bluebird2

So please tell us how many more hunters in 2G could be successful,year after year, if they adopted your perspective ,hunted the way you do and killed 2 or 3 doe /hunter?

Cornelius08

Which is exactly why responsible management requires balance. Balance that we are not getting currently.

BTBowhunter

I think theres a lot of evidence to support your idea of the effect of less hunting pressure in the gun season Greg.

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.

bluebird2

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.

BTBowhunter

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

BTBowhunter

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.

bluebird2

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.

Regenerating red oak for DCNR is also not a God given right.

Cornelius08

No need to be "sorry". Thats your opinion and youre entitled to it. Mine opinion is that is completely false. We've gone to extremes. Thats based on what is consider normal pretty much across the board "elsewhere".


Actually it is. And there isnt one states biologists that have seen the incredible nature of our program and chosen to "mimic" it. And thats a fact.

Where?? Thats a pretty broad statement. Blanket, just like the failed deer plan. I on the other hand have stated many many times SOME reduction was needed in SOME areas. But it went to far in most. Which is more reasonable? My position, or pgc/audubons kill'em all for the sake of trillium & hobblebush everywhere in the state?

Not true. You may not like my vocal expression of the problems as i see them, but there is mothing at all extreme about my positions. There are far more "extreme" views than mine in regards to deer management. And they too are entitled to opinion. Some hate ar. Some want as many deer as we had or in some cases more, some dont care at all about habitat effected etc. etc. and sure i could add more..... I share none of those views, though they arent all necessarily "wrong" either.

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.

BTBowhunter

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.

bluebird2

Wrong again. It is highly disputable that 1.6M deer took a toll on the habitat and other wildlife. As the deer herd increased so did the turkey and bear populations. There is no evidence that deer had a more negative effect on other wildlife then the fact that the majority of our forests were in the pole or saw timber stage.