stop complainin...start hunting
02-03-2010, 07:02 AM
#131
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
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
02-03-2010, 07:22 AM
#132
Typical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 659
I.e., the state of PA placed a higher value on commercial hardwoods, treehugging birdwatchers and ecoweenies placed a higher value on fulfilling an extremist dream of a level of biodiversity, that interestingly has never been documented to have existed in any period of known human history, and the hunters of course, place a higher value on the deer. Meanwhile, all opinions aside, science showed that our forests are / were very capable of sustaining deer at densities above 25 dpsm long term, with NO negative affects on herd health, and in fact the herd was continuing to grow until the onslaught of bonus tags, high allocations and combined seasons. Our forests suffer from several factors including poor forestry practices, acid rain, several prolonged drought periods in the last decade, and yes...the impact of deer as well. But, no one seems interested in changing anything else, other than reducing the deer.
02-03-2010, 07:25 AM
#133
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
But then the question is who gets to determine what constitutes an adverse effect on the habitat or on the non-hunting public. Those decisions are not made based on science, but on the personal preferences of the stakeholders involved.
Right off the bat, human conflict can be considered a nonissue, since in many wmus it was not rated as high even prior to reduction, No reason to think it will be now with half the deer. Since then, the only recommendations by even the stacked cac for reduction have been only in sras, confirms what im saying.
As for habitat...all boils down to what you want in that habitat. Do you want very few deer and a thick carpet of trillium & wall to wall oaks in 50+ years or so?. Do we want a deer behind every tree with no understory at all, but plenty of birch & striped maple?, or do we want a balance. I want a balance. However that balance doesnt include deer densities lower than other "normal" states, statewide blanket reduction, endless reductions & rock bottom deer numbers for decades, or goals of extreme biodiversity not found anywhere else in the country other than behind fences. It also doesnt include goal of seeing no further than 50 yards in mature forest due to a shrub layer which can only exist in such a manner with very few deer forever after. Those are position held by pgc, dcnr and audubon though.
Last edited by Cornelius08; 02-03-2010 at 07:32 AM.
02-03-2010, 07:35 AM
#134
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,236
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.
The only solution in his mind is to: Severely limit the doe kill, and eliminate the antler restrictions, thus farming 1.5 year old spikes and forkies by the buttload, so that 1 out of every 5 stump sitters can have their buck by 10 am on opening day.
In other words:....go back to the way it was 20 years ago.
That is the only thing that will make him happy.
02-03-2010, 07:48 AM
#135
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
I.e., the state of PA placed a higher value on commercial hardwoods, treehugging birdwatchers and ecoweenies placed a higher value on fulfilling an extremist dream of a level of biodiversity, that interestingly has never been documented to have existed in any period of known human history, and the hunters of course, place a higher value on the deer. Meanwhile, all opinions aside, science showed that our forests are / were very capable of sustaining deer at densities above 25 dpsm long term, with NO negative affects on herd health, and in fact the herd was continuing to grow until the onslaught of bonus tags, high allocations and combined seasons. Our forests suffer from several factors including poor forestry practices, acid rain, several prolonged drought periods in the last decade, and yes...the impact of deer as well. But, no one seems interested in changing anything else, other than reducing the deer.
02-03-2010, 08:05 AM
#136
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
"Science has not shown that Pa can overwinter 25 dpsm statewide without impacting the regeneration."
Also "impacting" is very open to interpretation. Some like to refer to any nipped leaf that can be noticed as "impact" (see habitat tour).
One mans "impacting" is another mans "no significant unacceptable effect".
Last edited by Cornelius08; 02-03-2010 at 08:07 AM.
02-03-2010, 08:14 AM
#137
Fork Horn
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 297
The only solution in his mind is to: Severely limit the doe kill, and eliminate the antler restrictions, thus farming 1.5 year old spikes and forkies by the buttload, so that 1 out of every 5 stump sitters can have their buck by 10 am on opening day.
In other words:....go back to the way it was 20 years ago.
That is the only thing that will make him happy.
In other words:....go back to the way it was 20 years ago.
That is the only thing that will make him happy.
02-03-2010, 09:01 AM
#139
Typical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 659
Regeneration that in "some people's" opinions we need more of. In any event, HR was predicated based upon DD significantly higher than 25, and mostly limited to the worst cases of overbrowsing, using those studies as merit for reducing the herd statewide, without evaluating the management needs of individual WMU's (or counties at the time). I have the DF on record stating how good the habitat and deer were doing in Michaux SF in 1999 and 2000....stating precisely in contrast to the overbrowsed forests of the NC...yet HR came and swept like a blanket over that region, the PGC even being as bold as to suggest DD goals of 5-6 dpsm, before retracting that goal, when met with hunter outrage at the absurdity of such a low mangement goal. Now, the herd is a fraction of what it was here, and the forests are the same as they were before. The DCNR ranger I spoke with at Big Flat in flintlock season admitted that regeneration here is doing very well, and he admitted that the current level of HR was probably unwarranted in that region. Big help that is now. "Some people" wanted way less deer. "Some people" got their way.
02-03-2010, 09:03 AM
#140
Fork Horn
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 171
some of you just cannot admit the habitat does not need deer densities of under 15 per sqaure mile to regenerate itself! Look at several of the mid western states whom produce some of the largest free range bucks on record some have deer densities of nearly 40 per sq mile...Look at the southern zone of Saskatchewan there it is near 75 per sq mile and still they manage to rear enough trophy bucks to appease most the horn mongers .
what the habitat does need is better management! Neither the PGC or the DNR could manage a good crap let alone the timber lands.
what the habitat does need is better management! Neither the PGC or the DNR could manage a good crap let alone the timber lands.
