Northeast ME, NH, VT, NY, CT, RI, MA, PA, DE, WV, MD, NJ Remember, the Regional forums are for hunting topics only.

Time To Turn The PGC Into Scrap!!

Old 03-23-2010, 01:48 AM
  #11  
Typical Buck
 
Screamin Steel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 659
Default

Jeff, what criteria has OH used to establish those management goals? Herd health? Human conflict? Or regeneration of certain trees and wildlflowers?
Screamin Steel is offline  
Old 03-23-2010, 08:48 AM
  #12  
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
 
J Pike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: York, PA.
Posts: 1,313
Default

SS. The ODNR says their target goal of 25 deer per square mile ( which is basicly 50% of max. carrying cap.)is the perfect DD. goal because it ensures the health of the habitat, the herd, the health of the other species that share the habitat. It also keeps all parties invloved happy, the hunter of OH. the farmers and the insurance companies.

Gino, when the bags limits of r certain seasons were increased in 2008 in certain WMU.'s the goal was to harvest an additional 10,000 deer per year, to get the herd down to its target goal of 560,000 whitetails, whoever the herd continue's to grow and so does the harvest #'s, Meanwhile in PA. we continue to to reduce the herd (even though you try to claim that HR. is over) and our herd and deer harvest continue's to decrease. Years ago, I posted a thread on HPA. that was titled, welcome to Ohio (minus the huge bucks) I stated in 5 + years our yearly deer harvest will be very similar to OH.'s even though we have alot more hunters.
Well I would say we have now reached that point, and the harvest numbers for both state's will continue to get even closer, even after the ODNR has the herd back close to its target goal. Pike
J Pike is offline  
Old 03-23-2010, 08:49 AM
  #13  
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
 
J Pike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: York, PA.
Posts: 1,313
Default

SS. The ODNR says their target goal of 25 deer per square mile ( which is basicly 50% of max. carrying cap.)is the perfect DD. goal because it ensures the health of the habitat, the herd, the health of the other species that share the habitat. It also keeps all parties invloved happy, the hunter of OH. the farmers and the insurance companies. ( you see unlike the hunters of PA., the hunters of OH. actually have a say on how the herd is managed, as well as things like sunday hunting etc.)

Gino, when the bags limits in OH. of certain seasons were increased in 2008 in certain WMU.'s the goal was to harvest an additional 10,000 deer per year, to get the herd down to its target goal of 560,000 whitetails, whoever the herd continue's to grow and so does the harvest #'s, Meanwhile in PA. we continue to to reduce the herd (even though you try to claim that HR. is over) and our herd and deer harvest continue's to decrease. Years ago, I posted a thread on HPA. that was titled, welcome to Ohio (minus the huge bucks) I stated in 5 + years our yearly deer harvest will be very similar to OH.'s even though we have alot more hunters.
Well I would say we have now reached that point, and the harvest numbers for both state's will continue to get even closer, even after the ODNR has the herd back close to its target goal. Pike
J Pike is offline  
Old 03-23-2010, 10:18 AM
  #14  
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Morgantown WV USA
Posts: 108
Default

Pike

Ohio is 44,825 sq miles. At 25 deer per square mile the statewide goal would be 1,120,625 deer. The 25 DPSM must per per square mile of what the DNR considers deer habitat. Assuming your 560k and 25 figures are correct, it looks like the OH DNR only considers 50% of Ohio to be deer habitat. So just how is this any differnet than what PA is doing?

Another thing, let's say the OH DNR get's to a pre-season figure of 560k deer. You won't have sustainable harvests of 280k a year. Think more like 140k.

Gino
WV Gino is offline  
Old 03-23-2010, 11:57 AM
  #15  
Spike
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 64
Default

Well put. But if your hand is clenched in an anger fist, it's hard to grasp anything. But your premise is correct, they always want to compare oranges to apples.

Nice thumbnail, lmfao!
MeatHunter2 is offline  
Old 03-23-2010, 01:27 PM
  #16  
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
 
J Pike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: York, PA.
Posts: 1,313
Default

Originally Posted by WV Gino
Pike

Ohio is 44,825 sq miles. At 25 deer per square mile the statewide goal would be 1,120,625 deer. The 25 DPSM must per per square mile of what the DNR considers deer habitat. Assuming your 560k and 25 figures are correct, it looks like the OH DNR only considers 50% of Ohio to be deer habitat. So just how is this any differnet than what PA is doing?

