|
Draft DMP/Comments
Here is a portion of the recent PR.
Release #014-10 GAME COMMISSION SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENT ON DEER PLAN HARRISBURG – The Pennsylvania Game Commission is seeking public input on a draft deer management plan, which can be reviewed on the agency’s website (www.pgc.state.pa.us) by clicking on the “Draft Deer Management Plan” icon under the large photo in the center of the homepage. “We are seeking public comment on the revised deer management plan to ensure the resulting final management plan considers the thoughts and concerns of Pennsylvanians about this species,” said Calvin W. DuBrock, Game Commission Bureau of Wildlife Management director. “As written, the plan is science-based, progressive and promotes responsible management. We’re interested in hearing from Pennsylvanians who would like to offer comments, and to see if we’ve missed something or if they share our management vision for the future.” Developed by biologists with the agency’s Deer Management Section, the deer management plan establishes management goals through 2018. Those goals are to: manage deer for a healthy and sustainable deer herd; manage deer-human conflicts at levels considered safe and acceptable to Pennsylvania citizens; manage deer impacts for healthy and sustainable forest habitat; manage deer to provide recreational opportunities; and to improve the public’s knowledge and understanding of deer and the deer management program. Game Commission staff uses these guidelines when making deer management recommendations to the Board of Game Commissioners. “These goals are the result of a public involvement process,” DuBrock said. “The mission and deer management goals are important forms of public input, and in most cases, will outweigh other forms of public input. However, the mission and goals cannot always provide the necessary information for specific issues. As a result, the Game Commission also uses other methods of public involvement in its deer management program such as public meetings, surveys, and Citizen Advisory Committees.” DuBrock noted that the Game Commission follows an adaptive management approach to deer management. Adaptive management is characterized by establishing clear and measurable objectives, implementing management actions, monitoring those management actions and whether they achieved the objectives, and adapting policy and management actions as necessary. “Adaptive management recognizes deer management decisions must be made without the luxury of perfect information,” DuBrock said. “Consequently, the focus of adaptive management is on monitoring responses to management actions and learning. By managing white-tailed deer in this way, the Game Commission can effectively adapt management as conditions change. “Deer population management integrates data-driven objectives for deer and forest habitat health with value-driven objectives for deer-human conflicts. First and foremost, the Game Commission must achieve its duties and responsibilities to wildlife and habitat. Deer and forest habitat health measures meet this need. However, objectively defining deer-human conflicts is impossible because of the range of values and perceptions exhibited by people. Rather than attempt to quantify deer-human conflicts, the Game Commission uses Citizen Advisory Committees to help assess deer-human conflicts.” DuBrock stressed that deer management objectives are no longer defined by deer densities. Instead, deer management objectives are defined by measures of deer health, forest habitat health, and deer-human conflicts. “The change from defining deer management objectives by deer densities to specific measures for each goal has created controversy,” DuBrock said. “Although the Game Commission acknowledges the desire of hunters and the public to know how many deer are in Pennsylvania at any given time, the Game Commission has a duty to implement a responsible and credible deer management program that addresses deer management goals through the most efficient use of available data. “Responsible deer management cannot be a popularity contest. As Pennsylvania’s history demonstrates, deer management was, is, and will continue to be an issue where complete agreement by all stakeholders is unlikely. To accomplish the goals provided by the public, the Game Commission’s deer management program must be based on the best available information and made in the best interest of white-tailed deer, Pennsylvania’s wildlife and natural resources, and all citizens for today and tomorrow. Balancing the science and biology of deer management with the values of citizens will continue to be the greatest challenge for the Game Commission’s deer program.” Public comments on the agency’s deer management plan will be accepted until March 12, via the website or by mail to: Deer Management Plan, Pennsylvania Game Commission, 2001 Elmerton Avenue, Harrisburg, PA 17110-9797. Additionally, public comment can be offered at the upcoming open houses that the Game Commission will be hosting in six communities around the state between Feb. 20 and April 10. Open houses will be held from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on a Saturday to maximize the opportunity for those interested in attending, and are being held in different locations than the three previous rounds to afford residents in other areas of the state the opportunity to attend. The schedule for the open houses is as follows: |
I see nothing gained. Proposing we stay the same course on into 2018. lmao. Gee swell. I say in that case, lets give them a fee increase....
