I gotcha.It's about oaks if it fits your agenda at the moment,otherwise it's about something else.

Now you are just being silly. you know that I have said all along that the current HR push was the result of DCNR wanting their forests to be recertified. That requires that the statewide herd be reduced to allow regeneration of the existing canopy trees whether they are oak, cherry ash or hard maple.

And I still say that's nonsense.Why would they reduce the herd in areas like 2A and 5c THAT HAVE VERY LITTLE IF ANY CERTIFIED TIMBER?Forest certification played a role and that's where dmap came in to play but it didn't effect the majority of the state.

DMAP would have been totally worthless if the herds hadn't been reduced both on private land and SGLs along with . Even with DMAP and statewide HR they still have to use exclosures to regenerate oak in many areas.

Also, DCNR can't sell all the DMAP permits they are issued. Imagine how much harder it would be to sell them if we still had 1.6 M PS deer and were harvesting around 300K antlerless a year. Furthermore, DCNR would have no hope of reaching their goal of a 1:1 B/D ratio without statewide HR.

Doug, how could the "regeneration based" management and its supposed "benefits" be defended and justified if applied only to the units with dcnr lands?? If its supposed to be sound then how could they ever explain NOT going that route statewide? lol.

Pgc is supposed to be managing our deer herd. STATEWIDE. Including but not limited to the stateforest system.

With our fine system set up so that there are no limitations and everything is WIDE open to interpretation....theres an excuse for every inch of Pa having fewer deer.... In fact, we could cut the herd in half again and make rational sounding excuses as to why its necessary based on the current system. The current excessive unnatural "biodiversity" nonsense only proves my point..

True but BB claims that the herd was reduced statewide to satisfy the forest certification that's on a very small percentage of the land in Pa,which is total nonsense.Like I stated earlier,the number of deer in an area like Green county would have no bearing on the forest certification.

As Cornelius already stated ,the PGC couldn't just implement HR in those WMUs with state forests. If they did it would have been obvious that the HR was only for the benefit of DCNR and the timber industry. So the PGC came up with the song and dance about the health of the herd, increased breeding rates, higher productivity and a shorter breeding period so the predators would be flooded with fawns and none of it was true.

Pure speculation.

Pure speculation is the best speculation you can get. It is much better than the lies the PGC told hunters to sell their plan. Which do you prefer,pure speculation or lies?

How do you like this pure speculation?

[QUOTE]SCS acknowledges that solutions to the Pennsylvania deer density
problem cannot be designed and implemented solely by BOF because
currently the Pennsylvania Game Commission regulates deer seasons,
bag limits, antlerless licenses and all other regulatory functions used to
reduce deer density by hunting. Within these realities, SCS requests that
BOF take meaningful actions that are within the Bureau’s control. Thus:
by the 2004 annual audit, the BOF shall develop a 1st draft of a written
deer management plan and shall initiate earnest and aggressive strategic,
public advocacy, and political actions aimed at liberalizing hunting
regulations in ways that reduce the deer density on State Forests. Possible
strategic, public advocacy, and political actions include: