Draft DMP/Comments
02-11-2010 | 12:23 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Likes: 0
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:
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:
02-11-2010 | 02:54 PM
#2
Banned
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,978
Likes: 0
From:
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..
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.
No sooner than 2020..
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.
02-12-2010 | 06:12 AM
#3
Fork Horn
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
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!!!
NO RATE HIKE WITHOUT DEER NUMBERS GOING UP FIRST!!!
02-12-2010 | 12:41 PM
#5
Thread Starter
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Likes: 0
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.
[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.
02-13-2010 | 01:56 PM
#6
Thread Starter
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Likes: 0
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?
"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?
02-13-2010 | 03:12 PM
#7
Banned
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,978
Likes: 0
From:
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!
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!
02-14-2010 | 04:29 AM
#8
Thread Starter
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Likes: 0
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.
Note that each sample represents 95,000 acres. That means each plot represents 148 SM of forested habitat. Applying that to a WMU like 2G that would equate to 28 sample plots in the entire WMU. If that is true ,that would be a much smaller sample size than they use to determine herd health and the PGC says that sample size is too small so they have to use 3 year averages.
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.
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.
02-14-2010 | 12:09 PM
#9
Banned
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,978
Likes: 0
From:
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."
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."
02-14-2010 | 04:27 PM
#10
Giant Nontypical
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,220
Likes: 0
From: SW PA USA
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."
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
