Pa sportsmans club info on deer
04-06-2011, 03:27 PM
#1
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: PA.
Posts: 5,195
Pa sportsmans club info on deer
www.acsl-pa.org
a lot of reading there and EXPERT on deer also here in pa.click on video topic and there are 2 videos to watch and lots of reading.
a lot of reading there and EXPERT on deer also here in pa.click on video topic and there are 2 videos to watch and lots of reading.
Last edited by sproulman; 04-06-2011 at 03:33 PM.
04-07-2011, 12:39 PM
#2
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Summer Herd Size. According to the PGC's 2010 harvest estimate, in order to sustain a stable
population at a harvest of 316,240 it would require a summer (pre-hunting-season) herd of
1,718,002 deer. Annual mortality of 445,408 would reduce the size of the herd to an overwinter
population of 1,272,594 deer. Corresponding deer densities would, then, be significantly higher
during the summer than overwinter, with 65 deer per square mile existing on every square mile
of forestland, and (when combining all forest and agricultural lands) over 48 deer per square mile
on every square mile of forest, woodlot, cropland, and pasture land in the state.
Discussion. The above overwinter population of 1,272,594 deer and corresponding summer
population of 1,718,002 deer that would be required to sustain the PGC's 2010 harvest of
316,240 deer does not likely exist. If such a population existed, then the corresponding deer
densities on all forested land in the Commonwealth would be 48 deer per square mile during the
winter and 65 deer per square mile in summer – an unlikely circumstance. When all agricultural
land is included with all forestland in the state (consisting of all potential deer habitat), the
corresponding deer densities that would be required to sustain an annual harvest of 316,240 deer
would be 36 deer per square mile during the winter, and 48 deer per square mile in summer –
also not a likely situation.
According to the Game Commission's
population at a harvest of 316,240 it would require a summer (pre-hunting-season) herd of
1,718,002 deer. Annual mortality of 445,408 would reduce the size of the herd to an overwinter
population of 1,272,594 deer. Corresponding deer densities would, then, be significantly higher
during the summer than overwinter, with 65 deer per square mile existing on every square mile
of forestland, and (when combining all forest and agricultural lands) over 48 deer per square mile
on every square mile of forest, woodlot, cropland, and pasture land in the state.
Discussion. The above overwinter population of 1,272,594 deer and corresponding summer
population of 1,718,002 deer that would be required to sustain the PGC's 2010 harvest of
316,240 deer does not likely exist. If such a population existed, then the corresponding deer
densities on all forested land in the Commonwealth would be 48 deer per square mile during the
winter and 65 deer per square mile in summer – an unlikely circumstance. When all agricultural
land is included with all forestland in the state (consisting of all potential deer habitat), the
corresponding deer densities that would be required to sustain an annual harvest of 316,240 deer
would be 36 deer per square mile during the winter, and 48 deer per square mile in summer –
also not a likely situation.
According to the Game Commission's
Unfortunately, Eveland's analysis of hunting and non-hunting mortality rates is flawed. Instead of using the PGC recruitment rate Eveland used a rate of 35% based on a report from Ala. . He also uses the data from the deer mortality studies and concludes that the 21% non-mortality rate could be applied to the state wide harvest data in order to calculate non-hunting. Since numerous other factors can influence the harvests calculating non-hunting mortality based solely on harvest data produces flawed results.
04-08-2011, 10:48 AM
#3
Spike
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 64
Eveland lost a bid in 2009 to conduct an audit of the Game Commission's deer program, which state legislators instead awarded to the nonprofit Wildlife Management Institute of Virginia.
I outlined this in another thread a while back. I know sproulman wants this so desperately to be true, since his groups lawsuit fell thru, but you decide. And why did your group (the USP) blow this guy off just a couple years ago, according to your former regional director? Here it is again.
Why would anyone expect us hunters to believe these videos are the truth, when the guy has so blatantly lied about things in his bio. Even when setting aside the rehashing of conspiracies from the past decade thruout the videos.
