"PA deer mismanagement"
#81
RE: "PA deer mismanagement"
ORIGINAL: germain
BT,what's your opinion on my post?Also I'm surprised nobody is concerned with greenpeace being involved in forest certification.Does everybody know they are an extreme animal rights group which I think was put on the government's list as a terrorist organization.
BT,what's your opinion on my post?Also I'm surprised nobody is concerned with greenpeace being involved in forest certification.Does everybody know they are an extreme animal rights group which I think was put on the government's list as a terrorist organization.
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.
#82
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: PA
Posts: 1,149
RE: "PA deer mismanagement"
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?
[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?
#84
Fork Horn
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location:
Posts: 215
RE: "PA deer mismanagement"
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.
#86
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4
RE: "PA deer mismanagement"
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?
#88
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4
RE: "PA deer mismanagement"
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.
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.