Pahick

Apparently you dont know much about PA either. Most of our forest doesnt have a browseline. Why? Because its in the growth stage in which there can be no browseline...branches out of reach. And precious little forage because the canopy will not allow regen.



Prove AR had anything to do with larger racks. I can make the argument very easily that HR in fact is the sole factor in the larger racks some areas are seeing. Less deer and less hunters make it alot easier for deer to hide, hence make it another year.


Do you honestly believe WMI's results will show any abnormalities in the DMP? Consider the source of the audit. It youre unbiased youll see my point.



Only your opinion. Most polls show the exact opposite of your statement.

BucksBearsnBows

While it's true that the browseline is less visible than it once was, anyone with any knowledge of the forest and a set of eyes could easliy see a distinct browseline all across the nothern tier and through most of the mountainous center of this state before the herd was reduced. I daresay that, if you're being truthful, your experience must have been limited to the areas of this state where agriculture takes some pressure off the woody browse that makes up most of the diet of the herd that lives in predominantly timbered habitat.



Now thats an interesting concept. Most folks, including all the leading deer biologists agree that age is the most important component in antler development. I will also agree that less deer competing for the available food will lead to healthier and therefore bigger bucks but how exactly does less deer make it easier for those that are left to hide??????? Less hunters simply means that the hunters left have to hunt the deer on their terms VS waiting for one to get pushed past them. Are you looking for a hunt or merely a shoot?


From what I can see, WMI is utilized by almost every state agency in this country without any dispute thus far as to their objectivity.
If you are unbiased, why do you seem to mistrust their audit before it's even complete?


Yes it's my opinion. That opinion is based on personal interaction with hunters, what I see and hear every day and most of the hunting press and websites. As for polls, to my knowledge, there has not been much in the way of any professionally conducted polls on the current deer management since it's early days. Of what polls are you speaking exactly? Conducted by whom?

Pahick

I am being 100% truthful and your guess as to what area I refer is not correct. I hunt and own property in 2G. Have lived in 3A. I am quite familiar with the NC region. As far as your comment concerning a distinct browseline I find that absurd and quite typical of someone who accepts cherry picked pictures from Alts tenure. I find it odd that most people are so willing to jump on the bandwagon of the PGC/DCNR without doing a little legwork and thinking on their own. A look back at the aging structure of our forest and mining technics tell the story. If you choose to "blame the deer" thats your choice, but selling that ideal to the general public as truth isnt something ill stand for.


Poor choice of words on my part. We agree, and apparently so do the managers. It is taking an increasing number of hunters to harvest the same amount of animals.




You would be correct. My feelings stem from WMI themselves. "WMI works closely with each agency in developing appropriate objectives and parameters for the work. " The audit will only tell you whether PGC guidelines are correct. What do you think the outcome will be? Science is an ever changing thing. And the PGC has stated that there will be mistakes made and has been. Given a higher financial threshold better plans could be made. Until a license increase those plans lay to rest(rearrange WMU). WMI's report will not tell the hole story.






Until 2006, I was part owner of a business. Each year we would get plenty of feedback from the public. Those results are skewed I admit taking into consideration it was an predominantly agricultural area. There are plenty of polls on websites, do some legwork. Especially on certain sites geared toward pro PGC stance. As far as professional polls, there are none official that I can see. And why is it the PGC doesnt conduct an official poll on their site, sporting goods stores, etc....? We all know the answer to that question. Taking info from another thread, there has been polls as I said.....

Local State Rep Oberlander (63rd) did a survey of local residents on their 2nd amendment views, some of the results. First is the number or percentage of those surveyed for or against a subject.

2,377/95% for the Castle Doctrine

2,021/90% for tougher enforcement of existing gun laws.

1,895/76% support HB 1541 (financially deter Pa cities and local gov. from enacting illegal firearms ordinaces.

1,601/64% do not support license increase for PGC

1,548/62% do not support lifting the ban on sunday hunting.

Also an indicator is the uprise of posted property. Ill admit PGC displeasure may not be the main cause, but can not be ruled out nonetheless.

BucksBearsnBows

My comments about a distinct browseline come from boots on the ground experience in 2C, 2G and 2F. My observations have nothing to do with some cherry picked photos and the browselines were and occasionally still are a real issue. I have no particular liking for Gary Alt and place a lot more stock in the fact that the vast majority of wildlife managers and deer biologists have had nothing but positive things to say about pennsylvania's taking the point position in managing our deer herds better. It's not about blaming the deer, they are doing what deer do. How we as hunters participate in managing those deer will have a great deal of impact on how the non hunting majority in this country views us as a group. As long as hunters are viewed as useful and necessary or even as the most practical tool in managing wildlife, we'll continue to enjoy our sport.



So who if not the entity recognized nationwide by most game agncies would do a more complete job?

You seems to support the idea of a license fee increase so that the mistakes can be corrected and I agree with that 100% I'm guessing that you'd also agree that hunters are better off if outside funding never needs to be sought after?


As for the polls you speak of, I have done some searches and found some small ones that seem to support some of what you say. I'm not going to dispute the results but I have to say that they are very small. I have some experience with statistics and agre that small samples can be very accurate if they are random. Groups on internet bulletin boards tend to be anything but random but the results cant be completely discounted either.
As for the Oberlander poll, any poll by a politician asking for input on any fee increase tends to get similar results. It also looks like that question was not restricted to license buying hunters so it's likely that less than 10% of the respondents have a vested interest in the issue. How do you think the poll would have turned out if the general population was asked " should hunting license be increased to fund the PGc or should funds from the general public be tapped to continue the work of wildlife management?" bet you'd see a totally different result!

Pahick

BucksBearsnBows, I have family obligations to attend for the evening which leaves me cut this short, but I wanted to address one small part of your comment...


I agree with that 100%! Now I want an honest opinion, no right or wrong answer here. In the case of said poll you feel it isnt right that outside influences dictate the outcome of a license increase, correct? So here on one hand you do NOT want outside influence in judging a license increase. Im also going to assume you do NOT want outside funding? Correct? On the other hand you agree with a DMP that favors outside influence(stakeholders)? How do we accomplish that while maintaining good relations with the prime supporter(hunters)? We've been losing hunters and their support for years. Its time to stop this nonsense or do a complete 180 and combine the agencies.

Cornelius08

"If you are unbiased, why do you seem to mistrust their audit before it's even complete?"

They worked with pgc on a few projects and potential exists for them to do so in the future. Do you think it smart to aleniate pgc by giving a less than favorable review?? Do businesses prosper by alienating customers and thereby sending them elsewhere?

Then of course we have....

Peter Duncan, on board of directors of the audit company W.M.I. Who also just happens to be Former Pa game commission executive director.

Then we have Steven Williams Wmi President; who also just happens to be Former deputy exectutive director of Pa game commission.

Also others on staff previously employed at pgc.

Hows that just for starters?

Might also wanna look into some of this nice compilation of info on the audit by one of the largest sportsmens groups in the state. Particularly informative are the links on the right of the page.

http://www.acslpa.org/n-legislative/...udit_a_con.htm

Cornelius08

BB&B, I dont support a fee increase and i believe most do not. With current level of dissatisfaction its completely unreasonable and irrational to expect hunters to pay more without proper provisions being made in the way of responsible management.

Nonhunters wouldnt view us any differently if we had somewhat more deer, or somewhat less. Thats no excuse for current mismanagement. They didnt hate us when the herd was twice the size, i dont think we have much to worry about way below that point. Nonhunters arent who this plan was designed to cater to. It was a couple of special interest groups. Nonhunters generally speaking overall couldnt care less. Nonhunters "turning" on us is an unfounded pgc/audubon scare tactic nothing more. Its an excuse for pgc to use where no valid one exists.

Cornelius08

"Funny, all the hunter's I've talked to have had some of their best hunting this year."

Ha ha ha. Whatever you say chief. Apparently you didnt talk to the nearly 80% who said hr went too far on the poll in the Pa threads. Or the 90+% around here who'd like to see pgc tossed on their keisters....Or the 74+ percent who said similiarly over on huntpa that hr has gone too far... Guess you run in select circles.

" I just love the "excessive extreme unnatural levels of biodiversity" comment. "

Im glad you like it. Its 100% accurate. You apparently arent very familiar with the "data behind the plan". But I wouldnt expect you to, since you couldnt keep up with terminology etc. in the debate in the other thread.

"Shows you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Do you think its natural to be able to see over 100 yards in a forest because theres NO regeneration?"

No. I think its natural to see 100 yards in mature timber because you arent supposed to have so much regeneration under a closed canopy that you cant see 50 feet. lol. You are basing that on pgc saying Thats what we need. They get that straight from audubon and other extreme groups who are currently entrenched at pgc. As for my statement of whats the norm...what am i basing my conclusion on?? Oh not much, just the fact that situation of copius shrub layer, excessive regeneration etc. in a mature forest scenario simply isnt the norm in any eastern hardwoods forest. The only place it exists is inside of fences in UNNATURAL deerless setting. To expect it to all of a sudden become the norm here in Pa by decimating the deer herd, and being necessary to keep it low to have such ridiculously unnatural conditions is exactly as i stated...unnatural and extreme.. Btw, Ive personally been to most eastern states and havent seen this "environmentalist extremist haven" EVER in any of them, and you can see for 100 yards or more in mature forest, and in most cases ALOT more.

"Do you think its natural to see 40 deer run past your stand with the first 39 being doe? "

Nope. But then in nearly 30 years of hunting, i never have. And CURRENTLY not even close. Thats a ridiculous extreme example and one not occurring over the huge majority of the state. So i fail to see the point.

"Open your mind a little bit. I hate people who only think for themselves, and use idiotic evidence to support their claims. Sorry, it needed to be said."

My mind is always open to change. I originally supported the plan. Generally in theory the basics are very sound. In practice however when they are taken to extremes, its no more acceptable imho than having done absolutely nothing in the first place. I most definately think SOME areas needed SOME reduction. But Almost ALL areas got reduction and many alot more than needed. In fact according to pgcs own data most wmus are STILL being reduced despite calling it "stabilization". That can be confirmed on the annual wildlife reports herd change index. Perhaps you need to think for yourself a bit more, and look at the proof "evidence" behind positions and not simply be lead astray by believing every single thing youre told. Btw, its clear you have no valid rebuttal and are frustrated by it, but try not to sink to the 'disrespect to make a point' tactic. IF you think im wrong about something say so, why, and back it up with more than insult. Ive studied these issues in Pa and other states managementwise for around a decade so my position is far from "unbased". BTW, I also know what saw & pole timber is.;')

BucksBearsnBows

I agree that nonhunters shouldn't have a say in a license increase.
Actually when I mentioned the "outsiders" that may have been included in the poll, it was meant to be in the context of whether or not they really knew what their answer meant. Any poll question that simply asks whether the participants want to see a tax or fee go up is usually received with the type of negative response shown in the poll you cited.

As for your question about the influence of outside stakeholders, who are the outsiders? Certainly the farmers, timber companies and other landowners who feed and house the deer all through the year arent outsiders are they? How about the state agencies charged with the duty of administering our state forest on behalf of all the taxpayers? I believe that we as hunters make up about 10% of the population. The fact that most state land is open to hunting probably provides hunters as much or more benefit from these lands than most groups will ever see. I'm sure we'd all be happier if there were a way to have quality deer in large quantity without detracting from the interests of those whom we have to thank for feeding and housing our deer. It's been said that when different interests all want a piece of the pie, you will know a fair compromise has been reached when all parties walk away still wanting a little more.

You also mention the loss of hunters and that is a disturbing trend throughout this entire country. Every time we lose three hunters, we only gain about two back. That's pretty close to the national average but we could and should do better. One thing that stands out among the states not losing as many hunters is less red tape and a more liberal (hate that word but it fits here) starting age for new hunters. The mentored hunting program is a good start but we need to keep building on that.

BucksBearsnBows

Cornelius08

First, I have to ask if it's necessary to "yell" in your posts? Surely you do realize that's what all caps or all bold type is meant to suggest?

Second, I notice that you have issues with WMI as the entity to conduct the audit. I asked this of PAhick and I realize he said he was short on time and didnt answer but I'll also ask you too. who do you feel is better qualified?

As for the link you provided, the ACSL has long ago set themselves apart from the rest of the states mainstream sportsmens groups. As I recall, ACSL was predicting the demise of the deer herd decades ago and at least some of USP's initial leadership came form ACSL. at the very least they are an entity with a more deer or else agenda.

Third, i notice that you seem to have been given some bad information. Pa does not endorse deer contraception. As a matter of fact, a recent statement from the PA Game Commision clearly suggests exactly the opposite. You can find it right on their website.