BTBowhunter

Germain, First let me apologize. I completely skipped over your post. Bouncing back and forth btween threads, I apparently passed it by thinking I had read it already.

The idea that Greenpeace could be involved in any way is indeed troubling. The only source where I've seen that fact is from USP releases. I believe you to be a trustworthy guy, have you confirmed this to your own satisfaction from any other source?

I readily admit that my experience in the area where the collared deer are has been limited to a few drive throughs quite a while ago. I beleive guys like you who arent seeing the deer you used to. There are areas I've hunted in the ANF where the deer are way down but it hasn't been hard to adapt where we've hunted. I don't know the answers as to why you are seeing such a difference but we also don't know why hunting is having such a negligible effect on the collared deer.

It's also not likely that the deer are too remote as that would make the study logistically impossible or very difficult to say the least.


Sproul

You asked about the possibility that hunters arent turning in the collared deer. That isnt the way it works. When the deer stops moving for a few hours a mortality signal goes out from the collar. Even if the hunter cut the collar off, the PGc would likely be alerted and would find the collar. I think there are avery few unexplained lost collars but its a negligible amount.

The bottom line is that hunters arent killing the collared deer and these deer arent "way back in". 2G has seen two doe tag reductionsin the last two years. Something else is aleast a significant factor here.

germain

LINK


[blockquote]Quote:
[hr]

Environmental groups such as the World Wildlife Fund, the National Wildlife Federation, Greenpeace and the Natural Resources Defense Council agree that forest certification encourages sound forest management and is good for forest conservation.


[hr]
[/blockquote]
Here's a quote from the org BT.In case the link doesn't work the org is called "forest stewardship council"

I'm just nervous of this whole deal and I know the anti hunting groups are loving this.Some of you guys may think I'm paranoid but I call it cautious.
I'm surprised so many support forest recertification because everybody knows dang well that's not the intended purpose of state land being set aside for the public.Yes they are responsible for wildlife and recreation and bringing the herd down from such high numbers was a good move but going to such low deer numbers and still handing out demaps in the name of certification is bogus in my opinion.This is not the function of state forests.Logging and getting money in return to pay for these lands is a good idea but delpeting the deer numbers in alot of areas is not.I know DCE says it's all about better habitat for all wildlife but I don't see that as the goal for the DCNR.
I'm very fortunate to have private land to hunt on but I feel for my hunting brethern that are stuck on it.Sure DCE lives in the area and finds a few spots holding deer but it's just a matter of time till the locusts figure this out and move in and put a hurtin on them.Then what?

germain

oops,no apology needed BT I figured you missed my post that's why I reminded you.Old age does that to ya,I speak from experience.

Frank in the Laurels

HEY...they offered the extra doe licenses!! The sportsmen are the ones that used them over and over again!! I'll bet more of the Pittsbugh and Philadelphia management area tags were used in other parts of the state than where they were ment to be used, and who's complaining the most. .. the same guys that killed and killed and killed...strange set of conditions.

germain

I agree frank but can't take credit for shooting the does in my area.I haven't shot one since HR started.Just bucks.

deerfly

The White-tailed Doe Study began in Jan 2005 ,and as yet I have not seen any results from the 2005 huunting season. I checked the PGC website and couldn't find any updates. Does anyone have a link to the most recent data?

BTBowhunter

One collared deer was killed by humters in 05. You can find it in the PGC press releases.

deerfly

Thanks. I must have missed that PR.

Now correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't that raise questions about the validity of the study? In 2005 we harvested 233,890 antlerless deer and 56% were adult doe ,so we harvested 130,978 adult doe. So if those 131K doe represented 1 out of 76 adult doe in the herd, then we has around 99,543,0000 PS adult doe. Since we all know that the PS herd in 2005 was well under 1.5M deer it would be simply impossible to have more than 700k PS adult doe. So unless the PGC can account for the descrepencey the Adult Doe Study will have little ,if any value.

dead eye dog

Good point Deerfly,It pretty much makes it valid for the area that the study was done, nothing more.

germain

Those are some figures I was looking for deerfly,.Thanks