PGC MONKEY BUSINESS
09-04-2006, 06:19 PM
#72
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 554
RE: PGC MONKEY BUSINESS
I have no trouble with that whatsoever. Hey I'll even gladly pay 100.00 for a basic license to have those things. How about the rest of the whiners?
100$ for license,,I think there would be an increase of poachers and less license sold and the PGC would be in a worse situation....And the people who did pay the 100$ didn't get what they wanted because of less sales and become the whiners and fools for paying the 100$ fee..
100$ for license,,I think there would be an increase of poachers and less license sold and the PGC would be in a worse situation....And the people who did pay the 100$ didn't get what they wanted because of less sales and become the whiners and fools for paying the 100$ fee..
09-04-2006, 08:05 PM
#73
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: PA
Posts: 1,149
RE: PGC MONKEY BUSINESS
Quote from try,"This is a good point, and I agree also. But how do some(not you)blame changes in farming and habitat on the PGC.These same people would scream bloody murderthat license fees were raised to 100.00 a year to support all the programs they want the PGC to handle.See what I mean? "
The PGC doesn't have the money or resources to make everybody happy.Personally I think predators are a bigger problem for pheasants and rabbits compared to grouse.Therefore it might make more sense to invest in better oppertunities for grouse in the future say compared to pheasants.
The PGC doesn't have the money or resources to make everybody happy.Personally I think predators are a bigger problem for pheasants and rabbits compared to grouse.Therefore it might make more sense to invest in better oppertunities for grouse in the future say compared to pheasants.
09-04-2006, 08:17 PM
#74
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New Jersey USA
Posts: 1,279
RE: PGC MONKEY BUSINESS
I'm not playing PGC Politics at all. I meerly pointed out some of the mismanagement practices the agency abounds in, as well as noting some of the methods that would improve hunting that the PGC knows about but refuses to administer. I can't understand why you would be so upset about improving hunting opportunities and better habitat. Unless, you don't want us Grouse adn small gamehunters in your bow hunting woods. I think that's what is reallywhy you attack me for posting facts. You want the woods all to yourself. Isn't that reallyit "TRY?"Get the smallgame hunters out of your bow hunting area!
That whole "trying to keep the small game hunters out of the woods" thing is really reaching....
09-04-2006, 09:25 PM
#75
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 554
RE: PGC MONKEY BUSINESS
ORIGINAL: germain
Quote from try,"This is a good point, and I agree also. But how do some(not you)blame changes in farming and habitat on the PGC.These same people would scream bloody murderthat license fees were raised to 100.00 a year to support all the programs they want the PGC to handle.See what I mean? "
The PGC doesn't have the money or resources to make everybody happy.Personally I think predators are a bigger problem for pheasants and rabbits compared to grouse.Therefore it might make more sense to invest in better oppertunities for grouse in the future say compared to pheasants.
Quote from try,"This is a good point, and I agree also. But how do some(not you)blame changes in farming and habitat on the PGC.These same people would scream bloody murderthat license fees were raised to 100.00 a year to support all the programs they want the PGC to handle.See what I mean? "
The PGC doesn't have the money or resources to make everybody happy.Personally I think predators are a bigger problem for pheasants and rabbits compared to grouse.Therefore it might make more sense to invest in better oppertunities for grouse in the future say compared to pheasants.
I also believe predators have alot to do with the decline also...The only reason I believe the turkeys are so abundant is because they roost in the trees away from most predators..
09-05-2006, 07:15 AM
#76
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location:
Posts: 430
RE: PGC MONKEY BUSINESS
"Bionic" I have to agree that my statement of keeping small game hunters out of the deer woods is reaching a bit, but I have a couple of ardent archery hunting friends who will tell you straight out that they dislike grouse hunters as they disturb their deer hunting. If they could have their way grouse hunting would be delayed until after the rut.
When I'm hunting grouse if I encounter a deer hunter in a tree stand I swing very wide so as to cause the least amount of disturbance to him. In fact, it probably doesn't help the matter much as just being in the area with a dog will disturb the deer. On the other hand it could just as well move deer into the deer hunters bow range.
What seems unusual to me is that the PGC is not jumping up and down, pounding their chests about the success of their 31 year Grouse Study. It's one of the very few success stories the Game Commission has.