No sooner than 2020..:cool2: Wonder if that was written up with any consideration given to the audit findings? If so, guess it will just be the whitewash that many predicted. |
if the PGC doesn't know how the majority of hunters (also Pennsylvanian's) feel by now towards thier inane deer managemnt...a.k.a. kill off then they truly haven't been listening
NO RATE HIKE WITHOUT DEER NUMBERS GOING UP FIRST!!! |
They know exactly how we feel. Them asking for 30 days of public input is just a technicality. Its the routine and how things were set up. Completely meaningless.
|
I found this quote from the plan to be quite revealing.
[QUOTE]Non-forested areas, mainly agricultural and developed lands were arbitrarily assigned a carrying capacity of 0 because of conflicts caused by deer on these lands. Forested land figures for each county were determined through a U.S. Forest Service inventory conducted about every 10-12 years. County data were then applied to the deer densities established for each size class. During their 25 years of use, county deer density objectives were rarely achieved and often disputed by hunters who claimed there were few or no deer where they hunted. At the end of the 20th century, Cameron County was the only county where the objective was met. Forty-five of the remaining 61 counties – the 5 special regulation counties were not assigned objectives based on forest characteristics – were 50% or more above objective and about half of these counties had 2 times the objective. After decades of use, setting deer density objectives and attempting to achieve them on a county-by-county basis was not working. /QUOTE] They claim the previous DMP was not working because they couldn't reach the density objectives that assigned zero habitat value to non-forested. They had to be brain dead not to realize the reason they couldn't reach their objectives was because the carrying capacity was much higher than the values they were assigning to the habitat. Also, the PGC told us how well the plan was working in numerous articles in the PGN during those 25 years, but when DCNR needed to get their forests re-certified , the plan suddenly stopped working and we had an environmental crisis on the level of global warming. |
Simply amazing.
"3.1.5 Conduct evaluation of the first 10 years of forest habitat health and deer impact data in relation to deer population management by 2017 " The PGC claims they are managing our herd on a year by year basis, based on forest heath.But they aren't going to evaluate the effects of their management until 2017. How is that possible? |
Oh brother... Just when you think the game commission cant make any less sense.
Good catch bb. Unreal. And this is who we trust with 75 to 80+million dollars a year to manage our wildlife. Gee i have an idea...lets take this inept very hunter nonfriendly agency, who is also already the highest funded wildlife agency in the nation & give them more cash!:s8::s8::nonono2::nonono2::rolleye0011: |
I'm not sure that this info applies specifically to PA, but this is the agency the PGC uses to obtain the data for determining forest health.
Annual Inventory Design: Phase III Forest Health Monitoring (each sample represents 95,000 acres) Basic Forest Health Monitoring system that began in 1990 will continue until the annual Forest Inventory and Analysis system begins in each state. The Forest Health Monitoring and Forest Inventory and Analysis sample locations will be co-located and measured using standard Forest Inventory and Analysis and Forest Health Monitoring protocols. The Forest Health Monitoring grid will be converted to a 5-year measurement cycle with no overlap and the intensity will be boosted. Working towards a single visit by field crews. Data compilation and database systems will be merged. |
Pgc needs cleaned out....Bad.
Recent statement by rosenberry: " "The time is coming — and soon — when deer can be injected via darts fired from a rifle, though, and that will lower costs considerably, he said. Then, if not before, GonaCon will take its place as a part of the deer management scene, he said." |
Originally Posted by Cornelius08
(Post 3576938)
Pgc needs cleaned out....Bad.
Recent statement by rosenberry: " "The time is coming — and soon — when deer can be injected via darts fired from a rifle, though, and that will lower costs considerably, he said. Then, if not before, GonaCon will take its place as a part of the deer management scene, he said." On communities wanting to use use Gonacon, Cal Dubrock said: They're going to have to demontrate that they have a hunting program in place. They're going to have to have a variety of other elementsin place, a variety of means of control, both lethal and non lethal. This would be only an added element. None of those other things are going to go away. You can quote me on this: there are going to be a lot of tough hoops to get throug to use this |
1st, there is no "propaganda". I simply state the facts. But you did make a good catch. That was in the article and there were quotes from several different people, Rosenberry, roe,dubrock & Miller. I reread, and Miller did say that. But it doesnt make matters any better when Pgc has a pro use policy and a means is soon to be available to use it on a wider scale much easier and cheaper according to miller.
