stop complainin...start hunting
02-01-2010, 12:47 PM
#31
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
I agree with everything you stated.Again,it's all about perspective.
02-01-2010, 12:53 PM
#32
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
"Well, that's one perspective. But then again there are other folks who might view it as mismanagement if everything gets centered around seeking universal satisfaction ratings from a particulalry vocal group of disgruntled deer hunters whose vision for public lands differ from many"
02-01-2010, 01:03 PM
#33
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
I agree BTB. We have had to adjust more to decreased hunting pressure than lower deer numbers. The deer must be hunted, as they are not being pushed because there are very few hunters in the woods. If we want a deer in 2F, we must go find them, because they simply lay all day from no hunting pressure. I know that some people base their entire strategy on pushed deer. Pushed by someone else, that is.
We just spent the weekend traveling all over and around the ANF hunting fox, coyote and in between we harassed some crows. We covered a lot of miles in Forest, Elk and a bit of north Clarion County and every place we stepped off the road was loaded with deer or sign and plenty of it. Good habitat and bad all had good to excellent sign or deer.
Rifle season up that way isnt what it used to be if you talk about deer sightings but there's also been a consistent pattern in the off season as well as archery and early muzzy of us seeing deer in pretty good numbers. When we get out there and hunt the deer on their terms, we see plenty. When it comes around to gun season, it seems theres enough human activity to let the deer know somethings up but not enough for the deer pinball we used to see. The deer hole up tighter than ticks till the orange horde dwindles and then the hunting gets good again.
Sure theres less deer but that aint the whole story. At least not in and around the southwestern ANF.
02-01-2010, 01:11 PM
#34
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
The fact remains that the hunters in both 2F and 2G are harvesting all the deer that are available to be harvested on a sustainable basis. hunting harder, moving more and wearing rose colored glasses won't increase the sustainable harvest.
02-01-2010, 01:11 PM
#35
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
Sorry Corn, but we're a whole lot closer to "balance" now than we have been in a lot of years. You may not like the idea of less deer but frankly, science disagrees with you. It's not just Audubon as you'd like everyone to believe. Wildlife managers all over agree that we were way out of balance when deer numbers were higher. You are, quite frankly, being just as extreme as Shissler but on the opposite end of things. Neither does us, the deer herd, or the habiatat much good
02-01-2010, 01:19 PM
#36
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
And the fact remains that harvesting a deer is not a God given right. Accepting that fact is the first step. The second step is taking the time to improve ones chances within the situation as it is. Not all hunters can or will make the necessary adaptations. Only you can decide if you can or will adapt. It's not the PGC's job to farm deer for a maximim harvest. It's their job to manage them within the available habitat.
02-01-2010, 01:44 PM
#37
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Sorry Corn, but we're a whole lot closer to "balance" now than we have been in a lot of years. You may not like the idea of less deer but frankly, science disagrees with you
Wildlife managers all over agree that we were way out of balance when deer numbers were higher.
It's not the PGC's job to farm deer for a maximim harvest. It's their job to manage them within the available habitat.
And the fact remains that harvesting a deer is not a God given right
Last edited by bluebird2; 02-01-2010 at 02:01 PM.
02-01-2010, 01:55 PM
#38
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Sorry Corn, but we're a whole lot closer to "balance" now than we have been in a lot of years.
You may not like the idea of less deer but frankly, science disagrees with you. It's not just Audubon as you'd like everyone to believe.
"Wildlife managers all over agree that we were way out of balance when deer numbers were higher."
" You are, quite frankly, being just as extreme as Shissler but on the opposite end of things."
As for my position, I think some areas needed some reduction others needed none. All got some, and most got too much. I also dont support extreme unnatural levels of biodiversity that dont exist anywhere other than behind a fence as "goals" either.
But its pretty clear you are on the extreme end of things where your views are concerned. And on the SAME side of things as shissler, not opposite. Ive seen very little that the two of you have disagreed upon. Heck you even pointed to his study supporting pgc management and acted as if it were gospel. What does that say about how far off center your views are??
Supporting link: http://huntingnet.com/forum/northeas...ow-supper.html
Its all about balance & middle of the road. And thats where Im at.
Last edited by Cornelius08; 02-01-2010 at 02:22 PM. Reason: added link
02-01-2010, 02:04 PM
#39
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
Once again you are wrong . Science does not disagree with Cornelius , since there is no data that shows that shows the deer are in better balance with the habitat.
That also is simply not true. For many years when we had much higher deer numbers that we have today, the PGC professionals stated that the herd in the majority of the state was in balance with the forested habitat.
With that statement you just admitted the PGC is mismanaging our herd since the deer have proven the habitat could support 1.6M deer at the MSY carrying capacity. If our herd was being managed based on science rather than personal preference of preferred stakeholders,we would still have 1.6 M PS deer.
That also is simply not true. For many years when we had much higher deer numbers that we have today, the PGC professionals stated that the herd in the majority of the state was in balance with the forested habitat.
With that statement you just admitted the PGC is mismanaging our herd since the deer have proven the habitat could support 1.6M deer at the MSY carrying capacity. If our herd was being managed based on science rather than personal preference of preferred stakeholders,we would still have 1.6 M PS deer.
It's not disputable that at the 1.6 million level, the deer numbers took a toll on the habitat and other wildlife. Just as a farmer only interested in farming cattle exclusively could raise several hundred head on a suare mile, so could the land be managed exclusively for whitetail deer. We werent managing exclusively for deer but the deer numbers we had were not allowing anything resembling a balance. The overwhelming majority of deer ma
management professionals agree and they have no reason to be biased versus a handful of armchair biologists whose bias arises from the simple fact that they want to see more deer.
02-01-2010, 02:12 PM
#40
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
t's not disputable that at the 1.6 million level, the deer numbers took a toll on the habitat and other wildlife.