Let's be serious here for a minute. I'm not one to just believe anything and everything you read or see on the internet. There's way too much misinformation that been put out there, mainly the unified club. Sorry, just stating facts. Anyways, I took a challenge from some on a message board to do a search of this guy on the web and/or a few emails, and this appears to be another mountain lion attack gone bad. Here's what I've been able to find out about this guy.
-His claim about working for the game commission is false. They have no records of his employment and both current and retired personel have said they never heard of the guy.
-His claim about working for Penn State as a research scientist and ordering several studies done is false, according to PSU's history of their wildlife research unit. His only link was as a student.
-His claim about a newspaper article done on him as "the bear man" seems to be photo-shopped, as the newspaper company has no record of it.
-His claim of Dr. Alt worshiping him and he being the reason Alt choose to study bears has been defunked by the Dr. himself, who claims to not even remember the guy, plus the time frame is way off.
- His claim that he discovered how to age animal teeth by counting the rings is false, since records show biologists across the country had been using that techniques when Eveland would have still been in highschool.
-His claims of developing the game commissions Elk management plan is false and the only reference to Eveland in it is a study done during his time there as a student collecting data for PSU.
-His claim of developing the bear plan is false. Out of more than 60 pieces of scientific literature cited in the plan, only his thesis as a student was he mentioned.
-And exhaustive searches, including at the PSU library, by many people have turned up no mention of this guy in any scientific wildlife reports, citations, or studies.
-And it was pretty well known a few years back that him and a politician were caught trying to broker a backroom deal to use taxpayer money to have him do an audit, out of the light of day. He was later denied because of his bias. The sportsmen wanted a fair, out of state, unbiased company to do it.
- And a new one. He claims PBS did a documentary on him but it can't be found anywhere even in reference and PBS has no record of it. Hmmmmmm
04-09-2011, 08:24 AM
#6
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: PA.
Posts: 5,195
many dont want deer anymore.so they go after anyone that disagrees with direction that PGC/DCNR has taken on reducing herd to very low numbers.they say they are EXPERTS and no one else is.
sad part of it the ones that DISAGREE never SHOW UP AT MEETING WHEN THEY COULD ASK THESE PEOPLE QUESTIONS.
they go on here and say bad things about them BUT dont ever confront the person they say are wrong.
i invite many to meeting with these speakers and not 1 shows up. i invited the PGC,none show up. fish commission does but never pgc .
i go to PGC meetings and speak but i know it does not good, but i have GRIT.
i spoke when the pgc had alt meetings and was booed by farmers and dcnr wannabees from OTHER counties.
but i was there and confronted the PGC /DCNR .
i still attend MANY meetings and give my opinion .
but i am not EXPERT ,only sportsman for 46 yrs of hunting .so i guess i could be boring as i am not EXPERT.
sad part of it the ones that DISAGREE never SHOW UP AT MEETING WHEN THEY COULD ASK THESE PEOPLE QUESTIONS.
they go on here and say bad things about them BUT dont ever confront the person they say are wrong.
i invite many to meeting with these speakers and not 1 shows up. i invited the PGC,none show up. fish commission does but never pgc .
i go to PGC meetings and speak but i know it does not good, but i have GRIT.
i spoke when the pgc had alt meetings and was booed by farmers and dcnr wannabees from OTHER counties.
but i was there and confronted the PGC /DCNR .
i still attend MANY meetings and give my opinion .
but i am not EXPERT ,only sportsman for 46 yrs of hunting .so i guess i could be boring as i am not EXPERT.
05-11-2011, 04:36 PM
#7
Spike
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 12
Geez meathead/hunter. Im not sure ive ever seen one poster make so many mistruths in one single post in my life. Only a couple of people i know of would do that. Is that you Mr Rosenberry?, Mr. Dubrock?
Sorry slanderer, but he never said he did work FOR the game commission. Can you provide a link to anywhere that he had stated this? No? I didnt think so. Dont let accuracy get in the way of your smear campaign. 