However Rosenberry DID say this: "This changes the fertility drug situation considerably," agreed Rosenberry. No community or group will be using the vaccine here in Pennsylvania right away." Right away? lmao. "A lot of people are trying to say that this is the panacea for urban deer management. We're trying to say, not so fast," said Carl Roe, executive director of the commission. "You can quote me on this: there are going to be a lot of tough hoops to get through to use this." But they ARE gonna use it after making it through those big bad "hoops" right Carl? lmao. Commissioner Delaney also stated they were voting on USING CONTRACEPTION at the January meeting. Guess you missed that too? lol. Im pretty sure you didnt miss my other links on this site where pgc flat out stated they were pro-contraception by having a policy of USE, not a no-use policy. When they speak of all the things Ive shown pluse call it "another tool in the toolbox", i think its pretty obvious, their position is a pro-use policy. Pgc is clearly trying to downplay their enthusiam, Id say thats a smart move considering the all the heat they are already under by the legislators and hunters of this state. Sorry. But as i said before its not debatable. Only reason i posted what i did wasnt to show them as having a pro-use policy. Thats already well known by most by now. It was to show that things are gonna go from bad to worse with making administering the drug MUCH easier and MUCH cheaper according to millers statement. |
Not debatable? Sorry, I think not.
What part of having a reguirement to have a hunting program in place before any other measures are considered did you not understand? |
Like i said, not debatable and in that regard it doesnt matter what you or i think. It doesnt change what the policy is as stated. There are no longer any secrets, no need for conspiracy theories, no guessing games, and no more possibility of denial. They have a policy in place, the vote is in, the press releases made, and the cat is out of the bag.
What is debatable and what we are discussing is whether their pro-use policy is acceptable regardless of how its written up in our opinions. In mine its not. As for quibbling over minor technicalities and meaningless details that are very open to interpretation and subject to change at a moments notice.....Sure why not; In other articles theyve also stated in areas not conducive to hunting or where hunting hasnt been or cannot be effective. I donno about you, but that sounds like an open to interpretation judgement call. Couple that with other areas WITH Hunting as in the situation you speak of, and id say they have quite a few plans for the stuff. And thats just for starters. Once its in....Its in. Things have a way of "expanding" in use. Especially now that they have taken us past the "shock value" gently, and now they can utilize it since the policy is now in place. Something that was impossible previously. There is absolutely NOTHING stopping them from, say 5 years from now, using the stuff ANYWHERE by anyone they may choose to allow. No matter who likes it, not a thing could be done to stop it..... Just like our fine deer plan thusfar. Of course we have nothing to worry about. We can trust the Pa game commission. lol.' Not as if they ever have or ever would screw over the hunters of this state or anything. They love deer. Theyd never do anything excessive where our deer herd is concerned! lmao..:rolleye0011: |
Originally Posted by Cornelius08
(Post 3577177)
Like i said, not debatable and in that regard it doesnt matter what you or i think. It doesnt change what the policy is as stated. There are no longer any secrets, no need for conspiracy theories, no guessing games, and no more possibility of denial. They have a policy in place, the vote is in, the press releases made, and the cat is out of the bag.
What is debatable and what we are discussing is whether their pro-use policy is acceptable regardless of how its written up in our opinions. In mine its not. As for quibbling over minor technicalities and meaningless details that are very open to interpretation and subject to change at a moments notice.....Sure why not; In other articles theyve also stated in areas not conducive to hunting or where hunting hasnt been or cannot be effective. I donno about you, but that sounds like an open to interpretation judgement call. Couple that with other areas WITH Hunting as in the situation you speak of, and id say they have quite a few plans for the stuff. And thats just for starters. Once its in....Its in. Things have a way of "expanding" in use. Especially now that they have taken us past the "shock value" gently, and now they can utilize it since the policy is now in place. Something that was impossible previously. There is absolutely NOTHING stopping them from, say 5 years from now, using the stuff ANYWHERE by anyone they may choose to allow. No matter who likes it, not a thing could be done to stop it..... Just like our fine deer plan thusfar. Of course we have nothing to worry about. We can trust the Pa game commission. lol.' Not as if they ever have or ever would screw over the hunters of this state or anything. They love deer. Theyd never do anything excessive where our deer herd is concerned! lmao..:rolleye0011: You are correct that this stuff is subject to interperetation and we cant know exactly how things will be administered in the future. I do have some personal experience with how the PGC has handled urban deer in the past that has helped shape my opinion. I have been involved in a municipal bowhunting program where they also use sharpshooting in parts of that municiplaity where bowhunting is either not possible or ineffective. The program has been in place for 15 years and the sharpshooting was brought in some years after it was initiated. Having been involved with the folks that run this particular program has given me a first hand view of how the non hunting deer control measures are implemented and monitored. The sharpshooting is under constant PGC scrutiny and has not infringed on the bowhunting program in the least. Based on my experience I have zero concerns about Gonacon being any threat whatsoever to hunting and seriously doubt that it will even replace the sharpshooting programs. Sure, some do-gooders will clamor for it but any threat to hunting is unlikely IMHO. |
Seems YOUR area would be one of the first targeted. The sras.
