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 02-03-2010, 12:23 PM
  #151  
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Default

Pats, you speak of previous maleffects. Imho there are far more now. Ive seen and heard about so much crap because of "hunters" being so darn desparate to kill a deer that they sink to any lengths. Ive seen hunters fistfight over treestand location, Ive heard more arguing than ever, Ive seen in the newspaper where hunting dogs were poisoned because some idiots put out poison in bait, hoping to kill coyotes up on gamelands 111 because of so few deer. Ive seen deer left to rot because they didnt have the 4th point. Ive seen & heard alot of things.

I dont think citing the actions of idiots who dont follow the rules is a good reason to go with or against any management plan. There will always be plenty of those.
Cornelius08 is offline  
Old 02-03-2010, 12:25 PM
  #152  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Default

Originally Posted by fellas2
All in all, it makes for a better quality hunt for those that choose to take advantage of it no matter what weapon they use.

Once again,just your opinion.The "quality of ones hunt " is at best left up to the individual hunter to decide,not what you,I,or some one else .Just because you or I prefer the "hunting" today does not make it better than years ago.It is just an opinion and we all know about those.Not defending them,but "stump hunters" pay the same for a license as you or I and are entitled the voice their opinions for or against the current deer management programs.
I hunt differently today than I did in 1990.There were definately more deer back then,no doubt about it.Still,I rate the quality just as good today.I've killed a buck every year since 1990.The bucks I've killed the last 8 years were all nice 2.5-3.5 year old deer,nothing huge but decent.
DougE is offline  
Old 02-03-2010, 12:32 PM
  #153  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: PA
Posts: 1,149
Default

Doug where in the heck does Seneca have land against mosh forest?
germain is offline  
Old 02-03-2010, 01:43 PM
  #154  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default

Yes I did claim that.Unfortunately,that wouldn't be the case if we hadn't let the surrounding habitat get as bad is it was do too decades of too many deer.By the way,those 3 deer didn't ruin the habitat,they just ruined the oak regeneration.
I didn't say those three deer ruined the habitat, but in many areas the PGC and DCNR are managing the herd based on oak regeneration. BTW, the 3 deer that ruined the oak regeneration,so it had nothing to do with the condition of the surrounding habitat. Those three deer ruined the oak regeneration simply because it was a small exclosure and the deer preferred the oak over other browse species.

You blame the deer for the condition of todays forests when you should be blaming past forestry practices which created an even aged forest that resulted in over 50 % pole timber, which even you agree won't support many deer Furthermore you can't blame the invasive species on the deer since the deer didn't introduce them.
bluebird2 is offline  
Old 02-03-2010, 02:24 PM
  #155  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Default

Originally Posted by germain
Doug where in the heck does Seneca have land against mosh forest?
Drive on mountain run road(where the boyscout camp is).Just past Cessna's taxidermy is a big pipeline.Walk up the pipeline just down from his place a few hundred yards and you'll hit the bottom of Seneca's property.It's a huge chunk that runs from there all the way to the Brockway Resevoir.You can also drive up rt 153 between Penfield and Brockport.About halfway up Boone mountain,take Firetower rd to the left.Once you go a few miles,Seneca's property is on both sides of the road.It's good habitat with alot of deer.I generally kill a couple in there most years.It's bordered on the lower side by Moshannon state forest.I'll show it to you.There's several huge clearcuts on that property with loads of browse.There's lot's of deer but it's tough to get them to leave the clearcuts.

If you walk strit above the rifle range at the boyscout camp,you'll also hit it.

Last edited by DougE; 02-03-2010 at 02:33 PM.
DougE is offline  
Old 02-03-2010, 02:32 PM
  #156  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Default

Originally Posted by bluebird2
I didn't say those three deer ruined the habitat, but in many areas the PGC and DCNR are managing the herd based on oak regeneration. BTW, the 3 deer that ruined the oak regeneration,so it had nothing to do with the condition of the surrounding habitat. Those three deer ruined the oak regeneration simply because it was a small exclosure and the deer preferred the oak over other browse species.

You blame the deer for the condition of todays forests when you should be blaming past forestry practices which created an even aged forest that resulted in over 50 % pole timber, which even you agree won't support many deer Furthermore you can't blame the invasive species on the deer since the deer didn't introduce them.
Nope,I've always fully ackowledged past forestry practices as a problem as well.Unfortunately,bad habitat is bad habitat.When you add too many deer to already poor habitat it takes less to have an impact.That's where we are now.However,the deer also certainly played a major role in the condition of the habitat today.It's a proven fact.

The deer certainly prefered the oak over the maple in that exclosure.That was my main point.It was simply to show how deer are picky eaters and hit the most prefered species first,altering the composition of the forest.That's what happened all accross the northern tier.Oak isn't the only tree to be concerned about but it does provide alot of food for a varity of wildlife including deer.I'd like to see it regenerate.
DougE is offline  
Old 02-03-2010, 02:45 PM
  #157  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default

However,the deer also certainly played a major role in the condition of the habitat today.It's a proven fact.
The condition of the habitat in the vast majority of the state is just fine and dandy. The condition of the habitat in pole timber will always be bad for deer no matter how many deer we have. The condition of the habitat in half of the land managed by DCNR will always be bad since no timbering will be permitted.

Todays habitat can support over 1.6 M deer ,so if you want to blame the deer for creating that kind of habitat , that is fine with me. Of course the deer played a role in the condition of the state forests , just as the chestnut blight, gypsy moths, leaf rollers , beech blight.acid rain,erosion ,forest fire suppression, invasive species, forestry practices and many other factors.
bluebird2 is offline  
Old 02-03-2010, 02:50 PM
  #158  
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Default

"The condition of the habitat in the vast majority of the state is just fine and dandy. "
.......Yep.
Cornelius08 is offline  
Old 02-03-2010, 02:54 PM
  #159  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Default

Originally Posted by bluebird2
The condition of the habitat in the vast majority of the state is just fine and dandy. The condition of the habitat in pole timber will always be bad for deer no matter how many deer we have. The condition of the habitat in half of the land managed by DCNR will always be bad since no timbering will be permitted.

Todays habitat can support over 1.6 M deer ,so if you want to blame the deer for creating that kind of habitat , that is fine with me. Of course the deer played a role in the condition of the state forests , just as the chestnut blight, gypsy moths, leaf rollers , beech blight.acid rain,erosion ,forest fire suppression, invasive species, forestry practices and many other factors.
Nope,you're flat out wrong and there's reams of evidence to support that.The deer certainly played a huge role in the condition of forests.It's not even debatable.No way could we over winter 1.6 million deer without extreme damage to the habitat.
DougE is offline  
Old 02-03-2010, 03:05 PM
  #160  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default

If you had the slightest clue what you are talking about , you would know that the 1.6M figure was PS deer , not OWD. In the 1930's the habitat in just 30 counties supported 1.3 M deer and those were the counties with the lowest carrying capacities in the state. The MSY CC of the capacity of all the habitat in the state is probably well over 2M PS deer.
bluebird2 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.