DougE

MJ,why did the pheasants disappear to begin with and how was the PGC responsible?I don't see how anyone can complain about the lack of money that's been put into the pheasant program.Habitat work is usually not self funding.It takes manhours and equiptment to do it the right way.That's something the PGC is lacking.It takes foresters to cut timber the right way.They don't even have enough foresters to manage the large tracts of game lands in the north central part of the state.Talk to some of them sometime.I talked to the head forester in Elk county this weekend.He told me they should be cutting more timber on the SGL's but they're short handed.I got a chance to see alot of what theydo.Contrary to what Crazy horse has been saying,they concentrated on improving wildlife habitat by managing certain areas for species like big toothed aspen over red oak.The exclosures are too thick to walk through and they have alot of grouse.That never would have neverhappened without a fence.Many of the pioneer species like fire cherry are growing well and provide food and cover for wildlife and no monetary benefit.You guys that claim this is all about money are just flat out wrong and you have no proof to back up your accusations.

Mocha Java

Doug,
You are muddying the waters: I never claimed that the PGC had anything to do with the disappearance of pheasants;I only noted that they did nothing to remedy the situation until 25-30 years later and countless small game hunters (and their license dollars) were lost to other pursuits. I hope the current PF wild stocking experiment works out; I have no reason to believe that it won't.
I also noted that the PGC grouse report concluded that the project could be self-funding, plain and simple. Your's is definitely a minority opinion if you think that Pennsylvania has a lot of grouse on gamelands.
Finally, if what you heard from the forester is true, and timbering is a profitable enterprise, then he has indicted his bosses for not hiring (or sub-contracting for) more foresters and producing the revenues that would not only cover their salaries, but revenues that could be used for other endeavors (like stocking more birds or hiring more WCO's).
There is no justification for not cutting timber that should be cut and foregoing those dollars.

Crazy Horse RVN

"There is no justification for not cutting timber that should be cut."

Oh yes there is. It's called the law of supply and demand. Limit the supply and you drive the price (in this case timber) up. Now you may say that the PGC does not cut that much timber to affect the price, and I would argue that the PGC is among one of the biggest timber sources in the state. They would have to affect the price of timber, be it ever so small, and I don't think it comes under the small catagory.

That begs the question if my thoughts are remotely correct.....WHO PROFITS? (Think about that for a moment.)

With 38 foresters on the payroll and only some 7000 acres cut last year it doesn't appear to me that those fellas are overworked. And as Mocha Java stated, why not contract out and use the profits to pay for the whole effort?
Or does it just break down to incompetent management of the agency?

Mocha Java

Hmm...

White-tail-deer

Blah, Blah, Blah... How about sticking to the topic or go back toSlim Jinsky and post there.

I'm not crazy about baiting deer but I think baiting in the special reg areas is the only way to help keep the deer numbers under control in highly populated areas (developments, towns, industrial parks, etc.). New Jersey allows baiting for many of the same reasons. I think baiting would initially have a high kill success rate but as we all know with time the deer will get smart to that tactic as well.

sproulman

doug, did you know that rendell gave the kelley estate 1.5 million dollars of our tax money last week?this is where the elk are going to be released.did you know your buddy, rawley cogan is getting his picture taken there now. isnt he in charge of rocky elk thing?DOUG, WHY IS THAT MONEY NOT GOING FOR OUR DEER. ITS OUR TAXES AND I AM MAD OVER IT.rawley had smile 2 ft wide on his face in that picture.dam, i am pissed!!!!!

Crazy Horse RVN

Not to worry about those elk. They won't hurt the potential for forest regeneration. I don't think elk eat Oak Trees. I have it from a knowledgable source that elk much prefer freshly mowed lawns.

The proper camo for hunting PA elk is Lawnboy Green.
Most PA elk hunters shun Elk Pee attractant for a fist full of fresh cut grass.

ChuckS

I agree. Depending on how the baiting is implemented, those deer will learn in as little as three days.

It is just one more tool to accomplish the aim; reduce the herd in urban/suburban areas. Just like 50yd archery, crosssbows,red tag... Baiting in this situation is not about traditional [PA] hunting, but about trying to solve the myriad of problems in controlling an urban [over] population of deer.

ChuckS

DougE

MJ,I never said the gamelands have alot of grouse.I said there were alot of grouse in the exclosures.You need the right habitat tosupport the game.Thousands of acres of open timber is not good grouse habitat and the overabundant deer herds of the past are a big part of the problem for the lack of grouse habitat.When they timber the gamelands,it isn't always profitable.Alot of what they cut isn't marketable as paperwood let alone timber.Not all of the gamelands have high quality timber.Weather and the terrain also plays a role as well as the timing of a cut.It makes more sense to cut timber,especially oak when you have a good mast crop so there's a seed source on the ground.they aren't manging the gamelands for commercial timber.They do it for wildlife and guys like crazyhorse would realize that it they went to see a land manager.There is justification for not cutting alot of timber.If you cut much more than 1%a year you'll eventually end up with a bunch of pole timber that's worthles as wildlife habitat.There was also not point in cutting alot of timber in the norhern tier until the herd was reduced because you'd get minimal regeneration.

Sproulman.I never met Rawley so he could hardly be considered my friend.I don't know why that money isn't going toward the deer.I guess you'll have to ask Rendell.What's the money being allocated for?Isit for the habitat,relocationor viewing sites?A far as using tax dollars for that project,so what.Over 90% of pennsylvanians don't hunt so maybe many of them would prefer to see more elk than deer.It's their money too.

sproulman

doug, i thought he would be your friend.you seem to know all key players .anyhow, that money is going for habitat improvements for elk.maybe viewing area too.doug,only thing that REALLY ticks me off ,hard to get me ticked.is when you say, LACK OF DEER IS DO TO BAD HABITAT.FAWNS ARE NOT BORN.sadly, they have brainwashed you on that one.that line is one that is being used by the pgc/dcnr and pennstate and anyone else that wants to pull wool over publics head.TRUTH is lack of deer is do to,overharvest of doe/fawns.yes, habitat is not best for deer but not 1 group that want the deer killed off are offering a solution. you even said it, YOU CANT CUT TREES.i say CUT TREES.