germain

Trust me turkey hunter I do care about the overall condition of our forest.Heck I'm a hunter and spent alot of money on our habitat via pitt-rob fund and many other sources.And I do agree that we needed herd reduction in areas of the state.I agree that the days when I used to see 60 deer a day in the NC woods that was too many for the habitat to support.I am also a grouse,turkey,and smallgame hun ter so habitat means alot to me.
Let me give alittle example.After serious herd reduction we hunted the second season of grouse in the state forest.As you know grouse hunting requires alot of miles.The lack of deer sign that day was alarming yet we were slipping on acorns untouched by deer.Lots of acorns.And no they didn't have worms.If this area had too many deer those acorns would have been far and few between.
I never said that deer don't browse because they do.And the good thing about them is that the junk maples are a preferred browse.I wish they would browse more of them.Those buggers can grow anywhere including under my deck where there's no sun at all.
Maples grow alot faster then oaks and inalot of cases shade them out.
Sorry getting off topic.
Anyway I'm not asking for 50 dpsm.I'm asking for the birders and DCNR to find a happy medium between supporting the habitat and at the same time preserving our deer hunting heritage.When you see an area that is down to 10 spsm and less and still no regen under the canopy you know there's a bigger factor here then the whitetailed deer.After seeing regen in the sun {white oaks}with a number of 38 dpsm it tends to make a fellow question the motives behind such groups as the birders.They care about birds,not deer,bear,rabbits or any other game animal.My thing is hunting.And yes that means a good environment with good habitat but along the way I dion't think we need to nearly eliminate the deer.
Most of the notheast at one time was hemlocks and pines.They cut down the mountains and what grew back was oaks and many other food producing trees.Were the seeds laying dormant just waiting for sunlight?I'm not sure but I do know when the sun came in the hardwoods grew.
People like you and myself aren't as far apart as you think.Somewhere along the line we just need to find a happy medium and get back to fighting the antis rather then ourselves.

patrkyhntr

Agreed, germain.

germain

[ Yes, flowers and birds matter to me, germain. That they don't seem to matter to you is evidence of your myopic thinking.


[/quote]

Being a grouse and turkey hunter,definately not true.Along with the wildflowers in my area I plant more every year.If your a mind reader turkey hunter you need to brush up on your skills.

Please take this as a joke and not a personal attack.

germain

Lost horn,there are groups that stuck their noses in this issue that don't belong.I work with a few antis who are also watching this closely.In their words,

"We'll sacrifice alot of deer now if it means an end to hunting and saving their future"

That's the way they are reading this whole ordeal.

ddear

Whether you realize it or not ,it is the PGC ,not the USP that has provided all the ammunition any anti-hunting group needs to file a suit against the PGC. By claming that durng the last five years with record antlerless harvests, extented seasons and record harvests ,hunters have been ineffective at reducing the herd ,they have support the anti-hunters claim that hunters are not able to control the population.. They also implemented AR's in SRA areas which plays into the trophy hunter claims of the anti -hunters. Also, they conducted the hunter movement survey which implied hunters were lazy and inept and didn't hunt far from the parking lots. The study also claimed that the deer and the habitat were controling the deer population in the big woods, not the hunters.

All those factors support the claims of the anti-hunters and the documentation was provded by the PGC ,not the USP.

lost horn

Yes germain, and if you have read some of the post on this forum the last few months you can clearly see they are doing a lot of posting here. IMO.

BTBowhunter

First, the PGC has not claimed that hunters have been inneffective rather they admited that their deer model needs improvement and they have also recognized the lower deer densities and have consequently lowered antlerless tag allocations. All the while the USP has been singing the same old song of "not enough deer" for close to twenty years.

The hunter movement study showed what really happened in the study area. Was the PGC supposed to make up the results?

USP has shown itself to be the voice of the selfish hunter who still wants a deer behind every tree. Most other sportsmans organizations recognize our deer program as less than perfect but are willing to be reasonable in their efforts to work things out. USP has the mentality of "put it back the way it was or else" This time or else means we'll sue you.

ddear

The new computer model was only used for 2003 and 2004, yet in 2002 the PGC claimed we had 1.6 M PS deer. In 2000 they claimed that a harvest of 302 K antlerless kept the herd stable . The only year the PGC claimed the herd was reduced was in 2001 when they wanted to justify implementing AR's and claimed that an antlerless harvest of 283K reduced the herd by 8%.

The PGC has been claiming that we over harvest the buck population and even after AR's were implemented the studies show that only 20% of the 2.5+ buck survive hunting season. PA hunters are very effective at harvesting deer where they have access to the deer and that is why the population in 2 G is 3 DPSM below it's goal of 15 DPSM. It is disgusting for the PGC to label hunters as lazy and inept when the facts show that PA hunters are quite capable of controling the population if they have unlimited access.

BTBowhunter

The PGC didnt call hunters lazy or inept. They simply conducted the study and reported the results. . Sorry you cant accept those results.

I really feel sorry for you. You have come to hate the PGC and Gary Alt so much thatyou cant acknowledge any fact that doesn't fit your picture of how you wantthings to be.

ddear

It is you that has a problem acknowledging the facts. While the PGC said the herd had been reduced in some areas ,they still claimed the statewide herd had increased. If they would have returned to using the old model ,instead of sticking with the new model they could have given the hunters credit for reducing the statewide herd by over 30%. They posted the comparison of the old and the new model but choose to ignore it so they could justify asking hunters to reduce the herd even more.

BTW, I suppose you forgot what someone told the Audubon conference about alpha ,beta and omega hunters!