Quotes from the study:
"Based on our study, we concluded that small patch cuts of 2 ha (1 hectare = 2.47 acres)were cost effective for foreat management and long term maintenance of multi age and interspaced habitat."
"This study has clearly shown the benefits of small patch cuts, on a landscape scale. to ruffed grouse. The maximum grouse densities achieved approached standardsfor aspen habitats in northern midwestern U.S.(My underlining.)
"Our study has shown mixed oak, managed with small patch cuts in close proximity, to be as productive as aspen managed in the same style."
"Cutting of 1-ha patches on a landscape of scale met the objective of high quality habitat for ruffed grouse and provided an econimic return for timber."
One can only wonder why the PGC has not put greater effort into expanding upon the positive results of this study and improving grouse hunting opportunities in Pennsylvania. We have 1.4 million acres of Game Lands of which 93% are in various stages of timber. Surely ther emust be several Game lands with suitabe areas for implimentation of a program such as this. And it should be noted that this type of forest management creates a good deal of edge habitat which is most beneficial to many game animals (deer included), as well as non-game animals.
Remember, 31 years and still counting yet the agency refuses to initiate this practice anywhere else other than the study area of gamen Lands #176. Is this an example of good Game Commission management?
When I'm hunting grouse if I encounter a deer hunter in a tree stand I swing very wide so as to cause the least amount of disturbance to him. In fact, it probably doesn't help the matter much as just being in the area with a dog will disturb the deer. On the other hand it could just as well move deer into the deer hunters bow range.
What seems unusual to me is that the PGC is not jumping up and down, pounding their chests about the success of their 31 year Grouse Study. It's one of the very few success stories the Game Commission has.
Quotes from the study:
"Based on our study, we concluded that small patch cuts of 2 ha (1 hectare = 2.47 acres)were cost effective for foreat management and long term maintenance of multi age and interspaced habitat."
"This study has clearly shown the benefits of small patch cuts, on a landscape scale. to ruffed grouse. The maximum grouse densities achieved approached standardsfor aspen habitats in northern midwestern U.S.(My underlining.)
"Our study has shown mixed oak, managed with small patch cuts in close proximity, to be as productive as aspen managed in the same style."
"Cutting of 1-ha patches on a landscape of scale met the objective of high quality habitat for ruffed grouse and provided an econimic return for timber."
One can only wonder why the PGC has not put greater effort into expanding upon the positive results of this study and improving grouse hunting opportunities in Pennsylvania. We have 1.4 million acres of Game Lands of which 93% are in various stages of timber. Surely ther emust be several Game lands with suitabe areas for implimentation of a program such as this. And it should be noted that this type of forest management creates a good deal of edge habitat which is most beneficial to many game animals (deer included), as well as non-game animals.
Remember, 31 years and still counting yet the agency refuses to initiate this practice anywhere else other than the study area of gamen Lands #176. Is this an example of good Game Commission management?
09-05-2006, 10:48 AM
#77
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
RE: PGC MONKEY BUSINESS
Where did you get the idea that the cutting of the grouse blocks isn’t being done on other game lands?
All of the game lands in my district have had a good bit of block cutting designed and intended as grouse management even though it benefits many other game species as well.
If the funding were there to fill all of the vacant Food and Cover Crew positions there would probably be even more grouse habitat cuts, but it does take manpower to get the work done.
Dick Bodenhorn
All of the game lands in my district have had a good bit of block cutting designed and intended as grouse management even though it benefits many other game species as well.
If the funding were there to fill all of the vacant Food and Cover Crew positions there would probably be even more grouse habitat cuts, but it does take manpower to get the work done.
Dick Bodenhorn
09-05-2006, 01:05 PM
#79
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
RE: PGC MONKEY BUSINESS
SGL 77 AND 93(Clearfield county) both do it .I've actually seen them do it and in many cases,they aren't removing commercially valuable trees so it does cost money to so it.I wouldn't say these areas rival the grouse populations in the upper midwest but they habitat is much better on our SGL's around here.I've said it before and I'll say it again,the habitat on the game lands around here have some of the best habitat around.The land manager in this district does a great job and the one in R.S.B's district is probably second to none.
