bluebird2

I didn't say the hunting was poor in 2G. What I am saying is despite your myoptic view of the situation, fewer hunters can be successful at harvesting a deer now, than in 2000 , no matter how hard they hunt, how much they move or how smart they hunt.
The max. sustainable harvest is determined by the number of fawns recruited that survive until hunting season. it has nothing to do with how much hunters move ,how hard they hunt or how smart they are.

Cornelius08

Sure you did. Every single time you state the hunters who complain & arent successful should be hunting elsewhere, or doing as you do to be successful. Well as we've shown, it doesnt matter what you do, more people cannot be more successful on a sustained basis with the current herd. less deer = less sustained harvest. If you dont like the current overall harvest level, there is no way to improve it with current herd size.

If more are to be successful it has to come with a larger herd that would equal higher recruitment, or its not physically possible.

DougE

And that was always the case and always will be the case.Not everyone is going to be successful.That's not what I'm saying.I hear guys on these boards complaining about how poor the hunting is.I just don't see it as poor and neither do any of the guys I hunt with.The point is,anyone can be successful if they put some effort into it.Apparently there's loads of guys not willing to do so.In that case,I don't see it being necessary to allow the herd to increase to the point where these guys can kill an easy deer at the expense of the habitat.It's easy to be successful,even on public land in the WMU that has the lowest dd in the entire state.If hunters aren't willing to do what it takes to be successful,I don't give a rat's fat arse if they're successful or not.You're startin to sound like a liberal now Corny.

bluebird2

I have been saying for years that you don't give a rip about your fellow hunters as long as you can kill 5 or 6 deer/yr. and you finally admitted I was right.

Hunters are killing all the deer in 2G that can be harvested on a sustainable basis and you don't give a rip if thousands of hunters aren't successful just because DCNR wants to regenerate oak forests as cheaply as possible.

Cornelius08

So? Many believe that sustainable harvest isnt at an acceptable level, and that the herd isnt where it should be. Has nothing to do with "everyone" being successful. Im very successful if you measure success in filling buck tags in archery season. That doesnt mean i support failed management plan.

Because I dont support having one of the worst deer management programs in the nation?? That somehow equates to "liberal"?? Id say the other side to the far end...the Al Gore enviro/ global warming types would fit that description far better than i. Funny thing those are also the types who want extreme unnatural levels of biodiversity, like Mr. Shissler, and others who helped structure our program...not to mention are the same types certifying our forests.....And perhaps those at pgc who approve of "GONACON". ID say thats pretty liberal.

Btw, just for the record, my political beliefs are extremely conservative.

pats102862

When you tell me where it's scribed in stone that hunters are entitled to harvest on a sustainable basis.

Cornelius08

Pats, the harvest has to be on a sustainable basis unless reduction is the goal.

bluebird2

Hunters are not entitled to a sustainable harvest of any species. If we were we would still have good pheasant hunting . The point I was making in my discussion with Doug is that hunters could in fact increase the harvest in 2G,short term, if they moved more and hunted harder and smarter. But, those harvests would not be sustainable ,since those harvests would exceed recruitment resulting in lower harvests in the future. Therefore, those harvests would not be sustainable.

Screamin Steel

'Course..we could close doe season for a few years.....then allot only enough tags to keep the herd stable at at an average DD of about 25 dpsm. That would be a much higher sustainable harvest!

pats102862

So your point is we either have to increase the herd ,or decrease the hunters to have a sustainable harvest. You want as many hunters as possible the chance to harvest which is fine as long as it doesent have an adverse effect habitat and nonhunting population.