make some difference. Not trying is bad enough, but continuing to cry while trying to discourage others is unconscienable.
12-29-2009, 09:42 AM
#80
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Is he actually saying dont do those things? Or is he simply stating the fact that they alone are not nearly enough?
Why dont we end the guessing game and just ask him so there is no misunderstanding?
So bb, do you contend all these things mentioned like hunters taking it upon themselves to harvest responsibly (in what should be few poor hunting areas of extreme low dd) and landowners improving the habitat have no place in Pa?
Or do you contend that they do, but are not a replacement for responsible management on the state level?
Why dont we end the guessing game and just ask him so there is no misunderstanding?
So bb, do you contend all these things mentioned like hunters taking it upon themselves to harvest responsibly (in what should be few poor hunting areas of extreme low dd) and landowners improving the habitat have no place in Pa?
Or do you contend that they do, but are not a replacement for responsible management on the state level?
Last edited by Cornelius08; 12-29-2009 at 09:46 AM.