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 02-01-2010, 12:47 PM
  #31  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default

I agree with everything you stated.Again,it's all about perspective.
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?
bluebird2 is offline  
Old 02-01-2010, 12:53 PM
  #32  
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Default

"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"
Which is exactly why responsible management requires balance. Balance that we are not getting currently.
Cornelius08 is offline  
Old 02-01-2010, 01:03 PM
  #33  
Giant Nontypical
 
BTBowhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
Default

Originally Posted by livbucks
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.
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.
BTBowhunter is offline  
Old 02-01-2010, 01:11 PM
  #34  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default

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.
bluebird2 is offline  
Old 02-01-2010, 01:11 PM
  #35  
Giant Nontypical
 
BTBowhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
Default

Originally Posted by Cornelius08
Which is exactly why responsible management requires balance. Balance that we are not getting currently.

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 is offline  
Old 02-01-2010, 01:19 PM
  #36  
Giant Nontypical
 
BTBowhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
Default

Originally Posted by 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.

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.
BTBowhunter is offline  
Old 02-01-2010, 01:44 PM
  #37  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default

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
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.

Wildlife managers all over agree that we were way out of balance when deer numbers were higher.
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.

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.
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.

And the fact remains that harvesting a deer is not a God given right
Regenerating red oak for DCNR is also not a God given right.

Last edited by bluebird2; 02-01-2010 at 02:01 PM.
bluebird2 is offline  
Old 02-01-2010, 01:55 PM
  #38  
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Default

Sorry Corn, but we're a whole lot closer to "balance" now than we have been in a lot of years.
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".


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.
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.

"Wildlife managers all over agree that we were way out of balance when deer numbers were higher."
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?

" You are, quite frankly, being just as extreme as Shissler but on the opposite end of things."
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.

Last edited by Cornelius08; 02-01-2010 at 02:22 PM. Reason: added link
Cornelius08 is offline  
Old 02-01-2010, 02:04 PM
  #39  
Giant Nontypical
 
BTBowhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
Default

Originally Posted by 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.

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.
BTBowhunter is offline  
Old 02-01-2010, 02:12 PM
  #40  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default

t's not disputable that at the 1.6 million level, the deer numbers took a toll on the habitat and other wildlife.
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.
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.