Another thing, let's say the OH DNR get's to a pre-season figure of 560k deer. You won't have sustainable harvests of 280k a year. Think more like 140k.

Gino
Gino, there isnt anything wrong with that!! I never said there was, (who would consider a walmart parking lot or a sub-division as deeer habitat?)But OH. does consider Non forested habitat such as farmland to be deer habitat but the PGC. does not.

I also never said that OH. should have substainable harvest's of 280K a year! Because they never had one deer harvest of 280K
There is nothing wrong with 400,000 OH. hunters harvesting 230-235K ACTUAL deer per year, (remember the ODNR uses worst case scenerio when it comes to deer harvest and the PGC. uses their ESTIMATED best case scenerio) I always considered that to be pretty good actually! But the Problem I have is that in the very near future PA.'s ESTIMATED deer harvest is going to drop to under 300K and remain there. And for 900,000+ hunters that is pathetic.Pike

Last edited by J Pike; 03-23-2010 at 01:30 PM.
J Pike is offline  
Old 03-23-2010, 01:28 PM
  #17  
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
 
J Pike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: York, PA.
Posts: 1,313
Default

Originally Posted by MeatHunter2
Well put. But if your hand is clenched in an anger fist, it's hard to grasp anything. But your premise is correct, they always want to compare oranges to apples.

Nice thumbnail, lmfao!
No clenched hands or anger fist here, I got some of the best deer hunting in the entire country! Pike
J Pike is offline  
Old 03-23-2010, 01:41 PM
  #18  
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
 
J Pike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: York, PA.
Posts: 1,313
Default

Originally Posted by MeatHunter2
Well put. But if your hand is clenched in an anger fist, it's hard to grasp anything. But your premise is correct, they always want to compare oranges to apples.

Nice thumbnail, lmfao!
LMAO is right!! OHIO has had the same deer density goals for over a decade!! And it hasnt changed and wont change.
For example, the OH. Farm Bureau which is a lot more powerfull than ours, tried to get the ODNR to reduce their deer population by over 50%, and used deer/car collisions as their un biased reasons! The ODNR during the hearing asked "" doesnt the OFB. own the NATIONWIDE INSURANCE Co.? And isnt the OFB's headquarters located in the Nationwide building (which the OFB also owns) located in Columbus OH.? As you can imagine the OFB. got shot down. Comparing OH. to PA. is comparing apples to apples, if anything its not fair to compare OH.'s harvest numbers to PA.'s because we have over twice as many hunters, more and longer firearms seasons, and the use of HIGH POWERED RIFLES.
Now go back to celebrating your OBama Care Victory! And get rested up for your next global warming lawsuit. Pike

Last edited by J Pike; 03-23-2010 at 01:43 PM.
J Pike is offline  
Old 03-24-2010, 04:15 AM
  #19  
Typical Buck
 
Screamin Steel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 659
Default

Originally Posted by Corpsman
Uh, let's slowly try to connect the dots: a state has good harvest rates predicated on DSM at nonsustainable levels. The state develops a herd reduction program in relation to a wide range of management goals, many of which have nothing to do with maintaining high levels of deer hunter satisfaction ratings. What is gonna happen? Duh, harvest rates will drop significantly through time, to the point of not looking good compared to other states that are currently at, or approaching, non-sustainable levels and are in the process of developing their own herd reduction strategies.

The anit-PGC folks study pretty hard on this, but can't quite grasp it.

Yeah, nice pic in your signature. Making fun at the expense of someone with Downe's Syndrome is pretty low, even for a PGC cheerleader.
Screamin Steel is offline  
Old 03-24-2010, 05:12 AM
  #20  
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 171
Default

the banner wavers for the PGC can write anything they wish yet the facts cannot be skewed....Pa's deer harvest was down again that's how many years in a row now? While anterless tags an herd reduction extra seasons haven't been been reduced at the same rates......cut it like you wish there just aren't many deer left in most of the state.
It has indeed come to a time to oust the status quo and restructurethe PGC!!
Potterco is offline  

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.