Gonacon is a threat to hunting. Its not gonna end hunting, but its one helluva kick in the chops. While the jury is out on the current crew overall, I have absolutely no doubt that if types like Pallone & Schleiden were in charge currently the use would quickly become widespread. No ands ifs or buts imho. Currently there is no reason to prevent people from using it. The "experts"...biologists etc. at the game commission made it a viable option and now they wouldnt have a rats fat patoot chance in court of defending AGAINST its use if they were to deny the usage to anyone requesting it. There is not one thing preventing it now. They throw every argument of "ineffective', issues of "Uncertainty", safeness, etc. when they accepted it as a "tool" worthy of use within the state borders. Its been given its legitimacy. What effect do you think it will have on hunters to know the stuff was used in a particular area? You wanna hunt anywhere around that area with deer marked with orange spots (necessary part of the plan to indicate they were injected)& that crap in their veins? lol You gonna make the jerky? I wouldnt. And I know a lot of others wont be willing either. Heck there were people afraid to eat deer from the ehd area to some extent! Let alone something of this magnitude. On another note, whats to stop dcnr from demanding its use where "hunting has been ineffective" at reducing deer numbers to ridiculous levels since their regeneration in many areas of the state forest is failing and they blame the deer. As for "clamoring for it" its been going on for years. In fact Mr. Jay Kirkpatrick, the antihunters good doctor has given seminars in YOUR area (Pittsburgh are) as well as other areas of the state saying how effective birth control can be given the chance, and how hes disgusted that its was not a legal option. Well the people that brought in Mr. Kirkpatrick to speak are probably smiling like a opossum on a gut pile right about now.. |
Here is the criteria for determining forest health as provided in the Draft DMP.
"Forest health classification Regeneration1 Description Good >70% Forest canopy replacement will occur without further actions to mitigate deer impacts. Fair 50 - 70% Forest canopy replacement can occur, but DMAP and some deer-deterrent fencing are required. Poor <50% Forest canopy replacement will not occur without deer-deterrent fencing and DMAP. " These figures conflict with the classifications provided in the 2008 AWR,where for example, forest health in 2F was rated as fair with 39% regeneration ,when it should have been rated as poor , just like in 2G with 38% regeneration. |
Maybe they knew the regeneration sampling was an insufficient joke as WMI pointed out and didnt strictly adhere to it?
|
nike free run 3 dame
Skuffede fans kritiserte London 2012 arrangørene på søndag, og anklager dem om iscenesettelse ett "forsvinningsnummer" som har et olympiske ild nike free 3.0
All gryten ble tent blant dramatiske scener sammen med de åpningsseremonien på fredag, men kan ikke ses skrevet av noen utenfor dag olympiske stadion fordi alt sin posisjonering innen de spillested. nike free 5.0 Det mest betyr nesten halvparten om Video spill vil tjene passerte denne neste dagtid viktigst flamme kan være utstilt fordi Hver av vår spor å gjøre oppnå langt fra å være gjøre gang til fredag. http://www.nikenorskfree.info |
Get out there and kill some deer. Try some DMAP areas and slaughter some doe this year. Einstein said something like: " Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result." It sucks, but if the old stomping grounds has no deer, go where there are deer. Last year I went hunting with an old buddy that has hunted private land for over 20 years. I said " Lets try some public land" . It was the extended doe season in Pa. and we hit 2 places that day. It was unbelievable. He saw more deer in one day than the whole season on private land. I saw 4 buck (Not open) and 2 were legal. We saw 3 doe being drug out. I have that special place too where the memories are good, but if I see no sign I go somewhere else. I know it is tough to move. Most guys quit hunting first, I have seen that happen. This year try other places and don't worry about the Game Commission. The Game Commission contains many liars and incompetents, but there is nothing to be done about it. They are a separate entity and can not even be investigated by a government department. I gave up and go with the flow.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:12 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.