Youre wrong. And its well documented. It has been looked into and confirmed. Nothing but a smear campaign by a disgruntled antideer damage control agent.
-His claim about a newspaper article done on him as "the bear man" seems to be photo-shopped, as the newspaper company has no record of it.
You are funnier by the minute. Just because YOU didnt personally read a decades old article doesnt mean it didnt exist. He has a copy of it and again, its documented if you have the resources to confirm. Although that not convenient for you or your agenda apparently.
Sorry pal. Time frame WASNT off, and he made a very general comment that Alt probably now regrets making because its come back to bite him in the keister. Also, "worship" is nothing more than your gross exaggeration.
Again, falsehood. -
You taking statements out of context intentionallly just like you do on the other boards.
His statement, again, right on the mark. You are simply trying to downplay his participation. He never said he was acting leader of the research group, or gave all that many details for you to jump to your conclusions. He just inferred he took part in some ground breaking research, was instrumental, and he was.
And another mistruth:
Actually im quite aware of what occurred. Some "prohunting" legislators wanted him because he was an unbiased source. But instead the man holding the funding via his position on the legislative budget and finance committe- a pgc & environmentalist/audubon/pennfuture/etc. ally, Mr. Dave Levdansky took things upon himself to instead hire an outfit that was run by the previous deputy executive director and also the ex-pgc exec. director. Not only were the gentlemen previous highest ranking positions at pgc making them highly bias, they were previously fired due to payroll manipulation charges, which would speak to their credibility and character. They are also men with environmentalist connections. They didnt fit in at pgc very well previously, but im sure they would with the current crew today.
That travesty lead to the end of Mr. Levdanskies decades long political career. The voters showed him what we thought of the well documented antics.
That should leave a mark.
The truth usually does.
-His claim about working for the game commission is false. They have no records of his employment and both current and retired personel have said they never heard of the guy.
"-His claim about working for Penn State as a research scientist and ordering several studies done is false, according to PSU's history of their wildlife research unit. His only link was as a student."
-His claim about a newspaper article done on him as "the bear man" seems to be photo-shopped, as the newspaper company has no record of it.
You are funnier by the minute. Just because YOU didnt personally read a decades old article doesnt mean it didnt exist. He has a copy of it and again, its documented if you have the resources to confirm. Although that not convenient for you or your agenda apparently.
-His claim of Dr. Alt worshiping him and he being the reason Alt choose to study bears has been defunked by the Dr. himself, who claims to not even remember the guy, plus the time frame is way off.
Again, falsehood. -
His claim that he discovered how to age animal teeth by counting the rings is false, since records show biologists across the country had been using that techniques when Eveland would have still been in highschool.
-His claims of developing the game commissions Elk management plan is false and the only reference to Eveland in it is a study done during his time there as a student collecting data for PSU.
And another mistruth:
-And it was pretty well known a few years back that him and a politician were caught trying to broker a backroom deal to use taxpayer money to have him do an audit, out of the light of day. He was later denied because of his bias. The sportsmen wanted a fair, out of state, unbiased company to do it.
Actually im quite aware of what occurred. Some "prohunting" legislators wanted him because he was an unbiased source. But instead the man holding the funding via his position on the legislative budget and finance committe- a pgc & environmentalist/audubon/pennfuture/etc. ally, Mr. Dave Levdansky took things upon himself to instead hire an outfit that was run by the previous deputy executive director and also the ex-pgc exec. director. Not only were the gentlemen previous highest ranking positions at pgc making them highly bias, they were previously fired due to payroll manipulation charges, which would speak to their credibility and character. They are also men with environmentalist connections. They didnt fit in at pgc very well previously, but im sure they would with the current crew today.
That travesty lead to the end of Mr. Levdanskies decades long political career. The voters showed him what we thought of the well documented antics.
That should leave a mark.
The truth usually does.
