RE: Did PA's deer managment need to change?
 

"Your continued editorializing and bombardment with self made or self interpereted "facts" makes your opinion worthless to most of us "

If you are going to make an accussation like that the least you can do is support it with facts. You can't provde one example where I have made up self interpreted facts , whatever they are? Dividing or multipying PGC stats is not manipulating or twisting the data , it is simply putting it in a more meaningful format that is often easier to relate to. For example , if you say they harvested 740 buck in Cameron Co. in 2003 ,it doesn't mean much. But if you say they harvested 1.8 buck PSM and compare that to 4.7 buck PSM in Berks Co. , it tells you immmediately it is hard hunting in Cameron Co. at 13 DPSM.

RE: Did PA's deer managment need to change?
 

BTBowhunter,you are correct that the pgc always used dpsfm.Apparently that changed to dpsm when they switched to their new computer model.Prior to using dpsm,the overall goal across the state was 21 deer per square forested mile.That equates to much less deer when you manage the state according to deer per square mile.I also printed that same link the day the pgc released it.I assure you,deaddeer did not alter it in any way.They are now talking about dpsm not dpsfm.Actually if they were talking about dpsfm,that would actually mean the goals were higher.In other words,if the goal was 15 dpsfm,there would be more deer than a goal of 15 dpsm.


Like I said before,I'm not against ar or reasonable herd reductions.I am against taking the herd below 50% od the lands carrying capacity.I'm also sick of the double talk alt is using to get the deer densities he's after.This is all about making sure our state forest's get recertified.I'm hunting in one of the only areas where the deer densities are at Alt's goals.Let me tell you,if anyone thinks the hunting will be better at that point,they're out of touch with reality.If Alt reaches his goals(he's said he'll even use sharpshooters if necessary)none of his ridiculous claims can come true.This isn't about the deer.It's about our state certified timber.Nothing more,nothing less.

RE: Did PA's deer managment need to change?
 

DougE, the problem with what you just said is that when they did the old dpfsm goals they assumed 0 for the rest. (Something that made no sense to many of us) so if you had a DMU that was, say 50% forested and 50% crops, reverting farms, parking lots, streets, backyards, golf courses, whatever, the other 50% just didnt count at all unless it was forest.

Now, isnt it more feasible to include nonforest land that can support deer in estimating overwintering capacity? IE: a county that is 50%forest, 50% crop, brush, reverting farm that had a density goal of 24 dpfsm would now have a goal of 12 dpsm with no actual change in deer population. (I have left streets, buildings, parking lots and yards out of the mix for this example only)

RE: Did PA's deer managment need to change?
 

They did more than just adjust the OWDD goals to reflect the addional land area. They also reduced the goals at the same time . For example,elk Co. has 753 FSM and 829 total SM. The previous goal was 21 DPFSM ,so 21 X 753= 15,813 OWD. The new goal is 15 DPSM ,so 15 X 827 = 12,435.
So while changing from DPFSM to DPSM they also reduced the OWDD goal by 3,400 deer. If you do the same thing for Northampton Co. the goal was reduced by 1,118 OWD.

Furthermore, although they included the additional land area,they didn't assign any habitat value to any additional land. They are still only counted forested habitat as suitable deer habitat and that is wrong.

RE: Did PA's deer managment need to change?
 

Imagine Dead deer interpreting numbers for us. We know what happens when that happens now don't we. Juniorpc.

RE: Did PA's deer managment need to change?
 

Why don't you point out my mistakes and show everyone how smart you are? you struck out on the age issue regarding the antler buck survey,so here is your chance to shine.

RE: Did PA's deer managment need to change?
 

Did anyone catch the reference to Northampton County? I seem to remember a poster from Northampton that had all the answers a year or so ago and then he disappeared....... I wonder......... Naw couldn't be! Could it guys???

RE: Did PA's deer managment need to change?
 

Last year at this time I lived in Luzerne Co. ,so it wasn't me. I was simply showing that the OWDD's were decreased in both the heavily forested NC counties as welll as in the lightly forested southern tier counties.


I'll do it for Butler Co. too ,if you can't figure it out for yourself. Why don't you post your results so you can show how smart you really are?

RE: Did PA's deer managment need to change?
 

BTBowhunter,you are 100% correct on the way dpsfm was calculated.It never made sense to me either.Deer are creatures of the edge,not just the forest.I think it makes much more sense to calculate the deer herd using deer per square mile.However dpsm equates to more deer than dpsfm because the deer are actually spread out in reality.They are the real goals dd posted.I don't know about you but I find that pretty scary.Those goals and Alt's lies are the reason I don't support this program.I'm all for giving ar a try and reasonable herd reductions.I just can't climb aboard something with goals that will ruin our hunting and deceiptful methods being used to obtain them.

RE: Did PA's deer managment need to change?
 

Hey we were doing just great with out DR.ALT ,, We had tropheys every where ! around every tree :D Man 4 points ! some 8 pointers 10" spreads all dead by wensday[:@] The orange army yep thats the ticket BROWN and DOWN !![:'(] Yep we were better off with out alt those were the good ole days eh ??:eek: