The Mismanagement of the PA Deer Herd
09-27-2010, 11:24 AM
#21
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Instead of attacking Eveland's character ,why don't you refute what he had to say about the involvement of the Audubon, DCNR, the timber industry, SCS , QDMA and WMI? If you and others would have questioned Alt's character as much as you are questioning Eveland's,maybe we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.Instead you defended him and his plan for years until the overwhelming data proved he was dead wrong.
I never denied that the Audubon,timber industry or DCNR wanted less deer.They were always very vocal about it but that doesn't mean they were wrong.
09-27-2010, 11:42 AM
#22
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Yet another example. This time it's private land of an NGO that is open to hunters.
Clinton County, 2G. After hunting season densities in the 20's.
http://huntwestbranch.blogspot.com/p...r-flights.html
WV Gino
Clinton County, 2G. After hunting season densities in the 20's.
http://huntwestbranch.blogspot.com/p...r-flights.html
WV Gino
09-27-2010, 11:52 AM
#23
Fork Horn
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Morgantown WV USA
Posts: 108
>I'm willing to bet that most of the guys that hunt there claim that there's no deer.
I know Mike the manager of this property. He sends surveys to all the guys who get DMAP coupons. Of those that return surveys the average guy hunts this property about 4 days and see like 1.7 deer total for the season.
WV Gino
I know Mike the manager of this property. He sends surveys to all the guys who get DMAP coupons. Of those that return surveys the average guy hunts this property about 4 days and see like 1.7 deer total for the season.
WV Gino
09-27-2010, 12:08 PM
#24
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Yet another example. This time it's private land of an NGO that is open to hunters.
Clinton County, 2G. After hunting season densities in the 20's.
http://huntwestbranch.blogspot.com/p...r-flights.html
WV Gino
Clinton County, 2G. After hunting season densities in the 20's.
http://huntwestbranch.blogspot.com/p...r-flights.html
WV Gino
S you proved there area areas with more than 1 or 2 DPSM , which we already knew that. Now prove that there are no areas in the state with 1 or 2 DPSM.
09-27-2010, 12:13 PM
#25
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
never attacked his character.I'm saying that there's no evidence to point to who he claims to be.When people make such outlandish claims,I have no need to listen to any of the nensense they have to say
I never denied that the Audubon,timber industry or DCNR wanted less deer.They were always very vocal about it but that doesn't mean they were wrong.
But it also doesn't mean they were right either and what it shows is that a particular group of stakeholders blackmailed the PGC to reduce the herd to satisfy the special interests of DCNR and the timber industry at the expense of the hunters.
09-27-2010, 12:26 PM
#26
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Of course you attacked his character by claiming he exaggerated his work with the PGC on bear and elk.
But it also doesn't mean they were right either and what it shows is that a particular group of stakeholders blackmailed the PGC to reduce the herd to satisfy the special interests of DCNR and the timber industry at the expense of the hunters.
But it also doesn't mean they were right either and what it shows is that a particular group of stakeholders blackmailed the PGC to reduce the herd to satisfy the special interests of DCNR and the timber industry at the expense of the hunters.
09-27-2010, 12:27 PM
#27
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Sure there are area that have less than 2 dpsm.That's the case in every wmu.Now show us those areas and explain why there should be more.
09-27-2010, 12:28 PM
#28
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Of course you attacked his character by claiming he exaggerated his work with the PGC on bear and elk.
But it also doesn't mean they were right either and what it shows is that a particular group of stakeholders blackmailed the PGC to reduce the herd to satisfy the special interests of DCNR and the timber industry at the expense of the hunters.
But it also doesn't mean they were right either and what it shows is that a particular group of stakeholders blackmailed the PGC to reduce the herd to satisfy the special interests of DCNR and the timber industry at the expense of the hunters.
Exactly how did the Audubon black mail the PGC.Are you once again stating that the deer did not damage the habitat?
09-27-2010, 12:39 PM
#29
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
I didn't say the Audubon blackmailed the PGC, they just supported DCNR which blackmailed the PGC.
Of course the deer have negatively affected the habitat in some areas. But the current plan is not based on the carrying capacity of the habitat, it is based on the regeneration of trees. A healthy dense stand of pole timber will still provide very poor habitat for wildlife for 50 or 60 years.
Of course the deer have negatively affected the habitat in some areas. But the current plan is not based on the carrying capacity of the habitat, it is based on the regeneration of trees. A healthy dense stand of pole timber will still provide very poor habitat for wildlife for 50 or 60 years.
09-27-2010, 01:31 PM
#30
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
I didn't say the Audubon blackmailed the PGC, they just supported DCNR which blackmailed the PGC.
Of course the deer have negatively affected the habitat in some areas. But the current plan is not based on the carrying capacity of the habitat, it is based on the regeneration of trees. A healthy dense stand of pole timber will still provide very poor habitat for wildlife for 50 or 60 years.
Of course the deer have negatively affected the habitat in some areas. But the current plan is not based on the carrying capacity of the habitat, it is based on the regeneration of trees. A healthy dense stand of pole timber will still provide very poor habitat for wildlife for 50 or 60 years.
Yes pole timber is poor habitat.No one has disputed that but adding more deer to poor habitat is poor management.What do you suggest?Should they continue to cut the timber as soon as it reaches the pole stage?
Good regeneration means better habitat for more than deer and the 4 other species that Eveland claimed benefitted.I'm all for that.
