That is what I have been saying for the last 9 years. herd health was never an issue , but if the pGC wanted to use herd health as a criteria , the audit suggested better ways of measuring herd health.

What a complete Joke!!
Bluebird do you happen to know what the harvest #'s were the last time our herd size was estimated at about 1 million deer? Pike

When we had 1M OWD in 2000 the buck harvest was 203K and the antlerless harvest was 301K.The PSDD in 2000 was approx. 1.6 M deer.

PLEASE show me rationally thinking, sane person(s) whom believe the PGC considered anything the majority of sportsmen have been telling them all along...anterless harvests are to high an continue to be.
Where does the report state the PGC's rebuttal to our complaints of low deer numbers??? I surely did not read anywhere the PGC's statement that "hunters are fat, lazy and don't know how to hunt that is why they aren't seeing deer"......DID ANYONE ELSE?? That doesn't seem to this sportsman that they allowed us to voice or opinion to an open ear.

the audit was jaded from the start and IMHO an insult to the intellegence of all sportsmen statewide to even think for a moment we couldn't see through this shame!!!!

I continue to preach don't buy a back tag this year let the PGC choke on their present deer management goals!!!!!!

IMO, they suggested dropping the current m,easure of herd health because it reflects negatively on the DMP, since breeding rates and productivity declined in the wake of HR. In fact, if herd health continued to be a factor in the DMP, than we would have to assume that the PGC's constitutional mandate of wildlife conservation has been compromised directly by the plan, as it had a direct negative impact on herd health...which coincdentally was the oposite of what would have/ should have been expected. And so, we should eliminate herd health as any sort of management guideline entirely, shifting the focus ONLy to include forest health and human conflict...and the agency has basically become that DCNR, USFS apendage that Carl Roe argued so adamantly that they were not, in any uncertain terms.
Right, Carl. Btw, I heard the squirrel management program got an A+, and opportunities should continue to be excellent! LMAO

maybe a bat fungus management plan is more within the capablities of the PGC...no on second thought I guess they have them messed up as well.

Yeah, but they need more $!!!!!! I guess in the world they live in, negative work performance = a payraise. Sorry fellas. Improve your performance, THEN we talk payraises.

I love this tidbit:
Quote:

They might not need to worry about squeezing a few more dimes out of us for long!!!!....

Here are some highlights from this newly released report done by the Pa legislative budget & finance committee!!!

PGC SGL #12 and #36, containing a combined 43,466 acres, appear to represent the most
valuable PGC property. Should these two parcels lease at the level of recent transactions, the
signing bonus would be over $249 million. Assuming a royalty rate of 20%, these lands could
eventually net the PGC $1.07 billion above and beyond the signing bonus (given $4/1000 cfe gas).


SGL #13 and SGL #57 consist of a combined 95,021 acres in parts of Luzerne, Sullivan, and
Wyoming Counties. This is by far the largest nearly contiguous acreage in the PGC portfolio and
much, if not all of it, is prospective for Marcellus gas. It is reasonable to suggest that SGL #13 and
#57, which is double the size of SGL #12 and #36, may well realize twice the revenue as the
former.

http://lbfc.legis.state.pa.us/reports/2010/42.PDF


Carl Roe replied that in that region they only hold 24% of the gas rights. Thats still 24% of over 3 BILLION dollars estimated! Which is well over $700,000,000!!!! And could concieveably be higher!! + a portion of that 249 million signing bonus spoken of!

And thats in just one part of the state!!