I'm willing to bet
 

all the posters whom live in deer rich areas an post so prolificly about the tons of deer they see...haven't spent more than 1 day a season in the north central WMUs a year...yet they think all of PA is like Pittsburgh

You'd lose that bet.

or Illinos

I believe the largest portion of those that support the plan vocally are enviromentalists some of which dont hunt, or hunt but could really take it or leave it.

But there is no doubt that the few who are hunters and not with "other agendas" and support the plan exactly as is dont do much if any of their hunting in areas "representative of Pa". Some hunt sras on highly off limits lands. Others manage leases. Still others spend most of their hunting time out of state.

AND some don't realize or won't admit that our herd is being managed for the benefit of DCNR and the timber industry and that HR has nothing to do with the carrying capacity of the habitat.

When was it ever managed for hunter satisfaction?

It was managed for hunter satisfaction when they were stocking deer and when there was no doe season.

Then we have this from 1966.

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, and doesn't sell them out in favor of his ecoweenie liberal bed buddies. See all the habitat improvement in the form of the reclaimed strip mines. Now that's sound management and beneficial to many species of game and wildlife, and the deer hunting is representative of that. Granted there are many differences between NC PA and OH, but not nearly so much between SW PA and OH. Great soil, great deer potential....one state has great hunting, one is more concerned with trying to grow trees and wildflowers. It's all in the underlying political agendas. 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.

No,that's not what it's about.It used to be like that and the deer destryed the habitat accross the entire area of Pa that held the most deer.Now we're forced to put up with lower deer numbers as a result.The outright accustaions and lies on these boards are ridiculous.Now Fat Eddie is behind herd reduction.Sorry Jake but you don't have clue.

>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.



WV Gino

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.

[quote=Cornelius08;3584566]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...

There absolutely,positively were severe problems with the habitat that are univerally accepted by every expert out there.None of that was manufatured.

Plenty of hunters operate according to the if its brown its down mentality. Plenty of hunters would be all for extending seasons, extending bag limits, opening all public lands to hunting, and allowing everything from traditional bows to Uzi's to hunt deer. So, if they had put the management entirely in the hands of hunters, deer would probably be extinct in PA at this point. Compared to that, the mixed bag of folks with differing agendas currently involved may be far from perfect, but things could be worse.

Be careful of what you wish for....

Quote:

---

" There absolutely,positively were severe problems with the habitat that are univerally accepted by every expert out there.None of that was manufatured. "

---

Its also universally accepted that there are other reasons for it, including but not limited to deer.

That also doesnt pertain to statewide conditions by any stretch of the imagination, yet they try to stretch out real problems in some areas to include other areas by pointing out pure nonsense problems such as not enough hobblebush, or trillium existing, regen. stocking not being conducive to completely even age timber stand and other complete nonsense. Problem of being able to see over a hundred yards in MATURE timber because of not having fully stocked shrub layer on every inch of Pa mature timber!...

The changes in already extreme assessment methods that got even moreso, and sent wmus from 60%+ regeneration ratings....Down to 30's with a simple change in the wording... And now according to that data, after 10 long years, and significant reductions....the audit says instead of progressing, we actually REGRESSED a tiny bit!! Due most likely to the change in assment method mentioned above.

Too much complete and utter bs. Maybe if it all werent so ridiculous and the lies so blatant, the exaggerations so hard to believe... Maybe some of what they have to say would actually be believed. Im sure there probably is a smidge of truth here and there that some may pass off as total fallacy simply because of all the things we KNOW are pure garbage that theyve been trying to force feed us.

That's simply not true. When regeneration is limited by factors other than deer, the area can support a lot more deer than 10 DPSM. If that wasn't true the herd would never have increased to 1.6M deer ,because the habitat wouldn't have supported that many deer.

The funny thing is man created the problems with the habitat , not the deer. Man stripped the state of trees which resulted in uncontrolled forest fires,severe erosion and an even aged forest. Man stocked deer and allowed the herd to increase while the carrying capacity was decreasing. Now man wants the forests to stay the same as it was for the last 50 years even though mother nature prefers shade tolerant trees with less commercial value.