I'm willing to bet anyone make broad brush general assumptions are wrong more then they are right.

Good point Gino. Portions of Ohio as well as Illinois are good examples of areas that the Chicken Little crowd want PA to be like. Yet, those areas are currently involved in herd reduction programs precisely because it is recognized that the deer numbers that have so recently resulted in very high success rates in those areas have reached nuisance levels. Why some folks can't achieve at least a partial grasp of that reality is a big mystery.

[quote=WV Gino;3584482]>Great soil, great deer potential....one state has great hunting, one is more concerned with trying to grow trees and wildflowers.




The Ohio DNR wants to reduce the deer herd in Eastern Ohio. They have no limit to the number of doe tags unlike PA which has a fixed alllocation of tags and an Ohio hunter hunting Eastern Oh can killl twice as many doe deers as a PA hunter hunting in Western PA can. You can kill deers in OH over bait as well.


Looks like the OH DNR is even more out to screw Johnny Deerslayer than the PA GC is. :eek:



http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/hunting/news/story?id=3999776>

In Ohio, where reducing the deer herd is job one for the DNR's Division of Wildlife, a record 252,017 deer were killed during the 2008-09 hunting season, an increase of almost 20,000 deer over the previous year and the most since the previous record of 237,316 were harvested in 2006-2007.
"I was very pleased with the season. Hunters were encouraged to take more does and they continued to put heavy pressure on the antlerless deer," says David M. Graham, chief of the Division of Wildlife. "But work remains to lower the deer population, particularly in eastern Ohio." This, in a state that resumed legalized deer hunting in 1943, when 168 whitetails were killed in the three-county area open to hunting.





And there is a HUGE diffrence between mangaging deer for optimum herd health and reasonably low human conflict, and throwing your deer herd under the bus for the sake of forests that aren't responding due to a slew of other factors besides the deer. And yes...Fast Eddie and his political ties to eco groups and left wing lobbyists has had as much to do with HR in PA as anything, Doug. Obviously, Gino, deer numbers need to be controlled, and OH has recognized and responded to that need. Your comparison is absolutley meaningless.

"Hunter satisfaction is typically a by product of good game management. See Ohio. Of course it helps immensely to have a strong pro hunting advocate in your Governor's office, one that gives a rat about his fellow hunters,"

Exactly Jake and thats a fact. Ol' Ed couldnt care less about the sportsmen of Pa and as head of Dcnr just rubber stamps whatever dcnr would like, regardless of the maleffects.

"one state has great hunting, one is more concerned with trying to grow trees and wildflowers. It's all in the underlying political agendas."

Absolutely. And its not even one that they make much of an effort to hide.

Good news is fast Eddie is on his way out, and we have an opportunity to make a huge gain if we could elect a pro hunting governor to appoint some pro hunting commisioners.

Yeah, but thats a bit if. Just watched a gubernatorial debate the other day and a couple of the dem. candidates made reference several times to conservation related issues and I dont think hunters were the conservationists being spoken of.:s8:

Rohrer seems like a very good, hunter friendly candidate, but not too sure about his odds. Knowing full well Philly area will outnumber the rest of the state & vote dem.

Yeah, genius. Extremely high DD would be irresponsible in most habitats. Likewise DD in the single digits are a travesty and have proven to not accomplish the forest regeneration goals of the PGC and DCNR, due to many other contributing factors. Continuing to maintain idiotically low DD is as irresponsible as having too many.

Any state may need a few years of attempt at reduction, especially those with far fewer hunters than pa to keep them in line.


Big difference between a state needing some reduction because the herd is getting above cc and tolerable levels, compared to the ridiculousness going on here in the name of more trillium and excessive unnecessary unnatural levels of biodiversity.

Alot of habitat can't support more than 10 dpsm without further damage to the habitat.That a fact that can't be disputed.We wouldn't be in the mess we are today if we didn't have way too mnay deer for as long as we did.

Also kind of strange to me how people can make such absolute judgements about the failure (or success for that matter) of any program that has only been functioning for a few years. In most instances it took decades to get a clear assessment of programs that were simply intended to increase deer numbers. Yet, now folks are making all these pronouncements about a very complex herd reduction program that has many nuances related to forestry that require significant longitudinal analysis. That goes for both the people that think that the program is a wonderful success as well as those that think it is a disaster.

Douge, We wouldnt be in the mess we have today if it werent for the wrong people getting stacked onto the board of commissioners and putting all of this into place...

Manufacturing problems even where there were none...
Biodiversity partnerships...
Ridiculous levels of deer reductions....
Different timbering practices.....
Obtuse goals.....
Alliances with hunter unfriendlies and anti-deer orgs....
Contraception pro-use policies....
Constant belittling, ignoring and screwing over the sportsmen...


Yeah. Lets blame the hunters. lmao.

The reduction efforts have been in place for 10 years. Began in 2000 with over a million doe tags implemented by Alt & partially concurrent seasons etc.