Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Regional Forums > Northeast
stop complainin...start hunting >

stop complainin...start hunting

Northeast ME, NH, VT, NY, CT, RI, MA, PA, DE, WV, MD, NJ Remember, the Regional forums are for hunting topics only.

stop complainin...start hunting

Old 02-02-2010, 02:04 PM
  #121  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default

What you fail to grasp is that just because there's less deer,it doesn't mean the hunting is poor.2G has vast areas with lousy habitat and therefore little reason for there to be alot of deer.
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.
bluebird2 is offline  
Old 02-02-2010, 02:06 PM
  #122  
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Default

"I never suggested any solution."
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.

Last edited by Cornelius08; 02-02-2010 at 02:11 PM.
Cornelius08 is offline  
Old 02-02-2010, 02:13 PM
  #123  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Default

Originally Posted by 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 more are to be successful it has to come with a larger herd that would equal higher recruitment, or its not physically possible.
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.
DougE is offline  
Old 02-02-2010, 02:27 PM
  #124  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default

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.

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.
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.
bluebird2 is offline  
Old 02-02-2010, 03:11 PM
  #125  
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Default

"And that was always the case and always will be the case.Not everyone is going to be successful."
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.

"You're startin to sound like a liberal now Corny."
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.

Last edited by Cornelius08; 02-02-2010 at 03:20 PM.
Cornelius08 is offline  
Old 02-02-2010, 04:45 PM
  #126  
Typical Buck
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Carbon County Pa.
Posts: 601
Default

Originally Posted by bluebird2
So when are you or Doug going to tell us how many more deer hunters could harvest on a sustainable basis ,
When you tell me where it's scribed in stone that hunters are entitled to harvest on a sustainable basis.
pats102862 is offline  
Old 02-02-2010, 05:05 PM
  #127  
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Default

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

Last edited by Cornelius08; 02-02-2010 at 05:25 PM.
Cornelius08 is offline  
Old 02-03-2010, 03:56 AM
  #128  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default

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.
bluebird2 is offline  
Old 02-03-2010, 04:02 AM
  #129  
Typical Buck
 
Screamin Steel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 659
Default

'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!
Screamin Steel is offline  
Old 02-03-2010, 05:24 AM
  #130  
Typical Buck
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Carbon County Pa.
Posts: 601
Default

Originally Posted by 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.
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.
pats102862 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.