Germain,

agreed, and I feel for those guys. the only problem is that it's too late (IMHO) for many of those areas. the habitat is severely damaged. No matter what is done, hunting will suffer there for a good while

I agree here too. I see it happening in some parts of the ANF. No hunters, even on opening morning. I also beleive that is part of the reason some others dont see the deer they used to. Lets face it, opening day used to mean lots and lots of deer running by pushed by the "orange popsicle army". There just aint the same crowds anymore. As a result, the old strategy of finding a spot and watching the monday parade doesnt work anymore. The deer still seem to get killed but its much more strung out. We dont see as many in any given day deer partly because there arent a gazillion guys bouncing em around the woods like pinballs.

JMHO!!



dd,
I believe you may be the only guy here that doesnt think smaller WMU's wont help. And quite frankly, your statement about the old county method makes no sense. Man made arbitrary political boundaries dont address differences in habitat and human intervention. What we need is smaller wmu's with appropriate tag allocations geared for that zone.

I think its also time to take a suggestion from Wingy/Uly (ack ack, cough cough, did I say that?) IE: different season lengths with the smaller better managed WMU's

Gotta tell ya BT,I was always a party pooper when it came to the orange parade.I had a habit of heading back in to get away from it all.
You're right about habitat in certain areas.My probem here is the reasons for the bad habitat.I agree deer are a factor but don't think they are the main factor.
1-poor clearcutting procedures or lack of
2-shade/canopy
3-acid rain.
I found one thing to be true.If white oaks are in the area and the soil get the sunlight,they will regenerate with or without deer.

There's no doubt that better timber practices would help.

Here's the tough part. It's the landowners choice as to how they manage their property. In the case of timber company land, thye own it and it's their perogative to manange it for their crop first and deer second.

Public land is another story. Game lands funded by hunters should be managed for game first. period. But are hunters ready to pony up the extra money the PGC needs to keep running when some of the timber revnue is lost? We should be but every license increase generates a large outcry at worts or a lot of grumbling at best.

State and national forests are a bit different. They're owned by all taxpayers and not just the 8-10% of us who are hunters. A bunch of bureaucrats manage this land and unfortunately, hunters are obviously not high on their priority list. The PGC has to play the hand dealt them when it comes to these lands. The DCNR and the forest service is where we need to lobby but I fear that is really a longshot.

Smaller WMU's won't help unless the PGC starts to assign additional carrying capacity to non-forested habitat. WMU 2 G is the largest WMU and it is 90% forested. Dividing it into smaller units would not increas the OWDD goals for these smaller WMU's.


Here are the sizes and compsition of each WMU along with the OWDD as of Jan.2003 . Compared the OWDD in the WMU's located adjacent to 2 G and you will see the habitat is capable of carrying a lot more than 12 DPSM ans still provide adequate regeneration.

WMU….Sq.mi.of land…….% public land…….% developed….% forested…..% farms
1A………1846.52……………..2.8………… …….4.3……………51.2…………..41.2---26 DPSM
1B………2117.32……………..3.6………… …….3.1……………61.8………
…..34.5---25DPSM
2A………1810.78……………..1.7………… …….2.7……………60.6………
…..35.2--36 DPSM
2B………1362.85……………..0.2………… …….20.1…………..57.3…………..20.0---30 DPSM
2C………3099.59……………..9.3………… …….2.3……………74.0…………..21.7---31 DPSM
2D………2486.70……………..2.1………… …….1.9……………68.3…………..27.2---29 DPSM
2E………1261.59……………...4.8………†¦â€¦â€¦1.7…………….75.7…………..19.3----24 DPSM
2F………2410.76……………...55.6………⠀¦â€¦..0.8…………….90.7…………..7.0---24 DPSM
2G………4114.04……………..49.2………†¦â€¦...0.6…………….90.0…………..7.6----12 DPSM
3A………1508.09……………..9.6………… …….0.4…………….75.0…………..23.5---31 DPSM
3B………2250.85……………..20.9………†¦â€¦...3.3…………….74.9…………...19.8----29 DPSM
3C………2158.00……………..3.0………… …….1.3…………….70.2…………...26.7---28 DPSM
3D………2183.36……………..15.5………†¦â€¦â€¦2.4……………84.9……………9.2----23 DPSM
4A………1736.04……………..14.1………†¦â€¦â€¦0.9……………67.9……………29.3---30 DPSM
4B………1587.75……………..15.1………†¦â€¦â€¦1.2……………64.4……………33.4---29 DPSM
4C………1812.08……………..13.0………†¦â€¦â€¦2.8……………69.7……………22.8---26 DPSM
4D………2746.03……………..28.1………†¦â€¦â€¦2.0……………70.7……………26.0---24 DPSM
4E………1735.74……………..3.6………… ……..2.2…………….51.5……………43.0----23 DPSM
5A………1300.72……………..11.4………†¦â€¦â€¦3.8…………….32.9……………62.4----21 DPSM
5B………2767.79……………..1.4………… ……..6.7……………..27.6……………63. 1----17 DPSM
5C………2169.73……………..0.5………… ……..9.9……………..44.5……………43. 9---19 DPSM
5D………835.45………………0.0………… ……..43.2……………33.7……………18.3


Also ,note that 5C and 5B have the second and third lowest OWDD's in the state even though they have some of the best habitat. Then compare those OWDD's to those OWDD's for 2B and 1A and 1B.

Once again, you try to make a point using numbers but without all the facts. The world is not about numbers alone.

The fallacy of your statement is right here in this thread. We have two hunters here that are seeing hugely different results in the same WMU. So what if it's mostly forested! There are obviously differences within that WMU! The hotspot/coldspot problem could be better addressed if smaller units were in place.

Smaller WMU's within that one vast one would make it possible to micro-manage that areas deer herd for better balance.

You objected to the county units because the boundaries were arbitary. But, now you expect the PGC to micromanage the herd based on localized hot spots. The PGC doesn't have the manpower or financial resouces to micro manage and have shown they have no intention to micro manage. You hooked your wagon to this miserable plan and now you want to change it, but that's not about to happen.

It aint perfect yet but it's miles better than the cluster #*&@ we had before. I'm not suggesting we scrap it, merely that we improve it as we go.

Suggesting improvements along the way would make sense to most reasonable people. Didnt say that smaller WMU's wouldnt require more time and manpower. Anyone can see that they would.

The best solution to any problem is seldom the easy one.

Now that is pretty funny. The previous deer management produced record buck and anterless harvests and you protry it as a cluster whatever. Alt's plan rduced the buck harvest by 30% in just two years and you say we have to improve it as we go. That's a real hoot.

The PGC made the WMU's bigger because they knew they didn't have the personnel or the resources to to manage smaller WMU's and you expect them to change because you don't like the way things are going. You really need a reality check.

You are the only one on this whole forum I've seen who disagrees with the idea of smaller WMU's and more accountability in reporting. You stand alone so go ahead and talk to your self.

germain started this post in a civil tone and it stayed that way till you buried us with your meaningless bean counting. I guess you didnt learn from your other deletions that we're all tired of that.

I'm done here.

I'd like to but that man a beer. What do you get out of killing does? Meat yes............I like the "SPORT" of hunting and hunting big bucks, not puny does.